This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Mary II 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: 1 |
Mary II is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 26, 2005. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This
level-5 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has previously been nominated to be moved.
Discussions:
|
The statement that the title was K & Q of E, S, F & I is correct only for England. In Scotland the title was K & Q of S, E, F & I.
Also, although these are the titles used by the Parliaments &c, the titles normally used by British monarchs themselves, in coins & documents issued by themselves, were K/Q of Great Britain from 1604 onwards, with a few exceptions, mainly Scottish issues 1649-51. 14:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
131.111.164.236 (
talk)
Which are given here? Shouldn't this be explained? john k ( talk) 13:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Is it possible for Mary II to have inherited the English claim to France? France was bound by salic law, which excluded females from succession. Or is there something I don't know about? Regards, -- Jack1755 ( talk) 22:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Including images of Mary, William and James would be much more useful than having those two templates in the "Reign section". If nobody opposes, I will remove the templates (whose purpose is trivial) and add relevant images. Surtsicna ( talk) 13:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Think I am correct in saying that Mary was Charles II's sister not niece as in the article. Anyone else agree? Smch52 ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:James I of England which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RM bot 18:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Regarding a forthcoming book focusing on Mary II, this is disallowed by Dr Kay on the grounds of it being spam. I think it would be of interest to those interested in Mary, but if it is to be disallowed, should book links here also be disallowed? When there is mention of a forthcoming film on a given topic, as is common on Wikipedia articles, should these be removed too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grorland ( talk • contribs) 19:21, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Excuse me, but I think is impossible the painting in the top of the infobox royalty template to be painted in 1662, because Mary II was an infant then!!!1 The painter died in 1680, so the portret must have been painted about 1670-1680. Am I wrong?-- Ιων ( talk) 09:58, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi, the text of a Proclamation by Mary, from 1690 the second year of William and Mary's reign, has just been added to Wikisource. She calls upon all seamen and mariners who are evading service to return to the navy, and for any officers of the law to seize and prosecute those that hide away. I'll leave it to the editors of this article to decide in what way to use or link it. It's at wikisource:A proclamation requiring all seamen and mariners to render themselves to Their Majesties service. Cheers, MartinPoulter ( talk) 10:02, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Mary II of England's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "auto":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:59, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
It is unnecessary to repeat the same year or date in one sentence after another. And events should be presented in a logical chronological order, with people's names clear. It is confusing to go from the Duke of York, to James II, back to the Duke of York again. Celia Homeford ( talk) 14:40, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:William III of England which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 15:00, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Celia Homeford you reverted my edit from yesterday with a handful of changes referring to Mary's death.
Since she died at aged 32, I have added that to the introduction as well as the cause of the death, which was previously hidden.
I furthermore created a new section heading about her death.
In terms of the removal of content, a lot of the stuff about her death seemed a bit fluffy and not very relevant. Happy to explore adding this content back in if we can tighten it up a bit, but I would like to add back the other changes I made. Let me know what you think.
Thanks, ollee ( talk) 01:36, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
The article says that Dundee was wounded at the start of the battle. But this does not accord with the page on the Battle of Killicrankie, which specifically states that "...Dundee was fatally wounded towards the end of the battle, and died shortly afterwards". Which is correct? Sbishop ( talk) 17:10, 5 April 2021 (UTC)Sbishop
In my opinion, there should be an article about the Coronation of William III and Mary II, covering their coronation in greater detail, just like that of Elizabeth I and other modern British Sovereigns. As they both were joint Sovereigns, it would be interesting to know how the Coronation was carried out, as the Crown Jewels and regalia (including the Coronation Crown) are usually reserved for a single sovereign. Were they crowned one by one with the St Edward's Crown, or an additional crown was created, all these details can be covered. Also, the Archbishop of Canterbury at the time, didn't recognise James's removal. So, I think it would be an interesting article. Peter Ormond 💬 13:30, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. DrKay ( talk) 07:20, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
Mary II of England → Mary II – Mary II already redirects here. And given that she was equally, Queen of England, Scotland and Ireland, "Mary II" would be a better and more neutral title. Peter Ormond 💬 05:15, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Having just read through this as part of the effort to check over old Featured Articles promoted before 2016, it doesn't look too bad, but it's pretty reliant on van der Kiste and Waller. There haven't been too many books specifically on Mary since this was promoted, but Jonathan Keates' William III and Mary II: Partners in Revolution (2015) seems like an obvious omission. There are also more recent academic works on William (e.g. Redefining William III and William III, The Staadtholder King) which may have useful information. There are also relevant academic articles specifically on Mary, which one might expect to see cited: here, here, and here immediately come to my attention.
The other major concern I would have is the legacy section: the immediate aftermath of her death is well-discussed, but then the only discussion of any more recent legacy is a listing of three films and a TV series in which she is featured. Is there not anything substantial to say about how she has been received in modern culture? If not, is it actually important to list some random films where she features – especially given that she seems to be a pretty decidedly secondary character in most (all?) of them. Caeciliusinhorto-public ( talk) 15:35, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Just confirming that Keates isn't really that useful for more. DrKay said that one of the areas Keates did notably differ from the current article (i.e. Anne's opinion on James Francis Edward Stuart) isn't supported by their other sources; did not check them to confirm, although Keates seems convincing enough to me on that particular topic. But for everything else, it's just too short a book, practically an extended Wikipedia page itself.
I looked a bit at the 1953 Chapman book, which did seem usable enough. I think incorporating it would involve a change in "style" of the article though which I wouldn't really be comfortable with doing - the article is currently aiming to be more of a concise high-level biography. If you want to cram it with details like how the doctors also diagnosed Erysipelas in addition to measles, or quote Mary's writing a bunch and her request to have the funeral be low-key, or other stuff, then Chapman would be handy. But as noted, it would be a fairly significant style shift. SnowFire ( talk) 22:12, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. theleekycauldron ( talk • she/her) 20:54, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Mary II of England →
Mary II –
WP:SOVEREIGN says we should avoid the "of England" dab if it is not needed, and it is fairly clear she is the primary topic for the term. I am on the fifth page of Google results before I get anything other than her.
House
Blaster (
talk · he/him)
03:07, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Only use a territorial designation (e.g. country) when disambiguation is needed) imply that titles of articles about sovereigns from a given country will not necessarily be consistent in using a territorial designation? The question here is not whether the title is consistent with Mary I of England and William III of England in its use of a territorial designation, but rather whether this title qualifies as a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Graham ( talk) 01:29, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
I think the reality is that the community does not have any consensus on how to treat titles like these.If you don't believe there was a consensus this past November, shouldn't we either review the closure per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE or open a wider discussion? Unless the closure is overturned or a new consensus is reached in a central discussion, surely it isn't appropriate to simply disregard our guidelines. Graham ( talk) 04:37, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that) and WP:SOVEREIGN (
Only use a territorial designation (e.g. country) when disambiguation is needed). The dearth of policy-based arguments, or any strong arguments, from Opposition here is equally important. I've looked at every Oppose !vote so far. Here is a summary of the oppose arguments:
"someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area". WP:CONCISE further affirms that good titles require
"sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the general subject area". (Emphasis mine.) Nixing the country fails that criterion (to say nothing of the other policy directives it would fail to meet, such as prioritizing reader interests and maintaining an encyclopedic register). ╠╣uw [ talk 19:58, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Not gonna go into itThis is WP:NOTAVOTE. Graham ( talk) 05:02, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
In the "Category:Female heirs apparent" page, both Mary II and Anne are discussed as an example of female heirs apparent. Although the British kingdoms used male-preference primogeniture at the time, the circumstances and aftermath of the Glorious Revolution did bring forth some unique elements to the line of succession. Although Anne is still part of the list - I guess in some way, this discussion affects her too - Mary II is not. I was wondering if Mary II counts as an example of an heir apparent or not?
Ulrika Eleonora of Sweden is placed in this category, and after she abdicated in favour of her husband, she was named his heir. In the case of Mary and William, the law did state that whoever died first, their spouse would continue reigning, essentially making them each others heir apparent. But unlike Ulrika Eleonora, Mary was not William's consort but equal. So, taking account all these, could Mary II be described as an heir apparent? Should she be placed in the same category as her sister? PanagiotisZois ( talk) 18:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Mary II 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: 1 |
Mary II is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 26, 2005. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This
level-5 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has previously been nominated to be moved.
Discussions:
|
The statement that the title was K & Q of E, S, F & I is correct only for England. In Scotland the title was K & Q of S, E, F & I.
Also, although these are the titles used by the Parliaments &c, the titles normally used by British monarchs themselves, in coins & documents issued by themselves, were K/Q of Great Britain from 1604 onwards, with a few exceptions, mainly Scottish issues 1649-51. 14:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
131.111.164.236 (
talk)
Which are given here? Shouldn't this be explained? john k ( talk) 13:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Is it possible for Mary II to have inherited the English claim to France? France was bound by salic law, which excluded females from succession. Or is there something I don't know about? Regards, -- Jack1755 ( talk) 22:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Including images of Mary, William and James would be much more useful than having those two templates in the "Reign section". If nobody opposes, I will remove the templates (whose purpose is trivial) and add relevant images. Surtsicna ( talk) 13:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Think I am correct in saying that Mary was Charles II's sister not niece as in the article. Anyone else agree? Smch52 ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:James I of England which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RM bot 18:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Regarding a forthcoming book focusing on Mary II, this is disallowed by Dr Kay on the grounds of it being spam. I think it would be of interest to those interested in Mary, but if it is to be disallowed, should book links here also be disallowed? When there is mention of a forthcoming film on a given topic, as is common on Wikipedia articles, should these be removed too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grorland ( talk • contribs) 19:21, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Excuse me, but I think is impossible the painting in the top of the infobox royalty template to be painted in 1662, because Mary II was an infant then!!!1 The painter died in 1680, so the portret must have been painted about 1670-1680. Am I wrong?-- Ιων ( talk) 09:58, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi, the text of a Proclamation by Mary, from 1690 the second year of William and Mary's reign, has just been added to Wikisource. She calls upon all seamen and mariners who are evading service to return to the navy, and for any officers of the law to seize and prosecute those that hide away. I'll leave it to the editors of this article to decide in what way to use or link it. It's at wikisource:A proclamation requiring all seamen and mariners to render themselves to Their Majesties service. Cheers, MartinPoulter ( talk) 10:02, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Mary II of England's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "auto":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:59, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
It is unnecessary to repeat the same year or date in one sentence after another. And events should be presented in a logical chronological order, with people's names clear. It is confusing to go from the Duke of York, to James II, back to the Duke of York again. Celia Homeford ( talk) 14:40, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:William III of England which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 15:00, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Celia Homeford you reverted my edit from yesterday with a handful of changes referring to Mary's death.
Since she died at aged 32, I have added that to the introduction as well as the cause of the death, which was previously hidden.
I furthermore created a new section heading about her death.
In terms of the removal of content, a lot of the stuff about her death seemed a bit fluffy and not very relevant. Happy to explore adding this content back in if we can tighten it up a bit, but I would like to add back the other changes I made. Let me know what you think.
Thanks, ollee ( talk) 01:36, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
The article says that Dundee was wounded at the start of the battle. But this does not accord with the page on the Battle of Killicrankie, which specifically states that "...Dundee was fatally wounded towards the end of the battle, and died shortly afterwards". Which is correct? Sbishop ( talk) 17:10, 5 April 2021 (UTC)Sbishop
In my opinion, there should be an article about the Coronation of William III and Mary II, covering their coronation in greater detail, just like that of Elizabeth I and other modern British Sovereigns. As they both were joint Sovereigns, it would be interesting to know how the Coronation was carried out, as the Crown Jewels and regalia (including the Coronation Crown) are usually reserved for a single sovereign. Were they crowned one by one with the St Edward's Crown, or an additional crown was created, all these details can be covered. Also, the Archbishop of Canterbury at the time, didn't recognise James's removal. So, I think it would be an interesting article. Peter Ormond 💬 13:30, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. DrKay ( talk) 07:20, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
Mary II of England → Mary II – Mary II already redirects here. And given that she was equally, Queen of England, Scotland and Ireland, "Mary II" would be a better and more neutral title. Peter Ormond 💬 05:15, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Having just read through this as part of the effort to check over old Featured Articles promoted before 2016, it doesn't look too bad, but it's pretty reliant on van der Kiste and Waller. There haven't been too many books specifically on Mary since this was promoted, but Jonathan Keates' William III and Mary II: Partners in Revolution (2015) seems like an obvious omission. There are also more recent academic works on William (e.g. Redefining William III and William III, The Staadtholder King) which may have useful information. There are also relevant academic articles specifically on Mary, which one might expect to see cited: here, here, and here immediately come to my attention.
The other major concern I would have is the legacy section: the immediate aftermath of her death is well-discussed, but then the only discussion of any more recent legacy is a listing of three films and a TV series in which she is featured. Is there not anything substantial to say about how she has been received in modern culture? If not, is it actually important to list some random films where she features – especially given that she seems to be a pretty decidedly secondary character in most (all?) of them. Caeciliusinhorto-public ( talk) 15:35, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Just confirming that Keates isn't really that useful for more. DrKay said that one of the areas Keates did notably differ from the current article (i.e. Anne's opinion on James Francis Edward Stuart) isn't supported by their other sources; did not check them to confirm, although Keates seems convincing enough to me on that particular topic. But for everything else, it's just too short a book, practically an extended Wikipedia page itself.
I looked a bit at the 1953 Chapman book, which did seem usable enough. I think incorporating it would involve a change in "style" of the article though which I wouldn't really be comfortable with doing - the article is currently aiming to be more of a concise high-level biography. If you want to cram it with details like how the doctors also diagnosed Erysipelas in addition to measles, or quote Mary's writing a bunch and her request to have the funeral be low-key, or other stuff, then Chapman would be handy. But as noted, it would be a fairly significant style shift. SnowFire ( talk) 22:12, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. theleekycauldron ( talk • she/her) 20:54, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Mary II of England →
Mary II –
WP:SOVEREIGN says we should avoid the "of England" dab if it is not needed, and it is fairly clear she is the primary topic for the term. I am on the fifth page of Google results before I get anything other than her.
House
Blaster (
talk · he/him)
03:07, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Only use a territorial designation (e.g. country) when disambiguation is needed) imply that titles of articles about sovereigns from a given country will not necessarily be consistent in using a territorial designation? The question here is not whether the title is consistent with Mary I of England and William III of England in its use of a territorial designation, but rather whether this title qualifies as a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Graham ( talk) 01:29, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
I think the reality is that the community does not have any consensus on how to treat titles like these.If you don't believe there was a consensus this past November, shouldn't we either review the closure per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE or open a wider discussion? Unless the closure is overturned or a new consensus is reached in a central discussion, surely it isn't appropriate to simply disregard our guidelines. Graham ( talk) 04:37, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that) and WP:SOVEREIGN (
Only use a territorial designation (e.g. country) when disambiguation is needed). The dearth of policy-based arguments, or any strong arguments, from Opposition here is equally important. I've looked at every Oppose !vote so far. Here is a summary of the oppose arguments:
"someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area". WP:CONCISE further affirms that good titles require
"sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the general subject area". (Emphasis mine.) Nixing the country fails that criterion (to say nothing of the other policy directives it would fail to meet, such as prioritizing reader interests and maintaining an encyclopedic register). ╠╣uw [ talk 19:58, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Not gonna go into itThis is WP:NOTAVOTE. Graham ( talk) 05:02, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
In the "Category:Female heirs apparent" page, both Mary II and Anne are discussed as an example of female heirs apparent. Although the British kingdoms used male-preference primogeniture at the time, the circumstances and aftermath of the Glorious Revolution did bring forth some unique elements to the line of succession. Although Anne is still part of the list - I guess in some way, this discussion affects her too - Mary II is not. I was wondering if Mary II counts as an example of an heir apparent or not?
Ulrika Eleonora of Sweden is placed in this category, and after she abdicated in favour of her husband, she was named his heir. In the case of Mary and William, the law did state that whoever died first, their spouse would continue reigning, essentially making them each others heir apparent. But unlike Ulrika Eleonora, Mary was not William's consort but equal. So, taking account all these, could Mary II be described as an heir apparent? Should she be placed in the same category as her sister? PanagiotisZois ( talk) 18:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC)