![]() | Jacobite succession was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (April 21, 2020). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Jacobite succession article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 90 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
@ DrKay:, following your edit, I'd like to reinstate the hidden note. Here's my thinking: firstly, I don't think the IPs who keep replacing II with III have that in mind (and indeed just replacing II with III would still be inconsistent with the Mary Queen of Scots point of view). It's just a practical question of cutting down on unnecessary reverts. Secondly, I think that source is a rather idiosyncratic POV, and there might be a WP:DUE question in following it. It's always a bit murky claiming what is and isn't RS on a topic like Jacobite Succession but I haven't seen others making this point and certainly the cited source against Mary (Petrie) refers to her as II only. It may well be consistent with an ultra-legitimist Catholic POV but I don't think it's necessarily "Jacobite" to regard Elizabeth as a usurper. I'm just conscious of the repetitive mistake we get of thinking James II's sister should be in the counting, though. Would a wording that goes along the following work for you: "Do not delete "II" and replace with "III": The Jacobites did not recognise James II's sister as Mary II so did not figure in their reckoning." i.e. it adding III isn't necessarily excluded. DeCausa ( talk) 08:34, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
"The changes aren't needed." Brevity, I take it, is not a virtue in matters of royalty.
In the second table, the heading and every entry after the first uses the phrase "his/her predecessor" because, I guess, we must assume that the reader is too stupid to recognize that the name of the parent or other relative matches the name at the head of the previous row, and too stupid to read the heading of the column. Yet somehow that's not needed in the first table? — Tamfang ( talk) 22:58, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
I remain skeptical of the form "Henry, Cardinal of York". He was titular Duke of York, not Cardinal of York. (Most archbishops are also cardinals, but they are not "Cardinal of [diocese]"; anyway Henry was not a bishop, afaik.) He is very commonly called "Cardinal York", but this is the only place I've ever seen that of.
But, you know what? If you insist on it, you're welcome to it, along with all the redundant (albeit accurate) repetition that you love so much. You have succeeded in chasing me away from giving a shit. Unwatching now. — Tamfang ( talk) 21:22, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
![]() | Jacobite succession was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (April 21, 2020). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Jacobite succession article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 90 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
@ DrKay:, following your edit, I'd like to reinstate the hidden note. Here's my thinking: firstly, I don't think the IPs who keep replacing II with III have that in mind (and indeed just replacing II with III would still be inconsistent with the Mary Queen of Scots point of view). It's just a practical question of cutting down on unnecessary reverts. Secondly, I think that source is a rather idiosyncratic POV, and there might be a WP:DUE question in following it. It's always a bit murky claiming what is and isn't RS on a topic like Jacobite Succession but I haven't seen others making this point and certainly the cited source against Mary (Petrie) refers to her as II only. It may well be consistent with an ultra-legitimist Catholic POV but I don't think it's necessarily "Jacobite" to regard Elizabeth as a usurper. I'm just conscious of the repetitive mistake we get of thinking James II's sister should be in the counting, though. Would a wording that goes along the following work for you: "Do not delete "II" and replace with "III": The Jacobites did not recognise James II's sister as Mary II so did not figure in their reckoning." i.e. it adding III isn't necessarily excluded. DeCausa ( talk) 08:34, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
"The changes aren't needed." Brevity, I take it, is not a virtue in matters of royalty.
In the second table, the heading and every entry after the first uses the phrase "his/her predecessor" because, I guess, we must assume that the reader is too stupid to recognize that the name of the parent or other relative matches the name at the head of the previous row, and too stupid to read the heading of the column. Yet somehow that's not needed in the first table? — Tamfang ( talk) 22:58, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
I remain skeptical of the form "Henry, Cardinal of York". He was titular Duke of York, not Cardinal of York. (Most archbishops are also cardinals, but they are not "Cardinal of [diocese]"; anyway Henry was not a bishop, afaik.) He is very commonly called "Cardinal York", but this is the only place I've ever seen that of.
But, you know what? If you insist on it, you're welcome to it, along with all the redundant (albeit accurate) repetition that you love so much. You have succeeded in chasing me away from giving a shit. Unwatching now. — Tamfang ( talk) 21:22, 18 March 2023 (UTC)