Talk:Princess Gina of Liechtenstein
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article contains a translation of Giorgina di Wilczek from it.wikipedia. |
"Countess" inappropriate in article name edit
She was princess of Lienstenstein all her married life, and I see no reason to call her "Countess" in this article's name. I will request to move it to Georgina von Wilczek unless anybody comes up with a good reason not to acknowledge her married title by leaving her maiden title out of the article name. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Requested move 2 edit
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 23:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Countess Georgina von Wilczek → Georgina von Wilczek – She was princess of Lienstenstein all her married life, and no longer a countess, so it is inappropriate to call her "Countess" in this article's name. Relisted. BDD (talk) 23:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC) --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:47, 20 December 2013 (UTC)SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:38, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose, current name complies with NCROY, and I don't consider it more logical than the status quo to drop part of her maiden "title" (recognized pre-maritally by Liechtenstein along with "von Wilczek") in deference to her "marital title". In history, "{Name} of {Husband's realm}" so often yields duplicates that a pre-Wikipedia disambiguation convention in English is to eventually revert them to their maiden style. Georgina's article is named according to the same convention prevalent among widowed and deceased consorts. FactStraight (talk) 02:17, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- I cannot find this at all in NCROY, and since she was no longer a countess after her marriage, that should be enough not to call her one here, falsely. She was also much more known as a Princess of Liechtenstein than as a countess. What precedent are we setting if we use obviously incorrect titles in article names? Isn't it our goal in contributing that Wikipedia be a credible source of accurate information? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:32, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- Her life did not begin when she married, so of course it is not "false" to refer to her as a countess. There is nothing "obviously incorrect" about the present title. Surtsicna (talk) 15:33, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- Her life as a countess ended when she married and that title became obsolete. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:59, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- First of all, I would like to see a source that backs up that claim. Even if she ceased being Countess von Wilczek, she still became Countess Rietberg upon marriage. Therefore, she was a countess all her life. Secondly, since her life has actually (rather than figuratively or imaginarily) ended, it is of course completely accurate to refer to her by any title she had ever held. Or are you suggesting that Edward VIII shouldn't be referred to as such because his life as Edward VIII ended when he abdicated? Surtsicna (talk) 01:05, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- Nothing in what you're writing is convincing that English Wikipedia should name the biography of this woman with the inclusion of an obesolete (or a more minor) title. If you would choose to speak or write of the late Princess of Liechtenstein only as "Countess von Wilczek" just because she's dead, I would be surprised at your disrespectful attitude. English Wikipdia looks foolish and amateuristic when it does illogical things like this. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:22, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- Wikipedia and its users are not bound to honor article subjects, regardless of the person's high and mighty status. That is why we don't refer to Kim Jong-un as the "dearest supreme leader". Whether you like it or not, the convention that predates Wikipedia is to refer to deceased consorts by their maiden name. Your personal opinion on the matter, as stated on your user page, is duly noted and as respected as anyone's opinion should be; however, I am certain that you will never see it implemented, as there will be absolutely no consensus for moving Catherine of Saxe-Lauenburg to "Catherine of Sweden, Queen (1531-1535)" or Catherine of Aragon to "Catherine of Aragon, Queen of England". You might be surprised to discover that many women, including queens and princesses, are proud of their own heritage and maiden name, and that they would more than likely not mind being listed as more than someone's wife. The misfortunate Queen of France, for example, famously stated her name as Marie-Antoinette de Lorraine d'Autriche. Surtsicna (talk) 14:16, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- Why are you writing at length about totally irrelevant North Koreans, then about all those maiden names? "Countess" is not a name, surely you know that, and as far as naming this article, "Countess" is obsolete. There is no support of any kind anywhere for using obsolete titles when naming biography articles. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:53, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- Obsolete?[citation needed] I am writing about "totally irrelevant North Koreans" and then "about all those maiden names" because you claimed that referring to her by her birth title is disrespectful. Surtsicna (talk) 23:26, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- She was a countess for her first 21 years, and when she became a princess that title went obsolete in her life story. She was subsequently a princess for over 45 years and was such when she died. Yet we're giving this article a name which includes her obsolete (and lower) title. Yes, that, according to my dictionary, certainly is disrespectful. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:17, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
- (Un)Fortunately, real life does not follow your dictionary. Women, as noted, are often proud of their own heritage, and princesses are no exception. Again, obsolete?[citation needed] Surtsicna (talk) 15:51, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
- I don't see how your personal opinions of what women are or are not proud of could be relevant here. Anyway, if you know any woman who would rather be listed as a countess (which she was before and for 20 years) than as a princess (which she was for the last 45 years of her life) I don't find that very interesting. I'm not asking for the article name to contain any title, by the way. Your supercilious attempt to teach me about real life is not flattering to you, and your source on obsolete is any English dictionary. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:55, 26 December 2013 (UTC).
- I, on the other hand, don't see how your personal opinion on what is or is not disrespectful could be relevant here. I could give you the name of a princess who prefers to be referred to as a countess, but you are not going to "find that very interesting". I am fairly certain that no English dictionary says anything about Georgina von Wilczek's comital title being obsolete - which is what I asked, before you superciliously referred me to a dictionary. Surtsicna (talk) 14:18, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- I don't see how your personal opinions of what women are or are not proud of could be relevant here. Anyway, if you know any woman who would rather be listed as a countess (which she was before and for 20 years) than as a princess (which she was for the last 45 years of her life) I don't find that very interesting. I'm not asking for the article name to contain any title, by the way. Your supercilious attempt to teach me about real life is not flattering to you, and your source on obsolete is any English dictionary. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:55, 26 December 2013 (UTC).
- (Un)Fortunately, real life does not follow your dictionary. Women, as noted, are often proud of their own heritage, and princesses are no exception. Again, obsolete?[citation needed] Surtsicna (talk) 15:51, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
- She was a countess for her first 21 years, and when she became a princess that title went obsolete in her life story. She was subsequently a princess for over 45 years and was such when she died. Yet we're giving this article a name which includes her obsolete (and lower) title. Yes, that, according to my dictionary, certainly is disrespectful. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:17, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
- Obsolete?[citation needed] I am writing about "totally irrelevant North Koreans" and then "about all those maiden names" because you claimed that referring to her by her birth title is disrespectful. Surtsicna (talk) 23:26, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- Why are you writing at length about totally irrelevant North Koreans, then about all those maiden names? "Countess" is not a name, surely you know that, and as far as naming this article, "Countess" is obsolete. There is no support of any kind anywhere for using obsolete titles when naming biography articles. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:53, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- Wikipedia and its users are not bound to honor article subjects, regardless of the person's high and mighty status. That is why we don't refer to Kim Jong-un as the "dearest supreme leader". Whether you like it or not, the convention that predates Wikipedia is to refer to deceased consorts by their maiden name. Your personal opinion on the matter, as stated on your user page, is duly noted and as respected as anyone's opinion should be; however, I am certain that you will never see it implemented, as there will be absolutely no consensus for moving Catherine of Saxe-Lauenburg to "Catherine of Sweden, Queen (1531-1535)" or Catherine of Aragon to "Catherine of Aragon, Queen of England". You might be surprised to discover that many women, including queens and princesses, are proud of their own heritage and maiden name, and that they would more than likely not mind being listed as more than someone's wife. The misfortunate Queen of France, for example, famously stated her name as Marie-Antoinette de Lorraine d'Autriche. Surtsicna (talk) 14:16, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- Nothing in what you're writing is convincing that English Wikipedia should name the biography of this woman with the inclusion of an obesolete (or a more minor) title. If you would choose to speak or write of the late Princess of Liechtenstein only as "Countess von Wilczek" just because she's dead, I would be surprised at your disrespectful attitude. English Wikipdia looks foolish and amateuristic when it does illogical things like this. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:22, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- First of all, I would like to see a source that backs up that claim. Even if she ceased being Countess von Wilczek, she still became Countess Rietberg upon marriage. Therefore, she was a countess all her life. Secondly, since her life has actually (rather than figuratively or imaginarily) ended, it is of course completely accurate to refer to her by any title she had ever held. Or are you suggesting that Edward VIII shouldn't be referred to as such because his life as Edward VIII ended when he abdicated? Surtsicna (talk) 01:05, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- Her life as a countess ended when she married and that title became obsolete. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:59, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- Her life did not begin when she married, so of course it is not "false" to refer to her as a countess. There is nothing "obviously incorrect" about the present title. Surtsicna (talk) 15:33, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- I cannot find this at all in NCROY, and since she was no longer a countess after her marriage, that should be enough not to call her one here, falsely. She was also much more known as a Princess of Liechtenstein than as a countess. What precedent are we setting if we use obviously incorrect titles in article names? Isn't it our goal in contributing that Wikipedia be a credible source of accurate information? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:32, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
External links modified edit
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Countess Georgina von Wilczek. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160406095054/http://badraie.com/images/liechtenstein.JPG to http://badraie.com/images/liechtenstein.JPG
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:10, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion edit
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:23, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Update for move edit
WP:CONSORTS has been updated since 2013, thank Goodness, and it's time to look at this article name again. It's hard to imagine that she is known mostly by her maiden title & name. (Who ever heard of "Countess Georgina von Wilczek"?) Should now be moved to Princess Gina of Liechtenstein as per several suggestions in our updated guideline. SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:23, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that it should be moved to Princess Gina of Liechtenstein, but Countess Georgina Von Wilczek should remain as a redirect. I would it's more regoniseable than you are letting on, but I understand what you are saying. TheBritinator (talk) 12:42, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect, of course. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:53, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- The article was pretty inconsistent in wether it was using Countess Georgina or Princess Gina, so I changed all relevant instances into the latter. If you want to moved it to a new name, then I don't see why there would be any opposition to that. TheBritinator (talk) 00:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- Need admin assistance due to existing page with the new name. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 04:11, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- I have moved the page and updated all relevant references, @SergeWoodzing. Hope this settles this. TheBritinator (talk) 14:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- Need admin assistance due to existing page with the new name. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 04:11, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- The article was pretty inconsistent in wether it was using Countess Georgina or Princess Gina, so I changed all relevant instances into the latter. If you want to moved it to a new name, then I don't see why there would be any opposition to that. TheBritinator (talk) 00:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect, of course. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:53, 8 February 2024 (UTC)