Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

It has come to my attention that all the articles for the Princes and Princesses of Bourbon-Two Sicilies were unilaterally redirected to articles where they are titled Princes and Princesses of the Two Sicilies without there being any discussion or consensus reached with other editors? How does one rectify the results of this unilateral decision? Can these moves be undone until a consensus is reached? --Caponer (talk) 15:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Howdy folks. We need more imput at that Template's discussion. GoodDay (talk) 00:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The work of a new editor called Fernandoe is rubbing up Lecen, an experienced and scrupulous editor, in the wrong way. Fernandoe's most informative edit summary: The emperor Dom peter II have last names. He is son of Maria Leopoldina de Habsburgo-Lorena and Dom Pedro I de Bragança e Bourbon. Lecen believes that this is wrong, as are other, related edits by Fernandoe. I don't know, but perhaps you people here do know. -- Hoary (talk) 00:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Following recent checks of some categories - it looks like that quite a few categories are in the scope of this project and not tagged - I am assuming that biography/royalty means more or less any royalty in whatever form - any clarification is appreciated SatuSuro 04:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Someone here will no doubt know the proper protocol so please see Talk:2010_Winter_Olympics_opening_ceremony#Nobility and note my objection to the use of flags at all in this section; but if flags are used, it doesn't seem appropriate at least in some cases to use national flags (as in the case of Princess Anne, who was attending as a private citizen and not in a royal-delegation capacity).Skookum1 (talk) 14:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The page, Butcher#Metaphorical_use has a link to the Butcher of Congo. But when clicking the link, it goes to Leopold_II. Looking on the page Leopold II of Belgium, there is no mention of "Butcher of Congo". But on the page, Leon Rom, it states it there. Also on page, List_of_nicknames_of_European_royalty_and_nobility:_L, there is has a external link pointing to Leopold II of Belgium as the Butcher of Congo. Thanks, 160.109.98.44 (talk) 23:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi; I'd appreciate if the members of this project could give your opinion here. Thanks! --Tonyjeff (talk) 16:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

An RfC is currently open (Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(clergy)#naming_convention_associated_with_Eastern_Orthodox_officials) regarding the appropriateness of having position titles in the article title of religious Eastern Orthodox officials. Commentary would be welcomed, as the WP:NCWC talk page has a low level of activity.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Ammended: The proposal currently tables is to remove of all prefix religious titles, positions and/or honours from the article title.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

David Carnegie, 14th Earl of Northesk, an excepted hereditary peer under the House of Lords Act 1999 has died. According to Earl of Northesk, the heir presumptive was Patrick Carnegy, a distant cousin through the 2nd Earl. I have added him to the list at the latter article as the 15 Earl, but there is no proof at this point. Aside from needing to verify the current holder, we need to consider beginning an article. So far, I have discovered that there is a Patrick Carnegie who is an expert on Richard Wagner, and lived with his "partner", the soprano Jill Gomez as of May 2007.[1] -Rrius (talk) 20:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Where did you read that he had died? He was rather young and I can't find that information. Surtsicna (talk) 22:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Today's Lords Hansard. -Rrius (talk) 22:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Hadronic Matter An overview

An example of a book cover, taken from Book:Hadronic Matter

As detailed in last week's Signpost, WikiProject Wikipedia books is undertaking a cleanup all Wikipedia books. Particularly, the {{saved book}} template has been updated to allow editors to specify the default covers of the books. Title, subtitle, cover-image, and cover-color can all be specified, and an HTML preview of the cover will be generated and shown on the book's page (an example of such a cover is found on the right). Ideally, all books in Category:Book-Class biography (royalty) articles should have covers.

If you need help with the {{saved book}} template, or have any questions about books in general, see Help:Books, Wikipedia:Books, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, or ask me on my talk page. Also feel free to join WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, as we need all the help we can get.

This message was delivered by User:EarwigBot, at 00:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC), on behalf of Headbomb. Headbomb probably isn't watching this page, so if you want him to reply here, just leave him a message on his talk page. EarwigBot ^{(owner • talk)} 00:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Peter Gwynn-Jones retired as Garter Principal King of Arms and was succeeded by Thomas Woodcock (officer of arms) on 1 April. Woodcock had been Norroy and Ulster King of Arms, and was replaced in that role by Patric Laurence Dickinson on 6 April. Dickinson had been Richmond Herald. I have updated as much as I can. I am saying all this because I do not know all affected articles and because I don't know enough to understand whether Dickinson is still Richmond Herald or what has happened with that position. Perhaps Monday's Gazette will provide some insight. -Rrius (talk) 03:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Reza Pahlavi‎ is the heir to the Shah of Iran. Pahlavi has apparently begun editing both his own biography and that of his wife. Aside from general NPOV and BLP issues, I believe he is asserting that they are reigning monarchs, or perhaps he means that he is the reigning crown prince. The bios might need someone who is familiar with editing biographies of former imperial families.   Will Beback  talk  04:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I saw this edit, and there is nothing I can do because neither for the original information nor for the new information any sources are offered. Some obvious problems:

• The article is about a fiction. The Bavarian throne was abolished in 1918, and there appears to be no chance that it will ever be revived.
• The article is a single huge BLP violation. It lists 21 living people and makes an unsourced claim about each person on the list.

Since I have in the past observed similar problems with the poor sourcing and maintenance of such list articles in the scope of this project, and since this facilitates the work of hoaxters and fraudsters, I will also notify WP:BLP/N. Hans Adler 08:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

As Bali ultimate said above in #Non-notable nobility and hoaxes: Template:Former monarchic orders of succession "appears to be a navigational aid to entirely unsourced, unverifiable claims." Hans Adler 08:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The law of succession used in these states could be sourced. If you are looking for a source to say "Prince blah-blah" is number 3 or 10 in line that will be difficult as people, renounce their rights, die are born etc so books and news articles will be out of date as soon as they are published. In the Bulgarian article I have cited the Petit Gotha which was published in 2002 and no one has been born or died since so no problem. Certain other LOS are given in Petit Gotha but there is a problem as princes have been born recently or died so the LOS has obviously changed. I have another book where the Russian LOS to Nicholas Romanov, Prince of Russia is given but it was published in 1994 and about half of the princes are now dead. Generally the articles are OR to an extent as the succession law is known, the princes who belong to the family and are in the LOS are known, and people put these two facts together to create the lists. - dwc lr (talk) 19:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your sourcing of two of the articles.

To the extent that these fictional lines of succession – I am talking about the extrapolations past abolishment – are actually notable, there would certainly be reliable sources at least for the top positions; and I can't see how the the number 10 in line for an abolished throne could be relevant anyway. But I can't help feeling that pretending that these things still exist must be purely internal family entertainment in most cases and therefore doesn't really have a place here. Hans Adler 19:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

These are obviously just LOS to the headship of the former reigning house though they are obviously titled differently and say “to the throne” for some reason. I don’t know how relevant they really are, most are probably not that important. There are some that I believe are of interest and relevant and those are the ones where a dispute has or most likely will arise over who is the rightful head of the House like in France, Brazil, Georgia, Russia, Romania, Saxony, Italy or the Two Scillies. Generally these articles can be well sourced as there is a lot of information on them. And compared to the others these indeed are reasonably well sourced. - dwc lr (talk) 19:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Line of succession to the Georgian throne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Is there anyone here with the ability and patience to sort out the madness that is going on at the talk page of this article? Hans Adler 09:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Hans -- as you may be aware, there hasn't been a Georgian King in 200 years. Why should there be an article on the theoretical and ignored in the wider world, line of "succession" to a non-existent thing?Bali ultimate (talk) 15:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

No I wasn't aware. I recently tagged a bunch of these articles for lack of sources, which is how this got on my watchlist. It looks as if this one could be a very good candidate for deletion. Hans Adler 16:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed that in the thread above, dwc lr mentions this case in a list of lines of succession that should be easy to source because they are contentious. But I really wonder if it's worth the trouble. Somehow I doubt that these lists are the right way to organise articles about such topics. Hans Adler 16:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Aside from the genealogy obsessives and the "royalty" worshipers, there is no broad coverage of these issues and why should there be? Most of the "research" is driven by people obsessed with proving their "royal" position. That is, people who have vested interests in research outcomes. And in many cases, as this one, the thrones have been long abolished, there's no royalist constituency of any size in Georgia arguing to bring them back, they therefore have no impact on local political life, most of the "title holders" are not notable in their own right (some are of course, but that's generally because of things they've done or accomplished, not a matter of birth), etc... It's inappropriate for a general encyclopedia. Just another set of walled gardens. I know I'm screaming into the wind on this, though.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

No, you are not, as far as I am concerned. I am merely being a bit more patient with these nonsense pages right now because I can't be bothered at the moment to check which of them might be legitimate (typically because there is a chance of a return to monarchy) and which are clearly not. Hans Adler 17:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I am strongly opposed to articles whose only purpose is original research related to geneaology. However, Georgia is not a good example for saying that there's no royalist constituency of any size arguing to bring them back. In fact, the highest-ranking religious leaders and politicians have expressed their support for the restoration of monarchy in Georgia. See Monarchism in Georgia. Anyway, all unsourced (and especially unsourceable) information from the Line of succession to the Georgian throne article should be removed. Surtsicna (talk) 17:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The article HIH Prince Konstantin V Mustafaev has been tagged for speedy deletion. The person claims to be part of the House of Osman of the Ottoman Empire. I cannot immediately verify the claims. I would be grateful if you could take a look at the article and make any changes that seem appropriate. I have also posted this message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Turkey. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Those people do not claim to be Royalty - information which providing is translated from Turkish into Russian, Russian into English ( some of work still in work)

(Arch-TRHO 15:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC))—Preceding unsigned comment added by The Royal House of Osman (talk • contribs) — The Royal House of Osman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

For obvious reasons, this account has since been blocked. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons (UBLPs) aims to reduce the number of unreferenced biographical articles to under 30,000 by June 1, primarily by enabling WikiProjects to easily identify UBLP articles in their project's scope. There were over 52,000 unreferenced BLPs in January 2010 and this has been reduced to 32,665 as of May 16. A bot is now running daily to compile a list of all articles that are in both Category:All unreferenced BLPs and have been tagged by a WikiProject. Note that the bot does NOT place unreferenced tags or assign articles to projects - this has been done by others previously - it just compiles a list.

Your Project's list can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Royalty/Unreferenced BLPs. As of May 17 you have approximately 83 articles to be referenced, a 1.2% reduction from last week. The list of all other WikiProject UBLPs can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons/WikiProjects.

Your assistance in reviewing and referencing these articles is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions, please don't hestitate to ask either at WT:URBLP or at my talk page. Thanks, The-Pope (talk) 17:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

What can we do about this article? Is there anyone neutral and qualified willing to deal with this? Or can we just delete this article as an unmaintainable POV-pushing forum? Hans Adler 10:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

What changes are needed? As Surtsicna noted in her reply to you a few posts above this on 22 April 2010, the Georgian royal succession is current, reported upon, and notable: the country has been in turmoil, both internally and internationally, since obtaining its freedom from the Soviet Union. In response to the competition among its various parties, the highly respected and politically influential head of the Georgian Orthodox Church, Patriarch Ilia II, called for the restoration of constitutional monarchy in 2007 as a way of breaking through the debilitating logjam of the nation's politics. His suggestion received broad coverage, prompted interested responses from leaders of most of Georgia's political parties, encouraged monarchists to organize and come forward, and ultimately resulted in an attempt to identify a single candidate to the throne by prompting two rival branches of the old dynasty to unite by marriage. Although it's true there is not a lot of comment on this phenomenon in Western media, there is enough to make it notable and to source the claims made. The edit-wars on the related articles are indicative of the fact that monarchists have become visible, political activists in Georgia. No one claims that restoration is Georgia's main political movement -- but that isn't a criterion for coverage in Wikipedia. While I think that the cites given suffice to establish the notability and inclusion of deposed dynasties' historical claims, I join Surtsicna in agreeing that more documented sources are desirable, and I am actively in search of them and of time to post what I've found. The relatively few sources, and the edit-wars and lengthy disputes on discussion pages, largely reflect the paucity of online English-language sources, and the fact that the interested Georgian parties have difficulty grasping English WP's rules and finding sources for their contentions that are verifiable by other English WP editors. As for the specifics of the dispute, I thought I had navigated throug it at Sorting out NPOV, including identifying sockpuppets (though new ones keep emerging) on the article's talk page. While you and Bali ultimate have made it clear that you do not share or approve interest in modern monarchy, royalty or we "genealogy obsessives and 'royalty' worshipers", I know you both realize that is not grounds ipso facto for disrespecting such interest among others on Wikipedia, nor for being more demanding in article editing than on other topics. Rather than dismissing pretenders and their dynasties as a walled garden on Wikipedia, why can it not be seen simply as a small but open garden in which most readers and editors prefer not to stroll, but where there are gardeners vigilantly pruning and weeding for the enjoyment of those who care and those who find it edifying when they happen to come upon it? FactStraight (talk) 23:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that if we want to have such articles, someone must defend them against hoaxing and serious POV problems such as the pushing of dubious claims. And given the almost complete lack of sources in any of the major languages (I am generally happy using sources in English, German, French, Italian, Spanish, Dutch and the Scandinavian languages, but all of them seem to be pretty useless in this case) it appears that for this article we need someone who is an expert, has access to unusual sources, and/or can read the relevant languages such as Georgian. If such a user materialises and takes responsibility for this article I have no problem with its further existence. My second sentence above was not rhetorical.

This article seems to be mostly an original synthesis of rare offline sources and dubious-looking websites. I don't feel at all comfortable reverting to the current version when someone changes it, even when they do so without reasonable explanation. Hans Adler 20:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, the Earldom of Stair is in the peerage of Scotland, but its subsidiary title, the Barony of Oxenfoord, is in the peerage of the UK. It is further my understanding that until the Peerage Act 1963 came into effect, the latter title is the only one that would have given an automatic right to a seat in the House of Lords. After the 1963 Act took effect, though, it would seem to me that the Earldom would have granted the right as well. Thus, the current Earl of Stair, who sits as an excepted hereditary peer, should be able to sit by virtue of the Earldom of Stair. However, his UK peerage is included after his name in parenthesis as is done with Irish peers who are excepted peers sitting by virtue of a UK peerage. Can someone help me figure out what is going on? -Rrius (talk) 01:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

At Talk:Catherine Ashton#Requested move 2, there is discussion potentially of interest to members of this WikiProject. -Rrius (talk) 02:06, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone heard of the House of Lichtenberg? The creator and editor cites the webpage he maintains as a source, which happens to be the sole source. 08:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.24.117.126 (talk)

Input is needed at that article, concerning a rumor about the King. GoodDay (talk) 14:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

As I'm doing genealogical reseach on royal houses in Europe, it came under my attention the fact that many pictures of royals aren't displayed in the English wiki, but looking at other languages, there are one or more pictures portraying that person... Some examples?

• Alexander Karageorgievich, Prince of Yugoslavia: there are pictures here and here (the same applies with his two brothers)
• Francesco di Paola di Borbone, Comte de Trapani: one picture here
• Stéphanie Marie Elizabeth Grimaldi, Princess of Monaco: one picture here
• Astrid Josephine-Charlotte de Belgique, Princesse de Belgique: one picture here
• Don Fulco Ruffo di Calabria, Prince Ruffo di Calabria: one picture here
• Lorenz Otto Erzherzog von Österreich: one picture here
• Dona Margarita Gómez-Acebo y Cejuala: one picture here
• Joachim Holger Valdemar Christian, Prince of Denmark: several pictures here
• Nikolai William Alexander Frederik, Prince of Denmark: one picture here
• Isabella Henrietta Ingrid Margrethe, Princess of Denmark: one picture here
• Christian Valdemar Henri John, Prince of Denmark: one picture here

I tried to put those pictures in Commons so as to be able to put them in the English article, but wasn't able to, since they are usual in incomprehensible languages (for me of course), plus I know nothing on copyright and the such.

Couldn't it be created a section where to post those pictures so that people who are more competent than me could add them into Commons? Then I would add them myself in the corresponding English articles. Do you think it could be possible? Daphoenyx (talk) 10:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Why does a little shield with a Swedish flag symbol appear in the template of this group on many talk pages of royalty who are not Swedish (such as Albert II of Monaco)? SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The article Baasha ben Ruhubi has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

a search for references on "Baasha ben Ruhubi" found only mirrors and items that appear to come from this article. There are no G book hits other then a single mirror of Wikipedia. Fails WP:V

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I recently removed the unreferenced BLP tag from the above article, and relaced with a simple unref tag, as in my opinion the BLP is the article Felipe, Prince of Asturias. Would appreciate other opinions as to whether Ancestry of Felipe, Prince of Asturias (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) should be classed as User:Mr.Z-bot and User:Joshua Scott obviously have other opinions having re-added the BLP unref tag. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Is this project still active? No response in over ten days? Jezhotwells (talk) 10:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

There is a dispute at Talk:List of Serbian monarchs about how this list should be arranged (like other lists of European monarchs or differently). I'd appreciate your comments. Surtsicna (talk) 19:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The template to open ahnentafels (ancestry tables) (Template:ahnentafel top) was changed last May to open all such tables on first viewing with an option to "Hide". The previous situation had been the reverse (a title bar with a link to "Show").

(1) Editors can now change the first appearance of an ahnentafel by adding "|collapsed=yes" to "ahnentafel top" (see Template:Ahnentafel top/doc.)

(2) I'm now taking a survey to see how many editors (or the editors of how many articles) would prefer to keep this situation, and how many would prefer to change the default so that editors who wanted to display an ahnentafel on first sight would have to add "collapsed=no".

Since over 2,500 articles (some of which would clearly benefit from one option and some from the other) use this template, a large sample of preferences would be very helpful in discussing which default to use.

Please indicate your preferences at Template talk:Ahnentafel top/Requested Comments 1. And let other editors know about this poll. Thanks. —— Shakescene (talk) 08:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)