Notifying WikiProject of move discussion on Talk:Edward I of England |
AndrewPeterT (talk | contribs) →RfC of interest: new section Tag: New topic |
||
Line 661: | Line 661: | ||
[[File:Information.svg|30px|left]]A [[Wikipedia:Requested moves|requested move]] discussion has been initiated for [[Edward I of England]] to be moved to [[Edward I]]. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion [[Talk:Edward I of England#Requested move 5 November 2023|here]].<!-- Talk:Edward I of England#Requested move 5 November 2023 crosspost --> —[[User:RMCD bot|RMCD bot]] 17:46, 5 November 2023 (UTC) |
[[File:Information.svg|30px|left]]A [[Wikipedia:Requested moves|requested move]] discussion has been initiated for [[Edward I of England]] to be moved to [[Edward I]]. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion [[Talk:Edward I of England#Requested move 5 November 2023|here]].<!-- Talk:Edward I of England#Requested move 5 November 2023 crosspost --> —[[User:RMCD bot|RMCD bot]] 17:46, 5 November 2023 (UTC) |
||
:<small>To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{tlp|bots|2=deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up [[Wikipedia:Article alerts|Article alerts]] for this WikiProject.</small> |
:<small>To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{tlp|bots|2=deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up [[Wikipedia:Article alerts|Article alerts]] for this WikiProject.</small> |
||
== RfC of interest == |
|||
<small>(non-automated message)</small> Greetings to all members of WP:EROY! I have opened an RfC on [[WT:ROYALTY]] that may be of interest to users of this WikiProject! You are encouraged to contribute to this discussion [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility#RfC: How should articles on sovereigns of current European monarchies be (re)titled?|here]]! '''''[[User:AndrewPeterT|Hurricane]] [[User talk:AndrewPeterT|Andrew]] ([[Special:Contributions/AndrewPeterT|444]])''''' 22:29, 23 November 2023 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:29, 23 November 2023
English Royalty NA‑class | |||||||
|
Infoboxes
Right. Quite a few of the articles within this project's scope already have Template:Infobox British Royalty — I would suggest that that infobox is used for all of this project as well. What do we all think? (Well, Cameron, what do you think? :P) DBD 23:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
- I think it's a great idea. I might just take the liberty of adding it to the to do list. ;) --Cameron* 11:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
English/British
A while back I suggested a need for separate categories to replace Category:English and British princes etc. but I never did anything about it, as I wasn't sure whether Category:English princes would be correct. Can someone suggest an alternative category for these articles? Category:English royalty, perhaps? Opera hat (talk) 17:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- I too have worried about English and British being the same category. Scottish monarchs/princes etc were just as much predecessors to British monarchs/princes as the English. We certainly should establish an English royalty category sometime. English princes could be a subcategory? --Cameron* 19:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- I'd say yes: Category:Princes in the British Isles as the main cat, with Category:Princes of England, Category:Princes of Scotland, and Category:Princes of Great Britain, Category:Princes of the United Kingdom, with Princesses likewise and each category a child of the respective Category:Royalty of X. How does that sound? DBD 19:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- Alertnatively, Category:British princes (with Princes of GB & UK), with Category:English princes and Category:Scottish princes as children, with Princesses likewise and each category a child of the respective Category:Xish royalty. So, that question again: "of" or "ish"? DBD 19:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- I think I prefer the former. Consensus on other pages seems to indicate that the "of X" version is the future! Great idea though. This way the categories have their own subcat. but remain part of one big category! I love it! ;) --Cameron* 19:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- I am in the process of performing the huge move. DBD 20:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- I think I prefer the former. Consensus on other pages seems to indicate that the "of X" version is the future! Great idea though. This way the categories have their own subcat. but remain part of one big category! I love it! ;) --Cameron* 19:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- I too have worried about English and British being the same category. Scottish monarchs/princes etc were just as much predecessors to British monarchs/princes as the English. We certainly should establish an English royalty category sometime. English princes could be a subcategory? --Cameron* 19:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- The issue is, though: were members of the English and Scottish royal families ever actually called "Prince/ss So-and-So"? These sort of titles weren't really regulated until the accession of the House of Hanover. Queens Mary I and Elizabeth I were called "the Lady Mary", "the Lady Elizabeth" before their accessions, not Princess Mary or Princess Elizabeth - though I suppose that may have been because they were legally illegitimate. Opera hat (talk) 16:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- I've just noticed the Category:Princes of Scotland. The only people in this category should be people who were Prince of Scotland - i.e. the heir-apparent, who was also Duke of Rothesay. Category:Princes of England shouldn't exist unless someone can provide evidence that the title "Prince of England" was ever used. I'm in favour of Category:Princes of Great Britain and Category:Princes of the United Kingdom, but Category:British princes needs to exist as well for people like John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough and George Cowper, 6th Earl Cowper who were British nationals and foreign princes (of the HRE in those two cases). Opera hat (talk) 17:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Titles of Prince and Princess in Kingdom of England
François Velde's Heraldica site says that the title of Prince was only used for male-line descendants of the Sovereign from the reign of Henry VII, and the title of Princess from the Restoration. This means that membership of Category:Princes of England should be dramatically reduced (and I still think Category:English princes would be a better name anyway). Thoughts anyone? Opera hat (talk) 13:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- I quite agree, atm we are badly back porting modern styles into a time where they did not exist or at best were fluid. Certainly we are not citing support for any such usages. Even on your latter point James Duke of York has daughter(s) eg Lady Henrietta well after the restoration - though prince for sons!
- Unfortunately the site doesn't clarify Scotland much - the heir was in certain documents known as Prince of Scotland but I can't see anything clarifying other children AllsoulsDay (talk) 16:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
There is no article on Eddeva / Queen Edith who appears to have been the mistress of King Harold II. Article is outside my area of knowledge so I'll leave it to the experts! Mjroots (talk) 06:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- We do, see Ealdgyth Swan-neck. It needs some work doing though, if you're interested! ;) Best, --Cameron* 11:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Outside my area of knowledge. I've also seen references that Eddeva was the wife of Edward the Confessor. Same person or someone else? Should Eddeva be a redirect or a disambig page? Mjroots (talk) 15:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Separate person. See Edith of Wessex. I'll leave the disambig. decision up to you, though personally I've only heard Eddiva used in relation to Edward the Confessor's wife. Feel free to joing the project! ;) Regards, --Cameron* 16:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Outside my area of knowledge. I've also seen references that Eddeva was the wife of Edward the Confessor. Same person or someone else? Should Eddeva be a redirect or a disambig page? Mjroots (talk) 15:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
FYI: Requested move of Edred
I've requested a move of Edred of England to Eadred of England. If you agree or disagree or want to comment in any way, please do so at Talk:Edred of England. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
P.S. In other news, please consider doing what you can to address the Good Article review concerns over Edward the Martyr. More opinions at Template talk:English Monarchs would also be good. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
RfC of interest
There is an RfC at Template talk:Infobox British Royalty#RfC: Scope and appropriateness of this template which may be of interest to the vast membership of this project. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject Scottish Royalty
I just though everybody should know that WikiProject Scottish Royalty has been proposed here on the WikiProject Council/Proposals area. This project would be a child of WikiProject British Royalty and would take a similar role as WikiProject English Royalty. The Quill (talk) 17:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
English Royalty Colour change proposal
Currently the colour for English Royalty is Pink (#FFBBBB ). However, England has no connection with Pink, I believe instead it should be this shade of Red: (#F88379). Thoughts on this change would be appreciated. The Quill (talk) 17:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, it's (as prescribed at WP:BRoy) Light Red (#FFBBBB). And I like it that way. (But then I was the one who assigned it...) DBD 18:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- Could one of these shades be more appropriate?
- Red - Rose madder (#E32636).
- Red - Torch red (#FD0E35).
- Red - Vermillion (#E34234).
- Personnaly I think that the Vermillion is quite a good shade. The Quill (talk) 19:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- The Light Red already used is intended as a pastel shade so black text can be read over it. If you want a dark shade, that would have white text over, it would have to be the correct pantone from the Union Flag's specification (#CC0000) DBD 20:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- Personnaly I think that the Vermillion is quite a good shade. The Quill (talk) 19:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- That you see is the issue do we want white text. If you don't mind then its good. The Quill (talk) 10:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
English Royalty Image change proposal
Currently the Image for English Royalty is the Crown of Saint Edward. I believe instead it should be the Royal coat of arms of England. Thoughts on this change would be appreciated. Mr Taz (talk) 15:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Done Mr Taz (talk) 20:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Catherine of Aragon
Simply said, the article about Catherine of Aragon is an embarrassment for Wikipedia! It was informative and worth reading a year ago - until various users started transforming it into a formless, ugly, romantic and novel-like "article". I've been trying to clean it up for months, but it's impossible. All the uninformative, irrelevant and romantic-unencyclopaedic trash is back again in few days :(
I am talking about useless discussions about a portrait, mentioning books in the middle of the article, romantic descriptions of Catherine and Henry's love, early 16th century quotes which praise her, and similar trash. Some examples include sentences like: Henry often came into Catherine's rooms in disguise with some of his gentlemen and danced with Catherine and her ladies, and Catherine always pretended to be surprised when Henry revealed his identity, even after he had been doing this for many years.
Please, help me improve this article and clean it up for good! Surtsicna (talk) 18:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
British Royalty styles
Also raised at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British Royalty#British Royalty styles —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stelio (talk • contribs) 10:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that there was an inconsistency in the use of Template:Infobox British Royalty styles on George I of Great Britain and George II of Great Britain, with the alternate style listed as "Sire" for the former and "Sir" for the latter. Assuming that it should be "Sire", I corrected George II, and then (being thorough) checked where else the template is used.
Now I see that there are several pages listed with "Sire" and several with "Sir". Before I charge ahead and change any more pages, I wanted to ask you experts for your opinion on which is correct (or indeed if it actually is correct for the titles to change from royal to royal).
Thanks, Stelio (talk) 21:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- I don't see the point of any of these styles infoboxes anyway. Could someone please outline the benefit of including them in wikipedia articles? Opera hat (talk) 02:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Should be a start class now for you. SGGH ping! 18:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
England at GAC!
Alerting all WikiProject English Royalty members that England is undergoing a review for WP:GA status. Things you can help with are listed here. Please help if you can... England expects that every man will do his duty.... :) --Jza84 | Talk 16:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Catherine Parr
At Catherine Parr, this edit changed a title to "Quenn Catherine, Lady Seymour (1547–1548)". Apart from the typo, I suspect the change is not correct and hope that someone will check it. Johnuniq (talk) 23:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Did Mary I of England really have a brain tumour as a child? Anyone have a ref for this or is it bogus? I am not well-versed in the monarchy...Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- A quick Google Book Search does not give any information about Mary I's alleged brain tumour. Surtsicna (talk) 21:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Requested peer review of Charles I
Some substantial progress has been made with Charles I. Whilst not yet at featured article quality, I think that it should probably be able to reach it in the not too distant future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnAbsolutelyOriginalUsername42 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Request comments at Template: English, Scottish and British monarchs
There's a log-jam there. GoodDay (talk) 22:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Elizabeth I's succession box
Until I changed it a moment ago, the succession box at the bottom of the page for Elizabeth I of England listed Edward VI as her successor in the position of "heir to the English throne". This is utterly wrong, and I don't know how the error persisted for as long as it did (years). The position of "heir to the English and Irish thrones" is listed separately. There her successor is Henry Frederick, Prince of Wales, which is right as far as I can tell. I replaced Edward the Anachronistic with Henry. There may be some arcane distinction between the two "thrones" that I don't understand which means that Henry isn't the right answer either, but I reasoned that it's better to be technically wrong than mind-bogglingly wrong. I leave it to the people here—who I hope know more about it than I do—to sort out the technicalities. A. Parrot (talk) 01:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)