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 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Hi all - I've recently been creating the above templates, for use on British royalty pages. With the preliminary work done, I want to start up a discussion about their format, use, etc. HERE, so do please join in! – D B D 12:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I've just created a proposal for our Style Guide - HERE - please do discuss it on the talk page // D B D 12:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah I was thinking. Does English, Scottish Royalty etc. get covered by this group? The countries are in Britain now? But not then, so? Peterwill 19:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
WP:BIOGRAPHY :-) Come join our work group Royalty and nobility - we have a British Isles division. I didn't know this project existed until just now... plange 03:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Really want to contribute especially the Descendant WikiProjects. What first shall I do? Hedwig0407 01 August 2006
I have been poking around in the featured article area and have discovered that George I, George III and George IV are all featured, and all fit into this project. Any one of these could be a guide to how all articles for this project should be written. LynnMarie 1 August, 2006
I created the Template:Infobox British Royalty for use on our project's pages, derived from Template:Infobox Monarch. It has since been proposed for deletion here - please do participate in the discussion there. Meanwhile, I believe we should discuss the template here - its format, colours, fields, etc. A copy is hosted in User:DBD/Infoboxes/British Royalty, so feel free to 'fiddle' with that copy, and using the Project Sandbox to preview. -- D B D 10:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Right, I've created some, updated others, of the above category. One of my updates has been the addition of colour-coding (red for England, blue Scotch, purple GB/UK) - this has been reverted a few times, so I want to know all your opinions... Colour or Blank? – D B D 12:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Note that many of the minor royals and their descendants are up for deletion:
Astrotrain 13:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I think the principal articles should have as their title the formal name of the subject, and all of the familiar names and nicknames rediract there. As an example: The main article should be titled "Prince Henry of Wales", and not as at present "Prince Harry" with "Prince Henry" and "Prince Henry of Wales" redirecting there. Guy 12:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I've been asked to pass on notice to you of this this list of Featured Articles. Many of them are about British royalty and nobility, and they were written in the days before inline citations were required in FAs. It's quite likely, I'm told, that they could be listed for defeaturing. Perhaps the project would like to tackle bringing some of these up to modern FA standards? -- kingboyk 14:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I was searching around and came accross [1] this link which features numerous public domain (due to age) images of Victorian era Nobility. Perhaps some of these images could be of use in the commons or in wikipedia projects ? Dowew 03:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I have just been categorising and found Alan Reid (Royal Household). I can't find a category for people that work in the royal household, only one for the positions within it. If it doesn't exist maybe it should be created? However I have no idea what its title should actually be. Ksbrown 16:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps just "Members of the Royal Household"? -- Couter-revolutionary 12:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Edward III is up for FA-nomination, please weigh in at the discussion page! Eixo 12:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I've requested a move of this article from its present title to its previous well-established title. Even if you don't agree with me, please contribute to the debate at Talk:Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. Deb 22:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages:
and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 22:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm just dropping by here briefly to request more attention for the article on Marie of Edinburgh (better known as Queen Marie of Romania). Probably the most important non-regnant queen of the last 200 years. Her husband was a bit of a nonentity, whereas she was a celebrated intellectual and diplomat who successfully represented her country at Versailles after World War I, negotiating about as successfully there as any one national leader. It seems that a lot more effort has been put into far lesser figures. - Jmabel | Talk 06:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I've noticed a huge backlog in the unassessed articles related to our project. I hope we can clear the backlog, and also find new British royalty-related articles and do an assesment. Anyone wants to help? -- Ter e nc e Ong 16:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Just thought I'd let you all know, the articles of our five latest monarchs ( HM The Queen, George VI, Edward VIII, George V and Edward VII) have been nominated for Good article status (see here)! Well done one and all! – D B D 02:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I think this article deserves scrutiny for balance, so I'm bringing it to the attention of this WikiProject. While doing some work on the Lowthers, I read his entry in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. The contrast between their article and ours is striking. While the ODNB skips rather quickly over his personal life during the 1920s, our article consists of little but rumours and innuendo about that period, with little mention of his military career. Almost all of it is hedged: "believed to have been", "There is some suggestion", "said to have been". Most of the article seems to be sourced to "War of the Windsors: A Century of Unconstitutional Monarchy", which sounds polemical and is perhaps not a reliable source. Perhaps someone more familiar with the recent members of the Royal Family can scrutinize this. Choess 16:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
George IV of the United Kingdom has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. LuciferMorgan 09:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello there. Just wondering if any of the members could give some advice on a debate on the Catherine of Aragon page regarding the spelling of her name. There is some heated discussion on the discussion page, could you drop by and add your thoughts?? Greatly appreciated! Cheers Paul75 01:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Just a minor issue on the Scotland page and on her own page she is states as being Elizabeth II when this is not the case in every country(Scotland being the one I picked up on, where she is Elizabeth the first). I could not edit it for some reason though.
88.109.97.142 02:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I was reading the Diana article and realized it is the 10th anniversary of her death this year. I know little about her so can't contribute much myself (a while back I did a bit and got the article protected but now the protection has been removed...) but I think it would be appropriate for the WikiProject British Royalty to consider a Wikipedia 'collaboration' of some sort as if her article can be brought up to FA standard it would a good article for the main page on the anniversary of her death. Bobbacon 12:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Buckingham Palace has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Simply south 11:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
==
Elizabeth II (again)==
Is there anyway? we can persuad the pro-sixteen... editors, to go with UK and fifteen...? That opening line looks terrible. It even contradicts that page's 'external links'. What's with this Commonwealth nationalistic pride.
GoodDay
21:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Does someone in the line of succession make them automatically British Royalty? What about those who are not in the line of succession because they were born out of wedlock, or married a Roman Catholic, or one or more of their parents were Roman Catholic - do they still count as Royalty? Rhyddfrydol 16:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello WikiProject British Royalty participants!
It seems a debate about the use of nationality and ethnicity has been stirred on the Bernard Manning article talk page (I do beg your pardon!). It is my believe that nationalism is spoiling the integrity of some articles, and have had Union flags and citations removed with no justification. Some are even asserting there is an English nationality!
I know Manning is far from royality, but would welcome some comments on the talk page, as I feel I'm talking to a brick wall. Jhamez84 21:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
George I of Great Britain has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Epbr123 21:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Elizabeth I of England has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. DrKiernan 15:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I worked on this picture and wanted to know if you people like it to replace this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bewareofdog ( talk • contribs) 05:05, 4 August 2007.
Sorry for bothering you ... :-) But could a member of this project please answer my question on Talk:Princess Augusta Charlotte of Wales which I posed several months ago? And in addition: Could someone / a member of this project please delete the wrong picture in Princess Augusta Charlotte of Wales because it shows her mother (see my comment on the discussion page). Greetz -- Sir Gawain 12:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Members of this project should probably be aware of the fact that the is currently a vote on to move the page Victoria of the United Kingdom Jooler 17:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
It's been proposed at that article, that British monarchs be added. We need some opinons on this, and on when the British monarchy started (1603 or 1707). GoodDay 18:29, 31 October 2007 (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 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Hi all - I've recently been creating the above templates, for use on British royalty pages. With the preliminary work done, I want to start up a discussion about their format, use, etc. HERE, so do please join in! – D B D 12:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I've just created a proposal for our Style Guide - HERE - please do discuss it on the talk page // D B D 12:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah I was thinking. Does English, Scottish Royalty etc. get covered by this group? The countries are in Britain now? But not then, so? Peterwill 19:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
WP:BIOGRAPHY :-) Come join our work group Royalty and nobility - we have a British Isles division. I didn't know this project existed until just now... plange 03:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Really want to contribute especially the Descendant WikiProjects. What first shall I do? Hedwig0407 01 August 2006
I have been poking around in the featured article area and have discovered that George I, George III and George IV are all featured, and all fit into this project. Any one of these could be a guide to how all articles for this project should be written. LynnMarie 1 August, 2006
I created the Template:Infobox British Royalty for use on our project's pages, derived from Template:Infobox Monarch. It has since been proposed for deletion here - please do participate in the discussion there. Meanwhile, I believe we should discuss the template here - its format, colours, fields, etc. A copy is hosted in User:DBD/Infoboxes/British Royalty, so feel free to 'fiddle' with that copy, and using the Project Sandbox to preview. -- D B D 10:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Right, I've created some, updated others, of the above category. One of my updates has been the addition of colour-coding (red for England, blue Scotch, purple GB/UK) - this has been reverted a few times, so I want to know all your opinions... Colour or Blank? – D B D 12:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Note that many of the minor royals and their descendants are up for deletion:
Astrotrain 13:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I think the principal articles should have as their title the formal name of the subject, and all of the familiar names and nicknames rediract there. As an example: The main article should be titled "Prince Henry of Wales", and not as at present "Prince Harry" with "Prince Henry" and "Prince Henry of Wales" redirecting there. Guy 12:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I've been asked to pass on notice to you of this this list of Featured Articles. Many of them are about British royalty and nobility, and they were written in the days before inline citations were required in FAs. It's quite likely, I'm told, that they could be listed for defeaturing. Perhaps the project would like to tackle bringing some of these up to modern FA standards? -- kingboyk 14:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I was searching around and came accross [1] this link which features numerous public domain (due to age) images of Victorian era Nobility. Perhaps some of these images could be of use in the commons or in wikipedia projects ? Dowew 03:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I have just been categorising and found Alan Reid (Royal Household). I can't find a category for people that work in the royal household, only one for the positions within it. If it doesn't exist maybe it should be created? However I have no idea what its title should actually be. Ksbrown 16:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps just "Members of the Royal Household"? -- Couter-revolutionary 12:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Edward III is up for FA-nomination, please weigh in at the discussion page! Eixo 12:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I've requested a move of this article from its present title to its previous well-established title. Even if you don't agree with me, please contribute to the debate at Talk:Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. Deb 22:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages:
and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 22:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm just dropping by here briefly to request more attention for the article on Marie of Edinburgh (better known as Queen Marie of Romania). Probably the most important non-regnant queen of the last 200 years. Her husband was a bit of a nonentity, whereas she was a celebrated intellectual and diplomat who successfully represented her country at Versailles after World War I, negotiating about as successfully there as any one national leader. It seems that a lot more effort has been put into far lesser figures. - Jmabel | Talk 06:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I've noticed a huge backlog in the unassessed articles related to our project. I hope we can clear the backlog, and also find new British royalty-related articles and do an assesment. Anyone wants to help? -- Ter e nc e Ong 16:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Just thought I'd let you all know, the articles of our five latest monarchs ( HM The Queen, George VI, Edward VIII, George V and Edward VII) have been nominated for Good article status (see here)! Well done one and all! – D B D 02:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I think this article deserves scrutiny for balance, so I'm bringing it to the attention of this WikiProject. While doing some work on the Lowthers, I read his entry in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. The contrast between their article and ours is striking. While the ODNB skips rather quickly over his personal life during the 1920s, our article consists of little but rumours and innuendo about that period, with little mention of his military career. Almost all of it is hedged: "believed to have been", "There is some suggestion", "said to have been". Most of the article seems to be sourced to "War of the Windsors: A Century of Unconstitutional Monarchy", which sounds polemical and is perhaps not a reliable source. Perhaps someone more familiar with the recent members of the Royal Family can scrutinize this. Choess 16:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
George IV of the United Kingdom has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. LuciferMorgan 09:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello there. Just wondering if any of the members could give some advice on a debate on the Catherine of Aragon page regarding the spelling of her name. There is some heated discussion on the discussion page, could you drop by and add your thoughts?? Greatly appreciated! Cheers Paul75 01:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Just a minor issue on the Scotland page and on her own page she is states as being Elizabeth II when this is not the case in every country(Scotland being the one I picked up on, where she is Elizabeth the first). I could not edit it for some reason though.
88.109.97.142 02:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I was reading the Diana article and realized it is the 10th anniversary of her death this year. I know little about her so can't contribute much myself (a while back I did a bit and got the article protected but now the protection has been removed...) but I think it would be appropriate for the WikiProject British Royalty to consider a Wikipedia 'collaboration' of some sort as if her article can be brought up to FA standard it would a good article for the main page on the anniversary of her death. Bobbacon 12:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Buckingham Palace has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Simply south 11:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
==
Elizabeth II (again)==
Is there anyway? we can persuad the pro-sixteen... editors, to go with UK and fifteen...? That opening line looks terrible. It even contradicts that page's 'external links'. What's with this Commonwealth nationalistic pride.
GoodDay
21:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Does someone in the line of succession make them automatically British Royalty? What about those who are not in the line of succession because they were born out of wedlock, or married a Roman Catholic, or one or more of their parents were Roman Catholic - do they still count as Royalty? Rhyddfrydol 16:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello WikiProject British Royalty participants!
It seems a debate about the use of nationality and ethnicity has been stirred on the Bernard Manning article talk page (I do beg your pardon!). It is my believe that nationalism is spoiling the integrity of some articles, and have had Union flags and citations removed with no justification. Some are even asserting there is an English nationality!
I know Manning is far from royality, but would welcome some comments on the talk page, as I feel I'm talking to a brick wall. Jhamez84 21:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
George I of Great Britain has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Epbr123 21:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Elizabeth I of England has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. DrKiernan 15:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I worked on this picture and wanted to know if you people like it to replace this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bewareofdog ( talk • contribs) 05:05, 4 August 2007.
Sorry for bothering you ... :-) But could a member of this project please answer my question on Talk:Princess Augusta Charlotte of Wales which I posed several months ago? And in addition: Could someone / a member of this project please delete the wrong picture in Princess Augusta Charlotte of Wales because it shows her mother (see my comment on the discussion page). Greetz -- Sir Gawain 12:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Members of this project should probably be aware of the fact that the is currently a vote on to move the page Victoria of the United Kingdom Jooler 17:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
It's been proposed at that article, that British monarchs be added. We need some opinons on this, and on when the British monarchy started (1603 or 1707). GoodDay 18:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)