This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
The Swedish language version of the Royal Court's website, which is the only reliable source we can cite, makes a point of listing one of the people concerned in this article as Herr Chistopher O'Neill. In Swedish that title is never used in text unless it is being stressed for some reason, and the title is never capitalized when not at the head of a sentence (which it is not in the source) unless even more stress is intended.
It was also specifcally mentioned in the media releases when O'Neill married his royal wife, that he would be called Herr. This, too, was very unusual, even unprecedented.
Thus, I think the article, in citing the source correctly, should refer to O'Neill with the English equivalent as "Mr." (including quotation marks) since this particular case is not covered by what generally is recommended at WP:HONORIFICS. -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 23:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
I also cannot see why we should keep a reader wondering about why O'Neill doesn't have any title, when we have such a good excuse even here to answer such a question with the Royal Court's special efforts (described above) to specify the fact that he does not. -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 23:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Third Opinion: Serge, your points are well taken but in my opinion none of your arguments are sufficient to warrant an exception to WP:HONORIFICS.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Sweden has a new, let´s say princess for short. How royal she will be is for the king to say, and he hasn´t yet. Our beloved source will probably get around to mentioning her in the fullness of time. I suggest we don´t put her in until the king says something. [1]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 08:59, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
As I think a few of us have agreed before, we only have one reliable source to adhere to re: name formats & listings here, in Swedish (for the formats) and in English (corresponding). Would indeed be fine if we all could stick to that, and not Anglicize anything beyond recognition. -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 22:28, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I am pleased about rm this again. Undue weight is given that part of the story if they are all listed like that, and the list dominates the article in an inappropriate way. -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 23:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
The Swedish language version of the Royal Court's website, which is the only reliable source we can cite, makes a point of listing one of the people concerned in this article as Herr Chistopher O'Neill. In Swedish that title is never used in text unless it is being stressed for some reason, and the title is never capitalized when not at the head of a sentence (which it is not in the source) unless even more stress is intended.
It was also specifcally mentioned in the media releases when O'Neill married his royal wife, that he would be called Herr. This, too, was very unusual, even unprecedented.
Thus, I think the article, in citing the source correctly, should refer to O'Neill with the English equivalent as "Mr." (including quotation marks) since this particular case is not covered by what generally is recommended at WP:HONORIFICS. -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 23:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
I also cannot see why we should keep a reader wondering about why O'Neill doesn't have any title, when we have such a good excuse even here to answer such a question with the Royal Court's special efforts (described above) to specify the fact that he does not. -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 23:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Third Opinion: Serge, your points are well taken but in my opinion none of your arguments are sufficient to warrant an exception to WP:HONORIFICS.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Sweden has a new, let´s say princess for short. How royal she will be is for the king to say, and he hasn´t yet. Our beloved source will probably get around to mentioning her in the fullness of time. I suggest we don´t put her in until the king says something. [1]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 08:59, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
As I think a few of us have agreed before, we only have one reliable source to adhere to re: name formats & listings here, in Swedish (for the formats) and in English (corresponding). Would indeed be fine if we all could stick to that, and not Anglicize anything beyond recognition. -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 22:28, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I am pleased about rm this again. Undue weight is given that part of the story if they are all listed like that, and the list dominates the article in an inappropriate way. -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 23:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)