Line 540: | Line 540: | ||
:::OK, since you clearly have problems paying attention to detail, let me make something clear to you. A: I didn't make the monogram, so stop saying it's mine. B: The monograms are identical, and if your issue is really the colour, that can easily be changed, and isn't reason to remove the vector all together. C: once again, you've admitted the coin is correct, which contradicts your second source of the embroidery book cover. It's one or the other, not both. [[User:Fry1989|Fry1989]] ([[User talk:Fry1989|talk]]) 18:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC) |
:::OK, since you clearly have problems paying attention to detail, let me make something clear to you. A: I didn't make the monogram, so stop saying it's mine. B: The monograms are identical, and if your issue is really the colour, that can easily be changed, and isn't reason to remove the vector all together. C: once again, you've admitted the coin is correct, which contradicts your second source of the embroidery book cover. It's one or the other, not both. [[User:Fry1989|Fry1989]] ([[User talk:Fry1989|talk]]) 18:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC) |
||
::On B, they are not identical; one is color and the other is not. As I've already pointed out above, there are 2 other issues in addition to the problem of the color. [[User:DrKiernan|DrKiernan]] ([[User talk:DrKiernan|talk]]) 19:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC) |
::On B, they are not identical; one is color and the other is not. As I've already pointed out above, there are 2 other issues in addition to the problem of the color. [[User:DrKiernan|DrKiernan]] ([[User talk:DrKiernan|talk]]) 19:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC) |
||
::Can ytou read? i said they're indetical except in colour, I've said that many times. But you continue to ignore that vector colours can be easily changed. And incase you're wwondering why I haven't changed it's colour to please you, it's because: if you're to lazy to politely ask they be changed, instead of this long song and dance, then I'm too lazy to fix it. [[User:Fry1989|Fry1989]] ([[User talk:Fry1989|talk]]) 19:38, 30 January 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:38, 30 January 2011
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||
Neutrality
On a quick read-through, and without getting into minutiae, this article has a definite slant that doesn't feel like neutral POV, but rather feels "pro-Mary". Specifically, the total glossing over of the Babington plot, the implication that her execution was intentionally cruel (the two strikes thing), etc. I'm fairly well-read on the era, but this isn't something I'm going to dig in and fight over, just thought I'd mention my initial impression. I believe it should be possible to present the balance of facts (as we are able to know them at this point) without coming across as either "pro-Mary" or "pro-Elizabeth".--24.148.236.234 (talk) 05:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with you. It is open to every contributor, including yourself, to make appropriate amendments to improve the tone, and I encourage you to do so. Deb (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you both for saying the above! Re: the Casket Letters: I'd just like to add, that they are not really important as to Mary's guilt, too much importance is given them (kind of red-herring), as e.g. Caroline Bingham points out in her boigraphy of Darnley (Constable 1995). However, I see it's not easy to incorporate such an overriding aspect; perhaps in a footnote? Perhaps I'll try sometime - without hurting feelings, and with exact references etc.
- Buchraeumer (talk) 15:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Also, on the whole bias note, the paragraph "Portraits of Mary show that she had a small, well-shaped head, a long, graceful neck, bright auburn hair, hazel-brown eyes, under heavy lowered eyelids and finely arched brows, smooth lustrous skin, a high forehead, and regular, firm features. While not a beauty in the classical sense, she was an extremely pretty child who would become a strikingly attractive woman. In fact, her effect on the men with whom she later came into contact was certainly that of a beautiful woman.[1]
Well-shaped? Graceful? Finely arched? These aren't words I'd expect to see on an encyclopedia. Plus, the later bits seem very biased.
Perhaps some of this is valid, but it seems quite biased more like something from a historical fiction novel than an encyclopedia.
96.243.206.236 (talk) 14:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- The description comes from Antonia Fraser's 1969 biography Mary, Queen of Scots, which is not romantic fiction.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, but does it need to be taken straight to an encyclopedia without being checked for bias? 96.243.206.236 (talk) 15:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- Why do her portraits contradict the description provided by Fraser, who obviously based her detailed description of Mary on the available portraits of the Scottish queen? I don't see where there's bias, seeing as the portraits do show that Mary possessed the physical attributes listed by Fraser.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- The author's description of Mary's appearance involves a subjective (and, here, irrelevant) interpretation of her physical beauty. One could easily refute such claims based on individual standards--the author is an authority on Mary, Queen of Scots, not on what constitutes a "strikingly attractive woman". Indeed, based on individual standards of beauty, one may even develop an entirely different image of Mary than is accurate. Therefore, because this involves a very specific personal interpretation, if this depiction is to be included it should be cited in quotations. Journey2359 (talk) 18:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- Standards of beauty are always matters of personal opinion. However that's where the Neutral Point Of View comes in. While Wikipedia shouldn't state that Mary was beautiful, it can certainly state that So-and-so said that she was beautiful since it is a matter of fact that So-and-so did (or didn't). If the matter of her beauty is controversial, then it can also state that Such-and-such thought that she was ugly. It matters not one whit that these are the subjective opinions of So-and-so and Such-and-such since Wikipedia is merely describing the factual matter of the existence of these opinions. All that matters is that Wikipedia authors can provide citations proving the existence of these opinions. -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, the article itself does not present this description as an author's opinion, as you suggest. And it matters several whits to whom an opinion is attributed (i.e., that it is the opinion of "so-and-so"), which is the very reason you cite it in the first place. A minor edit presenting the entire description as belonging to the author would clarify this. Only in the context of the author's perspective can we understand his concept of beauty. It seems you are in agreement about citing the source below, which is good; for the sake of clarity, there should be a mention that this is the author's point of view in the relevant paragraph as well. Journey2359 (talk) 06:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- Standards of beauty are always matters of personal opinion. However that's where the Neutral Point Of View comes in. While Wikipedia shouldn't state that Mary was beautiful, it can certainly state that So-and-so said that she was beautiful since it is a matter of fact that So-and-so did (or didn't). If the matter of her beauty is controversial, then it can also state that Such-and-such thought that she was ugly. It matters not one whit that these are the subjective opinions of So-and-so and Such-and-such since Wikipedia is merely describing the factual matter of the existence of these opinions. All that matters is that Wikipedia authors can provide citations proving the existence of these opinions. -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
- The author's description of Mary's appearance involves a subjective (and, here, irrelevant) interpretation of her physical beauty. One could easily refute such claims based on individual standards--the author is an authority on Mary, Queen of Scots, not on what constitutes a "strikingly attractive woman". Indeed, based on individual standards of beauty, one may even develop an entirely different image of Mary than is accurate. Therefore, because this involves a very specific personal interpretation, if this depiction is to be included it should be cited in quotations. Journey2359 (talk) 18:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Hats Production of Mary, Queen of Scots Got Her Head Chopped Off.jpg
Image:Hats Production of Mary, Queen of Scots Got Her Head Chopped Off.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 06:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Mary I's titles
What was Mary I's title from 1578 (James Hepburn's death) until 1587 (her own death)? I suppose that she was styled Countess of Bothwell from 1567 (when she ceased to be Queen of Scots) until 1578 (when the Earl of Bothwell died). Maybe Lady Mary Stuart or Dowager Countess of Bothwell? Surtsicna (talk) 12:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
My understanding - and this is just my opinion/interpretation of events - is that technically, she never lost her title. When she was forced to abdicate, she did so only because Lindsay threatened to cut her throat if she did not sign them. She had miscarried only several days earlier, and had lost a great deal of blood, leaving her in a very delicate state health-wise. The two points are important, because they are the foundations for the argument that she signed the document under extreme duress, and would therefore be invalid when held up to any kind of scrutiny. Throckmorton actively encouraged this line of thinking and reasoning to Mary at the time. e So, if one holds that the document were signed under genuine duress, then they are invalidated and unenforceable.
In any case, even if she HAD lawfully and legally given up her throne, my understanding is that she would still have a regal title, as she was born royalty. #REDIRECT Edward VIII abdication crisis indicates that after his abdication, Edward was known as 'His Royal Highness,' Duke of... I don't know what all of her other titles would be offhand. Probably a lot of French titles mixed in as well.
(My sources for the above were Rosalind Marshall and Nau, Mary's personal advisor/assistant. Colemic (talk) 23:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Twins?
She became pregnant with twins, which she later miscarried while imprisoned.
How did they know (in 16th century) that she was pregnant with twins when she miscarried them? 87.250.116.18 (talk) 14:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- It's simple. When she miscarried them, people could see the two little body of the babies ---- (Kaho Mitsuki) 00:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Line of Succession
Can someone produce a source for the claim about a law during the reign of Robert II having created a "semi-Salic" succession in Scotland. I have not seen this claimed anywhere except Wikipedia, and for a few reasons I find this a bit implausible, although I could be proved wrong. Unless someone responds in a couple of days I propose to delete this. PatGallacher (talk) 22:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Gordon Donaldson's 'Kings of Scotland' (p. 34-35) says that it was an official act of Parliament:
- "Almost exactly two years later, in a parliament held at Scone on 4 April 1373, a much more elaborate act of sucession, amounting to an entail of the crown, was passed with the consent of 'the prelates, earls, barons and the rest of the chief men and nobles of all others of the three estates or communities of the whole realm there asembled.' The crown was now destined to pass successively to John, Earl of Carrick, and his heirs male, whom failing to the King's second son, Robert, Earl of Fife and Menteith, and his heirs male, whom failing to Alexander, Lord of Badenoch, the King's third son, and his heirs male, whom failing to David, Earl of Strathearn, the King's fourth son, and his heirs male, whom failing to Walter, youngest of the King, and his heirs male, 'and the foresaid five brothers and thir heirs male decending from them happening finally and wholly to fail (which God forbid), the true an lawful heirs of the royal blood and kin shall thenceforward succeed to the kingdom and the right of reigning.' It is curious, and significant of the force attached to statute rather than blood, that, although the crown had come to the Stewarts through a female, it was now laid down that it was not to be transmitted through a female, except possiby on the extinction of all the male lines decended from Robert II. In fact, as will appear, the male line of the first five sons coninued in unbroken, though tenuous, succession until the death of James V in 1542. But at that point (when, as it happened, the male lines of all the other sons of Robert II had long died out), the crown went not to any man but to the late King's infant daughter, Mary, Queen of Scots."
Also... the below link is the Records of the Parliament of Scotland website, it is an unbelievable treasure trove! A spectacular source, plus it has translations as well. It validated Donaldson's version, the title of the relevant section being 'Legislation: statute, ordinance and declaration entailing the Crown on the sons of Robert II.' It is listed as an act of Parliament on 4 April 1373.
http://www.rps.ac.uk 139.153.13.68 (talk) 22:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- That sounds like it answers the point. -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
It is often said that Mary Queen of Scots and Elizabeth I were cousins. Elizabeth I was Mary Tudor's half-sister (they shared father but not mother), and Mary QoS was her niece, not her cousin. According to several sources - Wikipedia included - Mary QoS was the granddaughter of Henry VIII's sister. This does not make her Elizabeth's cousin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.246.7.153 (talk) 21:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- First cousin once removed, I think (or maybe second cousin once removed). But the word "cousin" used to be a general term for any relation. Deb (talk) 22:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
They were first cousins thru Mary’s mother and Elizabeth’s father being sister and brother. Margaret Tudor was the eldest daughter of Henry VII of England and Elizabeth of York, and she was the elder sister of Henry VIII who was Elizabeth I father. See the respective family trees under their profiles on this site. Azegarelli (talk) 16:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)A.Stephenson 15:55, 14 Jan 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Azegarelli (talk • contribs) 15:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- Margaret Tudor was not Mary's mother, she was her paternal grandmother. Mary's mother was Mary of Guise, therefore she and Elizabeth were not first cousins.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, you are correct. And as Deb said, the technical term for their family relationship is "first cousins, once removed". Mary's father, James V, was Elizabeth's first cousin, and if Elizabeth had had a child, that child would have been Mary's second cousin. Mary's child, James VI, was Elizabeth's first cousin, twice removed. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I just rechecked everything and your right. I don't know why/how I got myself confused. I must have had a few too many windows up at the time (so many Mary's and all). Thank you for the correction. Azegarelli (talk) 13:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- No problem.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Physical Description
There is no physical description of Mary in the article.It doesn't mention,for instance her extraordinary height (5"11),nor any details of her colouring,features,etc.Antonia Fraser devotes several pages to her physical attributes;considering the capacity she had for attracting men.jeanne (talk) 14:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Feel free to add this in, although I don't think it would need more than a paragraph. If you have a copy of this book, it would be reat if you could add in some references. There are some but I think some sections need more. Perhaps then we could get rid of this: 'This article or section is missing citations or needs footnotes. Using inline citations helps guard against copyright violations and factual inaccuracies. (May 2008)' at the top of the page. Boleyn (talk) 18:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Her height is already mentioned in the article. Deb (talk) 11:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Coded messages, decrypted
Mary used a "nomenclature" cipher to encrypt messages sent to and from Anthony Babington. Walsingham (Secretary to Queen Elizabeth) intercepted many of these coded messages. Thomas Phelippes (a linguist and cryptanalyst) was employed (by Walsingham) to break this cipher and by statistical analysis of the frequency of the symbols he was able to discover the key, and thereby decode the cipher. Mary's confidence in the privacy that her cipher provided, made her bold enough to communicate her consent to the Babington Plot (to assassinate Queen Elizabeth). Much more detail is available "The Code Book" by Simon Singh 1999 ISBN:0-385-49532-3. 72.73.92.107 (talk) 03:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.73.92.107 (talk) 03:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Inconsistent Naming
The section "Childhood in France" uses both Henry II and Henri II, and Henry/Henri. It appears to me that this should be edited for consistency and that Henri II would be the correct choice. Thank you for your kind review. Ellendare (talk) 21:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Done. Colemic (talk) 04:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Citations Added
I have added the 2 citations needed to remove the "citations needed" label at the top, but I don't know how to do that... and I rewrote the paragraph at James V's prophecy to reflect the source. Please feel free to amend it as necessary but I think it reflects fairly on the issue. I *think* I added the citations correctly.
Lastly... Under "Heritage, Birth, and Coronation," it says that John Stewart would have succeeded before Mary had he not died in 1536... what is dubious about that? Is it not correct?
Thanks,
Colemic (talk) 04:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- Had John Stewart tried to claim the throne he would have most likely ignited civil war in Scotland. Mary was the legitimate child of James V and there would have been many people to back up her claim with armed intervention. And remember Mary had powerful relations in France-namely the Guises.--jeanne (talk) 06:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
'Mary, who had previously claimed Elizabeth's throne as her own' I think you need a citation for this. Didn't Mary simply say she was the heir to Elisabeth's throne Tarzanlordofthejungle (talk) 22:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:MaryStuartPlay.jpg
The image Image:MaryStuartPlay.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
- That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
- That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Lady Jane Grey
why was she beheaded? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.52.159.157 (talk) 19:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Because she would not admit to Mary Tudor that she was not the rightful heir to the throne. She was put there because she was a Protestant, and Mary Tudor was a Catholic married to the Spanish King. She was the Queen for a little while, but the English were not Protestants in general, they followed what Henry VIII had established, which was the Church of England. When her general support diminished, Mary Tudor came, and wanted her to apologise and admit that she had been a usurper of the throne. When she didn't, she was beheaded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.246.7.153 (talk) 21:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- More importantly, while she was alive she could be a rallying point for all Protestants (or non-Catholics) against the Catholic Queen Mary. She was a threat. Mary's little half-sister Elizabeth was, too. But she was at the Palace and was loyal to her sister Mary (at least for the purpose of staying alive, she was.) Bigmac31 (talk) 18:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
error
she miscarried her twins while in custody, but in the chapter descendany it says:"Mary also bore her third husband twins while in Elizabeth I's captivity, they died soon after birth." bplease correct —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lillelaboe (talk • contribs) 14:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Good catch. Please, in the future, feel free to make small corrections yourself. Colemic (talk) 08:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Another error (soz, don't know how to create a new section) The "Regency" section about when Mary was too young to rule says that her mother, Mary of Guise, was regent until her death in 1560, but Mary of Guise's own page says that she, being Catholic, was deposed by Scottish Protestants in 1559. I'm guessing the second one's right, as it's on Mary of Guise's page, but in that case shouldn't this page be updated, and who was regent from 1559 to 1560? I don't want to edit anything myself because I'm no expert... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.66.45.185 (talk) 08:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Problems editing
I noticed that in the references section, the entry for Richard Oram's book has a year lisintg of 200, but when I go to edit it, it is already listed as 2004... Does anyone have any idea why it doesn't show up correctly? Colemic (talk) 08:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
A typo?
What is this grossneck thing "a long, graceful small grossneck" in the physical description in the "Childhood in France section"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.111.33 (talk) 15:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
burial
Is this true Mary's body was embalmed and left unburied at her place of execution for a year after her death. Her remains were placed in a secure lead coffin (thought to be further signs of fear of relic hunting). She was initially buried at Peterborough Cathedral in 1588, but her body was exhumed in 1612 when her son, King James I of England, ordered she be reinterred in Westminster Abbey. It remains there, along with at least 40 other descendants, in a chapel on the other side of the Abbey from the grave of her father's cousin Elizabeth I. In the 1800s her tomb and that of Elizabeth were opened to try to ascertain where James I was buried; he was ultimately found buried with Henry VII.
I can't reference to it in any of the other articles mentioned.
81.159.216.103 (talk) 17:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Protection needed
Can this article be protected? Someone is persistantly vandalising it.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- I've temporarily protected the page so it can only be edited by registered users. Deb (talk) 11:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Recently the file File:Landing of Mary Queen of Scots (Mary, Queen of Scots) from NPG borderless.jpg (right) was uploaded and it appears to be relevant to this article and not currently used by it. If you're interested and think it would be a useful addition, please feel free to include it. Dcoetzee 21:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Recently the file File:Mary, Queen of Scots being led to execution by William Luson Thomas.jpg (right) was uploaded and it appears to be relevant to this article and not currently used by it. If you're interested and think it would be a useful addition, please feel free to include it. It is a late-19th century artist's impression of Mary, Queen of Scots being led to her execution. Dcoetzee 06:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Question About Darnley
Wouldn't he be more appropriately titled king consort rather than suggesting that his was a courtesy title? PatrickLMT (talk) 01:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Last letter of Mary Queen of Scots to go on display
--Mais oui! (talk) 09:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
The section "Childhood and early reign" has the following text with typing errors:
Mary was born on 8 December 1542 at Linlithgow Palace, Linlithgow, Scotland to King James V of Scotland and his French w[missing text]birth to a daughter, ruefull "It came with a lass, it will [text missing]The House of Stewart
I don't know exactly what the missing text is, but assume it was deleted in a recent edit.
Can someone more experienced please unpick and correct this? Thanks.
195.33.116.49 (talk) 13:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing that out, as it was overlooked by subsequent edits made to the article. Unfortunately, Mary I of Scotland gets vandalised on a regular basis. I'm glad you noticed the chunk of missing text.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
New Image
The newest infobox image is a much better-and far more flattering- portrait of Mary than the previous one. Also it's a contemporary one by Clouet and therefore should stay.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Heritage
"During the 15th-century reign of Robert III of Scotland, it had been confirmed that the Scottish Crown would only be inherited by males in the line of Robert's children ... with the demise of ... James V, Robert II had no remaining direct male descendants of unquestionably legitimate origins." The item begins with Robert III, but ends with Robert II. Is one of them a typo, or are both correct? --Redrose64 (talk) 17:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- It's been corrected to Robert III.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Requested move
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: moved per NCROY#2 SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Support Mary I of Scotland → Mary, Queen of Scots — She is usually known as "Mary, Queen of Scots", e.g. [1][2][3] DrKiernan (talk) 13:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
gscholar hits: 7 for "Mary I of Scotland" v. 16,200 for "Mary, Queen of Scots"
- Strongly support. I agree it should be moved to Mary, Queen of Scots, for the main reason that she is normally known by this name rather than Mary I of Scotland, which is actually a misnomer as there was no Mary II of Scotland. Virtually every biography on Mary Stuart is titled Mary, Queen of Scots, never Mary I of Scotland. In point of fact, a reader would most likely be confused when confronted by the latter name.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, Mary II of England was also Mary II of Scotland, and Google Scholar yields a few hits for that name. That does not diminish your more important argument, that Mary, Queen of Scots, is the much more commonly used name. Ucucha 18:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
- Support I think in this case WP:COMMONNAME is is more appropriate than following the guidelines of WP:NCROY.--Labattblueboy (talk) 14:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
- Support. I was surprised to see this title. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 16:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
- Support per all, especially Ladattblueboy & Jeanne B, although WP:NCROY is clear (see the opening section) that it does not aspire to overide WP:COMMON. This is a perennial issue - see the talk page archive. Johnbod (talk) 17:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
- Support although as a general rule I am cautious about abandoning the naming convention for monarchs, I think this is one case where the common name is just so common we have to accept it. Not allowing the odd exception like this is the sort of thing which can bring consistent naming standards for monarchs into disrepute. PatGallacher (talk) 18:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose as ...of Scotland is used by her Scottish predecessors. It's Monarch name Ordinal & country, there's no such country as 'Scots'. GoodDay (talk) 18:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
- The people of Scotland are called Scots, hence Mary, Queen of Scots. The reason most editors support the proposed move is due to the fact that she is better known by the name Mary, Queen of Scots than Mary I of Scotland.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
- I don't mind it in the content. But the title must remain, see (for example) Robert II of Scotland, James V of Scotland, David I of Scotland, etc. GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
- Comment - She is not the only Mary who was Queen of Scots. There were four other Scottish queens called Mary, three of which also used the title 'Queen of Scots'. That (and possible inconsistency) concerns me a bit even though "Mary Queen of Scots" usually refers to this Queen Mary. Surtsicna (talk) 20:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
- There is already a hatnote link to Mary, Queen of Scots (disambiguation), which also has the films etc. Johnbod (talk) 01:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose — common usage should not be parroted when it adds ambiguity or confusion, and as is mentioned above this is more of a role - a job title if you like - than a name. – Kieran T (talk) 20:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
- Support — for almost all ordinary readers this will be clearer and less confusing. Obviously there should still be a hatnote directing people to the less important queens of the Scots called Mary. Grafen (talk) 22:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
- Comment - interesting to see use of "queen of THE Scots" above. Highlights the inadequacy of the phrase. What is meant by "the Scots"? She wasn't some sort of campaign idol, queen of the Scottish diaspora. She was queen of a nation-state, Scotland, and that word, Scotland, is what should be in the page title. 81.178.67.229 (talk) 03:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose - this comes up for Mary every couple of years. However the introduction of this "replace-the-Wikipedia-standard-with-some-other-name" concept has not proved beneficial in the two cases where it has been tried -- the Polish and the Japanese monarchies. In fact there it led to confusion when it was tried a few years ago as a result of the deviation from the standard Wikipedia naming convention. As "Mary, Queen of Scots" already exists as a redirect and typing "Mary Queen of Scots" into Google leads directly to this article as #1 result, this proposal will have no benefit other than to make a few Wikipedians feel more comfortable. -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- I agree that the titling of Polish monarchs has become a mess (although I wasn't aware of any problem with Japan) but that doesn't mean that we can't allow the odd exception for a very well-known figure who is overwhelmingly known by a particular name. PatGallacher (talk) 16:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- That is what redirects are for. And we do use them for this article. Japan may have been sorted out now but a few years ago you needed to know the death name (as opposed to the reigning name) before you could find our Japanese emperor articles owing to the efforts of an enthusiastic Japanese monarchist. This was Not A Good Thing... -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- I agree that the titling of Polish monarchs has become a mess (although I wasn't aware of any problem with Japan) but that doesn't mean that we can't allow the odd exception for a very well-known figure who is overwhelmingly known by a particular name. PatGallacher (talk) 16:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- Support - clear-cut open-and-shut case of WP:COMMONNAME. Regardless of anyone else that might have used the title, invariably when people refer to "Mary, Queen of Scots", they mean this one. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 13:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- If one were to walk into a bookshop or library and ask for a biography on Mary I of Scotland, he or she would most likely receive blank looks.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- All the more reason to educate people! ;-) 78.141.29.200 (talk) 17:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps Jean Plaidy was wrong to call her book, "Royal Road to Fotheringhay", then. It must confuse many people who end up with Antonia Fraser's book instead. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose - I understand the reasoning, but it is simply not true that the title Mary I of Scotland is not commonly used. Therefore there is no reason to break the convention. Deb (talk) 21:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- Support. The proposed title appears to be overwhelmingly more common in reliable sources, as the link given by the nominator indicate. Wikipedia ought to follow those sources. Ucucha 21:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- The proposed title is undoubtedly the commonest title of the Queen. However we are talking about the title of an article about the Queen here, not about the Queen herself. And the commonest form for titles of articles about monarchs in Wikipedia is "Name n of Country", not "Name, Queen of People", or even "Commonest Name of Monarch". The reliable sources that you mention use the title for the Queen, not for the Wikipedia article on the Queen. And we are talking here about renaming the article, not the Queen. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- "Articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name for the subject of the article." Ucucha 12:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- Well, if we are going to cite policy, let's cite the specific policy on Royalty rather than the generic policy on toothpicks, star signs and Pokemon characters. The specific policy on Royalty gives the rules which govern the title of this article. In particular the specific policy contains a statement, "use the most common form of the name used in English if none of the rules below cover a specific problem". It then follows with a list of rules which cover everything applicable to this article. There is no specific problem. In short this article is currently at the title prescribed by Wikipedia policy. The proposed move would be against Wikipedia policy. -- Derek Ross | Talk 18:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- Our naming policies don't work like that. If anything, WP:COMMONNAME would overrule the royalty convention. It is clearly not in dispute that this person is by far most commonly referred to as "Mary, Queen of Scots", and by far the person most commonly known by that name. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 05:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed, "use the common name" is an incredibly powerful rule in that this one rule allows us to decide on the article titles for toothpicks, star signs, Pokemon characters, and Queens of Scots. Ucucha 05:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
- Then why on earth do we bother having so many other rules on article titles? There would appear to be no reason to have specific policy on Royal article titles (or any other specialist titles) if we are just going to ignore it and use commonest name. Since there is specific policy -- and has been since 2002 -- it suggests that commonest name is not the best answer in all cases. -- Derek Ross | Talk 07:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
- The naming rules aren't prescriptive, and they're not to be applied in a legalistic fashion. This is what I think you fail to understand here. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 15:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
- So if you realise that rules are not to be applied in a legalistic fashion why do you appear to be so determined to apply the "commonest name" rule as if it overruled all others? That's what I really fail to understand. I've been working on these Royalty articles since 2001 and I know why we have these rules because I've experienced the problems that occurred when we didn't and when we have strayed from them. My reason for supporting the status quo is that it works better than the alternative in my experience; not because it is some God-given rule in policy. In fact since I evaluate all actions in terms of whether they are good for the encyclopedia or not, I don't really care whether there is an actual policy rule on it but since you and others raised the policy argument as the primary reason for your opinion, I thought it only sensible to address the issue in those terms. -- Derek Ross | Talk 18:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
- The naming rules aren't prescriptive, and they're not to be applied in a legalistic fashion. This is what I think you fail to understand here. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 15:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
- Then why on earth do we bother having so many other rules on article titles? There would appear to be no reason to have specific policy on Royal article titles (or any other specialist titles) if we are just going to ignore it and use commonest name. Since there is specific policy -- and has been since 2002 -- it suggests that commonest name is not the best answer in all cases. -- Derek Ross | Talk 07:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed, "use the common name" is an incredibly powerful rule in that this one rule allows us to decide on the article titles for toothpicks, star signs, Pokemon characters, and Queens of Scots. Ucucha 05:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
- Our naming policies don't work like that. If anything, WP:COMMONNAME would overrule the royalty convention. It is clearly not in dispute that this person is by far most commonly referred to as "Mary, Queen of Scots", and by far the person most commonly known by that name. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 05:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
- Well, if we are going to cite policy, let's cite the specific policy on Royalty rather than the generic policy on toothpicks, star signs and Pokemon characters. The specific policy on Royalty gives the rules which govern the title of this article. In particular the specific policy contains a statement, "use the most common form of the name used in English if none of the rules below cover a specific problem". It then follows with a list of rules which cover everything applicable to this article. There is no specific problem. In short this article is currently at the title prescribed by Wikipedia policy. The proposed move would be against Wikipedia policy. -- Derek Ross | Talk 18:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- "Articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name for the subject of the article." Ucucha 12:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- The proposed title is undoubtedly the commonest title of the Queen. However we are talking about the title of an article about the Queen here, not about the Queen herself. And the commonest form for titles of articles about monarchs in Wikipedia is "Name n of Country", not "Name, Queen of People", or even "Commonest Name of Monarch". The reliable sources that you mention use the title for the Queen, not for the Wikipedia article on the Queen. And we are talking here about renaming the article, not the Queen. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- Support "Common usage in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms, whether the official name, the scientific name, the birth name, the original name or the trademarked name" Flamarande (talk) 14:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- Implying "rareness" which really isn't the case with "Mary I" which isn't rare, merely less common in colloquial publications; the opposite is true (i.e. "Mary I" is more common) in formal histories and academic texts that I've ever used, where frankly "Mary" is the commonest abbreviation or simplification used — and yet I trust nobody will suggest renaming this article to "Mary". This discussion shows only that there's no consensus for change. 81.178.67.229 (talk) 14:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't see why Mary should be excluded from naming rules used for every Scottish monarch. Dimadick (talk) 14:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, that's very easy. No other Scottish monarch has a more common name in a different format. See the policy. Johnbod (talk) 14:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, a point could be made that Robert I is equally known as Robert the Bruce, and there is also William the Lion; this however, doesn't change my support for the proposed move.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- "Equally known as" in the sense of "recognised equally well using the other name..." or "equally frequently renamed as..."? Because like Mary, he's much more commonly known by the colloquial name in colloquial references, but that doesn't make it right to rename his article, because it's not an official title, merely a popular one. What about England's Richard the Lionheart? This could be never-ending and would lead to confusion for anyone navigating through the monarchs over time. 81.178.67.229 (talk) 15:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, a point could be made that Robert I is equally known as Robert the Bruce, and there is also William the Lion; this however, doesn't change my support for the proposed move.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, that's very easy. No other Scottish monarch has a more common name in a different format. See the policy. Johnbod (talk) 14:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Support, obviously, per "common usage in reliable sources". Our guidelines for naming royalty are simply meant to guide editors, not to overrule policy.
- Retha M. Warnicke, Mary Queen of Scots (2006)
- Jane E.A. Dawson, The politics of religion in the age of Mary, Queen of Scots (2002)
- Gordon Donaldson, The first trial of Mary, Queen of Scots (1983)
- Gordon Donaldson, Mary, Queen of Scots (1974)
Cavila (talk) 13:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- There is also:
- Antonia Fraser, Mary, Queen of Scots, 1969
- Stefan Zweig, Mary, Queen of Scotland and the Isles or alternatively Queen of Scots
Nothing entitled Mary I of Scotland, although that title is patently correct. The common name for Mary Stuart is overwhelmingly Mary, Queen of Scots, and the article's name needs to conform to popular usage.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Comment — These book titles are irrelevant. They are populist titles, designed to attract the reader to a commercial product. (Please note, I'm not disparaging the quality of any of the books.) Thankfully, Wikipedia does not need to be populist. We don't need to attract readers to an article. They will come if they are interested. And as has been said, there is a perfectly functional redirect in place. It ain't broke, so don't "fix" it. – Kieran T (talk) 15:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Common use and common names are NEVER irrelevant. I thought that Wikipedia was meant to be used by average readers (who will use common names). Kieran made it clear that I was mistaken: "Wikipedia does not need to be populist. We don't need to attract readers to an article. They will come if they are interested." Welcome to the elitist wiki. Here we blindly obey the rules and disregard common names. Welcome to Napoleon I of France and Victoria of the United Kingdom. English names? Ohh you poor ignorant fool. This the technical language wiki. Flamarande (talk) 16:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- I consider those remarks to be deeply patronising to the readership. Correctness and accuracy are not élitist. However, not wishing to get into a flame war, I shall say no more on the subject! Happy editing to all :-) – Kieran T (talk) 17:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- The gscholar results clearly show that "Mary, Queen of Scots" is the norm in academic literature. It is "Mary I of Scotland" that is the non-academic title chosen on the basis of a wikipedia rule. This is one of the reasons it is a bad choice: wikipedia looks amateurish if it uses a name that hardly anyone else in the field uses. We should follow the same practice as reliable sources, and that practice is "Mary, Queen of Scots". DrKiernan (talk) 17:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- It is not the normal usage in encyclopaedias. Deb (talk) 18:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- I consider those remarks to be deeply patronising to the readership. Correctness and accuracy are not élitist. However, not wishing to get into a flame war, I shall say no more on the subject! Happy editing to all :-) – Kieran T (talk) 17:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Common use and common names are NEVER irrelevant. I thought that Wikipedia was meant to be used by average readers (who will use common names). Kieran made it clear that I was mistaken: "Wikipedia does not need to be populist. We don't need to attract readers to an article. They will come if they are interested." Welcome to the elitist wiki. Here we blindly obey the rules and disregard common names. Welcome to Napoleon I of France and Victoria of the United Kingdom. English names? Ohh you poor ignorant fool. This the technical language wiki. Flamarande (talk) 16:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
It's been a week now & I don't see a consensus to change the title. Shall we close? GoodDay (talk) 17:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- On the contrary, there is consensus to move. Not only is there a majority to do so, but the reliable sources overwhelmingly support a move. You've provided virtually no sources, if any, in support of the current title and your arguments are weak. DrKiernan (talk) 17:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with DrKiernan. There are no sources provided which show Mary as Mary I of Scotland-except in the current article at Wikipedia. I think we have consensus to move it to Mary,Queen of Scots.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- 10 - 5 in favour of a move, isn't overly convincing (and such a move would violate the current naming conventions). I reckon it's up to the closing administrator, to decide the results. GoodDay (talk) 17:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- You keep claiming that "such a move would violate the current naming conventions", but this is what the policy section on "sovereigns" actually says: "If a monarch or prince is overwhelmingly known, in English, by a cognomen, it may be used, and there is then no need to disambiguate by adding Country. Examples: Alfred the Great, Charlemagne, Louis the Pious, Henry the Lion, Skanderbeg, etc...". But there must be consensus so strong that it would be surprising to omit the epithet; and the name must actually be unambiguous." It is obvious to a clear majority of those commenting here that these conditions are met. Arguments based on "the conventions" which do not produce any evidence are essentially circular, and fail when it is clear that the nomination is in fact in agreement with the conventions. Johnbod (talk) 17:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- It's 11-5 in favor of a move, and the arguments should also be taken into account when judging consensus. Anyway, the move isn't even against the conventions: you keep forgetting that they are only guidelines which allow exceptions, particularly where there is an overwhelmingly used commonname. DrKiernan (talk) 17:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- 10 - 5 in favour of a move, isn't overly convincing (and such a move would violate the current naming conventions). I reckon it's up to the closing administrator, to decide the results. GoodDay (talk) 17:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with DrKiernan. There are no sources provided which show Mary as Mary I of Scotland-except in the current article at Wikipedia. I think we have consensus to move it to Mary,Queen of Scots.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Please all remember that this is not a vote — Wikipedia doesn't work that way, and 10 people to 5 doesn't equate to 10 good ideas to 5. Consensus is based on ideas, not numbers. We don't seem to have agreed about the importance of one "policy" over one "guideline" (and remember the overarching "rule" of WP:IGNORE!). 81.178.67.229 (talk) 22:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Support move per above arguments that it is the most common way to reference this person. Propaniac (talk) 16:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
It's been 8 days since the move was proposed, an administrator needs to decide whether or not there's consnsus to move the article and close this discuusion.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Requested moves is often backlogged; there's actually another request that has been open since January 22. We should just be patient. Ucucha 19:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Moving the article is gonna be a mistake. It'll be out of line with the other Scottish monarchs. GoodDay (talk) 19:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I for one would support moving Robert the Bruce to keep her company, if that's any help! Johnbod (talk) 19:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Support per WP:common name Weaponbb7 (talk) 16:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- Support I agree with the others, it's by far the more common name. I think this should be done for more monarch titles too, e.g. Richard I, William I, William II etc. Convention is all very well, but why make things difficult? Aiken ♫ 23:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
- It's been 2-weeks people. Time for an adminstrator to review & close this. GoodDay (talk) 15:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
- Hear hear.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
- It's been 2-weeks people. Time for an adminstrator to review & close this. GoodDay (talk) 15:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
- Records of her time call her "Mary Queen of Scots" or similar..."; but since then the Mary of William and Mary became Queen Mary II of England and of Scotland; same as Queen Elizabeth of England became Queen Elizabeth I when Queen Elizabeth II came to the throne. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
- That's true for any King or Queen of Scotland. Their official title is "James, King of Scots" or "Robert, King of Scots", or whatever. So it's not surprising that records of her time call her that. When Charles II was crowned in Scotland, he too, became Charles, King of Scots. But the argument here is not about the Queen's title,: everyone agrees what that was; it's about the article title: should it be the same as the Queen's title or should it be in the same form as the title of the other Royalty articles on Wikipedia. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
- She is still called "Mary, Queen of Scots", as clearly shown by the sources given. The later Marys have had very little impact on what this Mary is called. The same disambiguation that was used to distinguish her from Queen Mary of England is used today. DrKiernan (talk) 16:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
- Support move it is what she's always called, and it is her proper Scottish title to boot.--Scott Mac (Doc) 12:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- Support move per WP:COMMONNAME, etc. Wknight94 talk 12:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- Support move. Mary, Queen of Scots already redirects here so it appears to be the primary topic. As it is also the common name, I see no reason why it shouldn't be moved. Quantpole (talk) 12:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- Can't see the logic there. When there's a redirect in place, it implies nothing about what the primary topic is, merely that somebody thought a redirect was a good idea. 81.178.67.229 (talk) 14:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- It's fairly obvious that there is overwhelming consensus to move the article, so could an administer please close the discussion before this section becomes longer than the talk page itself?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- What's fairly obvious is that there are some very strong opinions; and (not said sarcastically) some people very attached to seeing this move done, and a.s.a.p. However, I still feel the point that needs to be resolved is about policies and guidelines. Some have said the common-use concept is more "standard" and "consistent" but I believe the more-specific royalty naming guideline is more relevant, and that's why it exists in the first place: for this kind of case. If we suddenly have out-of-sequence names for monarchs, it makes it slightly harder and less usable for people who don't know the nicknames (foreigners, perhaps) to follow the flow of history. Why would we injure our usability in that way? 81.178.67.229 (talk) 14:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Infobox image
The Clouet portrait of Mary was more flattering as well as contemporary; whereas this portrait was done after her death. I think we should revert back to the youthful Clouet portrait.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I prefer it. DrKiernan (talk)
- I reverted back to the Clouet's portrait.--Kaho Mitsuki (talk) 14:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Introduction looks fine
Surtsicna, your explanation in the lead looks fine; I agree we need to acknowledge that she was, in the list of Scottish monarchs, Mary I of Scotland, despite being better known by the article's new title.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
No probs with me. GoodDay (talk) 17:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'm glad we agree. I would also propose referring to her as [[Mary, Queen of Scots|Mary I]]:
- whenever it is obvious that we are talking about a Scottish ruler (e.g. "James V was succeeded by his daughter, Mary I"),
- in succession boxes (e.g. listing James VI's predecessor as "Mary I" rather than as "Mary, Queen of Scots" because it is obvious that the female predecessor of a King of Scots was Queen of Scots),
- of course, in Template:Scottish monarchs and List of Scottish monarchs,
- and whenever she is mentioned along with another Queen of Scots named Mary (in such circumstances [[Mary, Queen of Scots|Mary I, Queen of Scots]] would also be fine).
- That way we would avoid undesirable redundancy and ambiguity. Surtsicna (talk) 17:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't work because she is too often mentioned in the same article as Mary I of England. Readers will assume that "Mary I" is Bloody Mary rather than Mary, Queen of Scots, or they will assume they are the same person, as in Mary II. Her mother can be disambiguated from her by using "Mary of Guise". DrKiernan (talk) 18:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- I never said that she should always be referred to as "Mary I". Obviously, when mentioned in the same article as Mary I of England, she should be mentioned as "Mary, Queen of Scots". However, when mentioned as predecessor of James VI or as successor of James V, there is no need to refer to her as "Mary, Queen of Scots" because it is obvious that their female predecessor/successor was Queen of Scots. Her mother can be disambiguated from her by using "Mary of Guise" but Mary I can't be disambiguated from her mother (and great-great-grandmother and great-great-granddaughter) by using "Mary, Queen of Scots". I.e. all those women were also named Mary and titled Queen of Scots. I don't see how including the ordinal (such as [[Mary, Queen of Scots|Mary I, Queen of Scots]]) can hurt. Surtsicna (talk) 22:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- "Mary II, Queen of Scots", should never be used.[4] She is Mary II. Mary of Guelders can be called just that to disambiguate from the other Scottish Queen Marys. You are trying to force the use of a term which is hardly ever used in reliable sources. She should be referred to as "Mary, Queen of Scots" whenever possible because that is the vastly predominant usage. DrKiernan (talk) 09:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
- I never said that she should always be referred to as "Mary I". Obviously, when mentioned in the same article as Mary I of England, she should be mentioned as "Mary, Queen of Scots". However, when mentioned as predecessor of James VI or as successor of James V, there is no need to refer to her as "Mary, Queen of Scots" because it is obvious that their female predecessor/successor was Queen of Scots. Her mother can be disambiguated from her by using "Mary of Guise" but Mary I can't be disambiguated from her mother (and great-great-grandmother and great-great-granddaughter) by using "Mary, Queen of Scots". I.e. all those women were also named Mary and titled Queen of Scots. I don't see how including the ordinal (such as [[Mary, Queen of Scots|Mary I, Queen of Scots]]) can hurt. Surtsicna (talk) 22:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- Who mentioned Mary II, Queen of Scots? How can you say that I am trying to force anything when I am just discussing? Discussing can hardly be considered forcing. Anyway, do you believe that we should refer to her as "Mary, Queen of Scots" even in Template:Scottish monarchs and List of Scottish monarchs? Surtsicna (talk) 11:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
- I completely support Surtsicna in this view. Mary I of Scotland is very frequently referred to by this title. Just because some people find it hard to tell the difference between Mary Tudor and Mary Stuart without using the "common name", that is no reason to dumb down the whole article. Deb (talk) 11:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
- Just to be clear: I support referring her as "Mary, Queen of Scots" in circumstances other than those I mentioned above. However, I believe that mentioning the predecessor of James VI as "Mary, Queen of Scots" in the succession box of James I of England article is a bit pointless. It is obvious that the female predecessor of a King of Scots was Queen of Scots. Surtsicna (talk) 11:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
- Is it clear that James I's predecessor was Mary I? No, because his predecessor was not Mary I. It was Elizabeth I. Who was Elizabeth I's predecessor? Ah, I see it was Mary I. This is how confusion arises. Clearly, in general it is unnecessary to disambiguate successors/predecessors by country, because they are only succeeding in one country. However, in the unique case of James I it is best to use different terminology. DrKiernan (talk) 11:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I don't think I was clear enough. I am talking about this situation and similar situations (such as James V of Scotland succession box):
I believe it should be either (preferably):
or:
James VI's predecessor was Mary I; James I's predecessor was Elizabeth I. He is mentioned as both James I and James VI in the succession box and it is clear that the Mary I who preceded him as King of Scots was Queen of Scots (and that consequently, she was Mary, Queen of Scots). Some people might not be aware that Mary, Queen of Scots, is recognized as Mary the First but Wikipedia is supposed to inform them, not to ignore or avoid every fact that is not part of common knowledge. Mousing over [[Mary, Queen of Scots|Mary I]] will reveal that we are referring to Mary, Queen of Scots, and so will clicking on [[Mary, Queen of Scots|Mary I]]. Surtsicna (talk) 14:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think either of your alternatives helps readers. "Mary I" is ambiguous. "Elizabeth I" is not. I don't think hiding information behind piped links is helpful either. DrKiernan (talk) 15:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with DrKiernan. Mary I in the succession box is confusing to readers. A mention of Mary I of Scotland in the introduction in the lead is sufficient, but the rest of the article needs to stick with Mary, Queen of Scots for consistancy's sake.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
- Have it appear as Mary I in the successions boxes. GoodDay (talk) 16:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
- It's too confusing, GoodDay. People are bound to think Mary I means Mary Tudor. Remember just because you and I are familiar with 16th century Scottish and English history doesn't mean others are.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
- But this will be in the Scottish monarchs succession box. GoodDay (talk) 16:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
- We still need to be consistant with her name and title.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
- Nay; nobody seems to be confusing Henry VII, Holy Roman Emperor with Henry VII of England, in the succession boxes at Holy Roman Emperors Frederick II & Louis IV articles. GoodDay (talk) 16:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
- But Henry VII of England had nothing to do with the Holy Roman Empire, whereas Mary Stuart was a queen regnant of Scotland with a strong claimant to the English throne and her son succeeded Elizabeth who in turn had succeeded Mary I of England. This is where confusion could arise. Mary, Queen of Scots eliminates the possibility.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
- Nay; nobody seems to be confusing Henry VII, Holy Roman Emperor with Henry VII of England, in the succession boxes at Holy Roman Emperors Frederick II & Louis IV articles. GoodDay (talk) 16:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
- We still need to be consistant with her name and title.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
- But this will be in the Scottish monarchs succession box. GoodDay (talk) 16:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
- It's just nonsense to suggest that no one knows what Mary I means, in the context of Scotland. I'm shocked that anyone would suggest that this is true. I can see a reason for trying to correct ignorance by pointing in the right direction, but absolutely no reason to pander to it. Deb (talk) 18:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
- I know what it means, GoodDay knows what it means, you know what it means, but not every reader would; therefore we do have to pander to those readers who are not as blessed as we are.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
- But wouldn't it be obvious that the Mary I who predeceased James VI as King of Scots was Queen of Scots? Therefore, wouldn't it be obvious that she was Mary, Queen of Scots? It's like saying that, in the King of England-succession box, we should refer to the successor of Charles II as "James, King of England" instead of "James II" because somebody may confuse him with James II of Scotland, for both were James II and Kings of Scots. Surtsicna (talk) 20:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
- I know what it means, GoodDay knows what it means, you know what it means, but not every reader would; therefore we do have to pander to those readers who are not as blessed as we are.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
- It's too confusing, GoodDay. People are bound to think Mary I means Mary Tudor. Remember just because you and I are familiar with 16th century Scottish and English history doesn't mean others are.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
- Have it appear as Mary I in the successions boxes. GoodDay (talk) 16:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with DrKiernan. Mary I in the succession box is confusing to readers. A mention of Mary I of Scotland in the introduction in the lead is sufficient, but the rest of the article needs to stick with Mary, Queen of Scots for consistancy's sake.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
So, what have we concluded? Surtsicna (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- I think we can conclude two things (1) that the Template and List you mention above in point 3 already show "Mary I" and that does not appear to be contested; and (2) that in most cases she should be called "Mary, Queen of Scots", in preference to other forms. The other points are inconclusive. Perhaps the best way forward on these is to settle them on an individual case-by-case basis on the talk pages of the articles concerned. So, if a change to the form used in James VI is contested, then the discussion of which form is to be used in the article should be settled at that article's talk page. DrKiernan (talk) 09:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Queen regnant
Would anybody mind if we have Queen regnant in the introduction? We don't want anybody thinking she 'might be' a Queen-consort (which she was in France). GoodDay (talk) 16:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- I wouldn't mind as it's an undisputed fact. Go ahead and add it.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- I thought that "Mary, Queen of Scots, was Scottish monarch [...]" was a better sentence than "Mary, Queen of Scots, was Queen regnant of Scots [...]". A queen regnant is a monarch while a queen consort isn't. Thus, if we say that she was a Scottish monarch, nobody should think that she was a Scottish queen consort. On the other hand, we do not repeat the title "queen of Scots" as we do in the sentence: "Mary, Queen of Scots, was Queen regnant of Scots [...]" But I am not a native speaker so your opinion outranks mine. Surtsicna (talk) 16:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- I was going by Margaret II of Denmark & Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom for examples. Perhaps, 'Queen regnant' is only used for current female monarchs, not sure. GoodDay (talk) 16:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- Every female ruler of a kingdom is queen regnant. However, the article about (for example) Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom doesn't start with "Elizabeth II, Queen of the United Kingdom, is Queen regnant of the United Kingdom". But don't mind me if you disagree regarding this "problem". Surtsicna (talk) 17:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- My latest edit, Scottish Queen regnant seems to have solved things. GoodDay (talk) 17:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- It looks fine, GoodDay.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- My latest edit, Scottish Queen regnant seems to have solved things. GoodDay (talk) 17:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- Every female ruler of a kingdom is queen regnant. However, the article about (for example) Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom doesn't start with "Elizabeth II, Queen of the United Kingdom, is Queen regnant of the United Kingdom". But don't mind me if you disagree regarding this "problem". Surtsicna (talk) 17:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- I was going by Margaret II of Denmark & Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom for examples. Perhaps, 'Queen regnant' is only used for current female monarchs, not sure. GoodDay (talk) 16:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- I thought that "Mary, Queen of Scots, was Scottish monarch [...]" was a better sentence than "Mary, Queen of Scots, was Queen regnant of Scots [...]". A queen regnant is a monarch while a queen consort isn't. Thus, if we say that she was a Scottish monarch, nobody should think that she was a Scottish queen consort. On the other hand, we do not repeat the title "queen of Scots" as we do in the sentence: "Mary, Queen of Scots, was Queen regnant of Scots [...]" But I am not a native speaker so your opinion outranks mine. Surtsicna (talk) 16:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Move
Ah well, it's happened. I guessed it would happen one day. I wonder what will happen in a few months time when the debate re-starts? Deb (talk) 10:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- It'll get moved back, so as to be consistant with the others. GoodDay (talk) 16:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Featured article
Dear all,
This is obviously an important article for the many Wikiprojects it is part of, and Mary is undoubtedly one of Britain's most infamous monarchs. It is a well-developed article, and I was thinking it might be good to get it to featured quality so it can appear on the main page. I have the Antonia Fraser book listed in the references so I can help, probably in earnest in about a week's time when my work load dies down. Would anyone with experience in doing such things like to help out? Aiken ♫ 18:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- Infamous ? Not at all. I think that most people have sympathy for her. -- Derek Ross | Talk 20:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Do we really need a list of men who were in her Privy Council?
Do we really need a list of men who were in her Privy Council? I have never seen one in any other article. Not even featured articles, such as those about her son or cousin Elizabeth, contain the list, nor do they link to such a list. I propose removing it. Surtsicna (talk) 19:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
The list of privy councillors would be a good illustration to a section discussing Mary's brief personal reign, its achievements and failures. Mary returned to Scotland unexpectedly, to govern a country that had recently changed religion after open rebellion against her mother's rule, lead in part by her own half-brother. A list of her supporters in an administration that was challenged on her marriage to Darnley, and overthrown on her marriage to Bothwell ought to be useful. Perhaps we should await the supply of a more detailed political analysis of the personal reign, and its instability, perhaps from Jenny Wormald (1987), to give the list the required context. Unoquha (talk) 10:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- I personally find it useful.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- If all of those men are notable enough to be mentioned in the article, then we should be able to explain why/how they were notable. We should be able to make a sentence which mentions both Mary and her privy councillor and which explains to the reader why the privy councillor is mentioned. This way the reader is simply left wondering what a James MacGill of Nether Rankeillour has to do with Mary.
- Anyway, I don't see a list of privy councillors in any featured article; while there is no perfect article, a featured article would certainly include the list if such lists were needed. Surtsicna (talk) 17:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- The article now gives an explanation. I think the list should be kept.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I've put a bit in about MacGill of Nether Rankeillour actually handing over the the casket and letters. Similarly, it's interesting that his colleague was no less than George Buchanan. I think the slight associated changes make this section easier to follow - to reiterate the letters (forged or not) are about her relationship with Bothwell and Darnley's murder. Unoquha (talk) 12:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Introduction
Hello all,
I have a concern with part of the introductory sentence, '...was Scottish queen regnant from 14 December ...' Although I know regnant means, and you all probably know what it means, I feel that there is a pretty strong chance that the average user will not, especially when 'regnant' is a link to a list of Scottish monarchs, and even Wikipedia page for 'regnant automatically redirects to monarch, in which regnant is buried over half the way down the page. As I am American, I don't know if it is a word in common usage in the UK or or English-speaking locales, it is not common here. Any thoughts/suggestions? Colemic (talk) 01:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Especially here, the use of "Queen Regnant" ought to be avoided - as it is not even correct. First Scotland was ruled by Regent Arran, "Regent Regnant", then by her mother, "Regent Regnant", until her death in 1560. It is maybe a useful idea after Mary's abdication, when she was still called the Scottish Queen, but not Queen Regnant. I suppose the term may have some currency and application in apposition Queen Regnant/Queen Consort. Unoquha (talk) 14:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- A regent is not the same thing as "queen regnant". Mary was queen regnant from craddle until her abdication. The term "Regent Regnant" was never used. See the articles regent and queen regnant It's not incorrect to call Mary a queen regnant. It's simply repetitive, as she is already called "Mary, Queen of Scots". Surtsicna (talk) 14:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Ancestor of Marie Antoinette
I was studying Marie Antoinette's family tree and I noticed that she is a direct descendant of Mary.
Mary, Queen of Scots m. Henry, Lord, Darnley > James VI of Scotland/James I of England m. Anne of Denmark > Elizabeth m. Frederick V, Elector Palatine > Charles I Louis, Elector m. Charlotte of Hesse-Kassel > Elizabeth Charlotte of the Palatinate (Liselotte) m. Philippe de France, Duke of Orléans (Louis XIV's brother) > Elisabeth Charlotte d'Orléans m. Leopold, Duke of Lorraine > Francis I, Holy Roman Emperor m. Maria Theresa of Austria > Marie Antoinette.
Should this be noted? They were both Queen of France and were both beheaded, albeit for different reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.123.255.28 (talk) 22:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- That's interesting but also trivial, for one could argue that she had more in common with her closer descendant, Charles I of Scotland. Both were beheaded Scottish monarchs of the House of Stuart. Surtsicna (talk) 22:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Well Louis XVI, Marie Antoinette's husband, was also a direct descendant of Mary and Charles I and he also shared their fate. I just think it is interesting that the two French monarchs who were beheaded are descendants of the Scottish/English monarchs who were beheaded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.123.255.28 (talk) 22:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
All I am saying is that all four monarchs were related and all four shared the same fate, which is rather interesting.
Mary, Queen of Scots I James I (VI), King of England and Scotland I Charles I, King of England I Henrietta Anne of England, Duchess of Orleans I Anne Marie of Orleans, Duchess of Savoy I Marie Adélaide of Savoy, Duchess of Burgundy then Dauphine of France I Louis XV, King of France I Louis Ferdinand, Dauphin of France I Louis XVI
- Mary, Queen of Scots was also the ancestor of Tsar Nicholas II of Russia and his consort, Alexandra of Hesse; they were executed along with their children, who by extension were obviously descendants of Mary. Just to specify Marie Antoinette would look imcomplete and, as Surtsicna points out, rather trivial. We'd have to mention far too many people as we could then go on to include all her descendants who had been forced to abdicate and the article would become unwieldy.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I did not mean abdicated monarchs or even monarchs who were executed or assassinated, I mean the fact that they all four were beheaded. It is also interesting how Mary and Antoinette were the only two Queens of France to be beheaded, and the fact that Antoinette was one of her direct descendants is very interesting indeed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.124.62.194 (talk) 06:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- Interesting, but not remarkable, seeing as European royalty is very intermarried, thereby giving Mary Stuart numerous direct descendants amongst nearly all of Europe's royal families. I can also use the example of the two wives of Henry VIII who were both beheaded for High Treason and adultery: Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard; these two unfortunate ladies happened to be first cousins. In fact, all of his wives had King Edward I of England as a common ancestor.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Darnley's murder
I have a booklet "Mary Queen of Scots" published by "Pitkin Pictorials" 1973, with beautiful colour reproductions of paintings and contemporary drawings.
Quote, p.21: The house, at Kirk o'Field in Edinburgh, in which he was resident on the night of 9-10 February 1567, was totally destroyed by an explosion at 2am, but Darnley's body was found in a garden on the other side of the town wall, strangled!
There is reproduced in the booklet a contemporary sketch with combines scenes of the events. Caption: ...the explosion... left the house in a heap of rubble. The bodies of Darnley and his servant were found under a tree just outside the city walls; they had been strangled while excaping from the house before the gunpowder exploded. A group of guards and bystanders watch Darnley's body borne to the new provost's lodgings... The drawing shows the rubble remains of the house, and shows two bodies in a garden outside the wall, semi-naked, with the clothes and what looks like a dagger nearby. The drawing must have been reproduced in publications other than the one I found.
In the section "Marriage to Lord Darnley":
(a) It says Darnley was found dead in the garden - without saying which garden, implying that it was the garden of the destroyed house, when his body was actually found outside the city wall.
(b) I wonder on what grounds it was claimed by researcher Alison Weir that Darnley died of post-explosion suffocation - bearing in mind what is shown in the contemporary drawing, the apparent distance of the location of the bodies and the coincidence that Darnley and his servant were depicted together. No citation is given for this claim.
(c) Perhaps the date of the explosion could be included rather than "one night in February 1567".
There is also a little too much detail about Darnley's murder in the lead, and a more satisfactory explanation of the circumstances in the article Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley.
P0mbal (talk) 11:32, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- You're putting a lot of faith in this "contemporary" sketch. It is likely that someone was actually present at the time, drawing Darnley as he lay dying? Deb (talk) 12:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for comments, Deb: Re comment 1. No, just focussing on it. Re Comment 2. Somewhat facetious, obviously no one present at the time drawing, hardly need say to you it was surely drawn from an account of what was found in the garden and reports of the other events, done pictorially for the benefit of those who could not read. P0mbal (talk) 13:26, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Out of curiosity, is it dated? I am not trying to pour cold water on your arguments, just wondering why the drawing should carry any weight. Deb (talk) 19:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Would it be possible to scan the drawing onto your PC then upload it here, that way we can all see it and evaluate its importance?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- These drawings were made at the time to be sent by Thomas Randolph to the English government, and are retained by the UK Public Record Office. In addition to Kirk o'Field there is a coloured sketch of the Confederate Lord's banner at the Battle of Carberry Hill (in exact agreement with a contemporary description), and the ink drawing of the Mermaid & Hare device which Lady Antonia used as a chapter heading. Not exactly pro-Mary, but not anti-Marian either, and certainly contemporary documents.Unoquha (talk) 12:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC) And here is the drawing of the Battle of Carberry Hill itself,Unoquha (talk) 12:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, I think I see your reasoning, but of course there would be many eye-witnesses to a battle, whose experiences could be drawn on. Darnley's death would seem to be another matter. Deb (talk) 16:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- Would it be possible to scan the drawing onto your PC then upload it here, that way we can all see it and evaluate its importance?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- Out of curiosity, is it dated? I am not trying to pour cold water on your arguments, just wondering why the drawing should carry any weight. Deb (talk) 19:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Here is the drawing. It is in the article Kirk o'Field
P0mbal (talk) 11:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- Many thanks for image, P0mbal, I put it on Darnley's page too. Imagine, there is a Kirk'o'field article! As the infant James VI recites the same motto as the Carberry drawing, I guess it dates nearer that battle than the murder, but I've not seen a serious critique of these drawings.Unoquha (talk) 20:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
I think it's interesting and would be suitable to add to the article under the section Marriage to Lord Darnley.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- There are already two images in the section. I have a suggestion. Why not create a subsection entitled Kirk o'Field? That way we could include the drawing.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- Don't know about that - it's already a very long article and that's possibly why Kirk o' Field was given its own separate article in the first place. Deb (talk) 18:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- I have already broken the section up. What do you think?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- Don't know about that - it's already a very long article and that's possibly why Kirk o' Field was given its own separate article in the first place. Deb (talk) 18:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Royal Monogram.
We have a user on the Commons who has been able to vectorize a great many royal monograms of Monarchs and members of the Royal families of several countries. They have been added to the personal page of all those whose monograms we have in SVG, as a common format. DrKiernan keeps removing it, but unless he can give a good reason why it shouldn't be on the page of the person it represents, then I ask he stop removing it. Fry1989 (talk) 22:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- There are three problems with it:
- It's unsourced original research. Please provide a reference showing that Mary used the English colors rather than Scottish ones.
- It's unnecessary. There is already a depiction of the monogram. It is unwise to load articles with images that duplicate information, both on the basis of aesthetics (clutters the page) and scholastics (adds no further information) but also on the basis of accessibility (not everyone lives in a first world country with a fast download time and a speedy computer - the more images an article has the more difficult it is for people using shaky connections or old computers to download the page).
- It's trivial. Articles should not be a collection of miscellaneous information; images should be integrated with the text. The monogram isn't explained or detailed anywhere, and why should it? No other biography of Mary mentions it, except in the context of her embroidery or coinage. So, it would be better to show a real example as used or made by Mary.
- Secondarily, there's a behavioral problem. You've done this before on other articles, where you edit war to include your artwork. Per WP:BRD and WP:Consensus, if someone reverts your edit, you should not revert the revert. You should go to discussion or seek a compromise. DrKiernan (talk) 07:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- I do agree with Dr Kiernan that it is not appropriate to upload the monogram into an already crowded article. Why not create a separate article where all the monograms for British monarchs can appear in one place? Deb (talk) 12:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- The colours arguement is the most trivial argument I've ever seen. I see no reason why the monogram shouldn't be on the page of the person it represents. Also, unsourced? It matches the coin, that DrKiernan keeps replacing it with, exactly, despite his claimed "original" in his first revert. A Monogram, just like a Coat of Arms or a Royal Standard, is a personal thing, unique to a single person. That is why it should be here. Lastly, my "behavour" is completely irrelevant to whether or not a certain picture or file should be on an article or not, and I don't appreciate you trying to blend them. Also note, this ISN'T my artwork, it was created by another user. Fry1989 (talk) 18:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, you are right. The page is heavily illustrated. But surely there is somewhere we can put it? Fry1989 (talk) 21:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- I did make a suggestion above. Deb (talk) 12:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with Deb's suggestion. A separate article on British monarchs' monograms sounds like an excellent idea.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- I did make a suggestion above. Deb (talk) 12:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, you are right. The page is heavily illustrated. But surely there is somewhere we can put it? Fry1989 (talk) 21:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- I have no problem with a seperate page, but I think it's silly not to have a person's monogram ontheir page. What are you gonna do? Have a seealso tag on every monarch's page leading to this master page just to see their monogram? That's rediculous. Fry1989 (talk) 21:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- There are some images on the page, apart from the subject of this discussion, which seem odd, and to me odder than the subject. A C19th illustration of Mary arriving in a row-boat at (I think) a deep-water haven, and a C19th video of her execution, and more relevant to this theme; her heraldry with supporters from 1559-1560 which has no source. Throwing any of these, or others, overboard might save bandwidth.Unoquha (talk) 23:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- ^^^Only because that coin was placed there by someone who appears to have a personal vendetta against vector monograms. As per this talk: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:George_VI_of_the_United_Kingdom#Inclusion_of_Monogram, he even admits to a JPEG being correct, but is still against the vector OF that Jpeg. Fry1989 (talk) 18:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
- My point is, the contradictions in his arguments invalidates them, and he should be ignored. Now, if you, and others feel that the coin is more appropriate, that's fine with me. You haven't contradicted yourself more times then I can count regarding this matter. Fry1989 (talk) 20:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, you have. By saying that a SVG monogram is wrong, then later admiting that an identical JPEG of it is right, that is a contradiction. And there are many others. Fry1989 (talk) 22:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- OK, since you clearly have problems paying attention to detail, let me make something clear to you. A: I didn't make the monogram, so stop saying it's mine. B: The monograms are identical, and if your issue is really the colour, that can easily be changed, and isn't reason to remove the vector all together. C: once again, you've admitted the coin is correct, which contradicts your second source of the embroidery book cover. It's one or the other, not both. Fry1989 (talk) 18:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- On B, they are not identical; one is color and the other is not. As I've already pointed out above, there are 2 other issues in addition to the problem of the color. DrKiernan (talk) 19:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Can ytou read? i said they're indetical except in colour, I've said that many times. But you continue to ignore that vector colours can be easily changed. And incase you're wwondering why I haven't changed it's colour to please you, it's because: if you're to lazy to politely ask they be changed, instead of this long song and dance, then I'm too lazy to fix it. Fry1989 (talk) 19:38, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- ^ Antonia Fraser "Mary, Queen of Scots",pages 88-90