Talk:Mariano Hugo, Prince of Windisch-Graetz

Self-serving

This article is clearly mostly a self-serving one and indeed is edited mainly by a user with a conflict of interest. However, is it really necessary to include a huge family tree? It adds nothing as notability & is the clearest possible definition of the WP policy phrase that "notability is not inherited". - Sitush (talk) 13:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree on the family tree, though properly sourced genealogical information may well be useful on the page about the family, which (as somebody correctly pointed out to me) was a notable one. Ian Spackman (talk) 13:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

On the conflict of interest issue I am decidedly puzzled. The subject of the article is an ambassador (albeit for a curious micro-state, pop. c.11) and a Papal Gentleman. He is also (as far as a google search made out) a somewhat successful lobbyist (within the Italian govt. and within the Vatican) for one of the claimants to the kingship of Italy. He also is (or was), the biggest private investor in BancaNapoli. In other words a figure who—though his notability in Wikipedia terms may be marginal at best (as the Italian and German editors seem to think)—is unlikely to be a total idiot, or lacking in certain basic skills in diplomacy. I cannot match that with the behaviour of the editor who appears to be claiming to be the subject of the article. Perhaps he is an opponent of the real Mariano Hugo who wants to make him look stupid? Ian Spackman (talk) 13:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the COI is odd in the circumstances but whether the editor is the real person or an opponent, it is still COI. - Sitush (talk) 13:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed! Ian Spackman (talk) 14:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Same puzzled reaction here. By the way, I've found what looks like a possibly useful newspaper interview - but in Slovenian, on a site that apparently requires registration. On the family tree question - the three separate ancestry trees seem to agree with what information I can find (bar spelling mistakes) on genealogical websites but mostly look like an attempt to bolster notability - one is for himself and contains only a couple of ancestors with English Wikipedia articles (the most notable members of the family come from another branch), but the one for his great-grandfather, properly revised, should link to about 15 Wikipedia biographies and the one for his son is presumably there for the Habsburg connection (Archduchess Sophie is apparently a great-niece of Charles I of Austria). PWilkinson (talk) 15:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, that is pretty much my point re: genealogy. If the people in the family line are notable then they'll have their own WP articles and can be linked to inline and/or via See also. Providing that their notability is not "inherited" but rather self-supporting. I'm probably being too much of a stickler for the rules here & will have a look at, say, the articles on the UK royal family & major UK dukes etc to see how they deal with it. - Sitush (talk) 15:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism to this page

I think we have had enough ill-considered nonsense on this page from the account User:M.Hugo Windisch-Graetz, and that we should stop treating such unhelpful contributions so leniently. Vandalism should be treated as vandalism and users who persist in it should be formally warned, and if necessary blocked. Personally I have strong doubts as to whether the problem user is really the same person as the subject of the article. See my comments on his talk page. Ian Spackman (talk) 14:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I am less doubtful about the provenance but agree with the principle and your comments on the ed's talk page, to which I had already added a note. Let's get this sorted once and for all. I've been verging on putting it forward to AfD as being at best borderline notable but keep thinking "no, there may actually be something here". - Sitush (talk) 14:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Windisch-Graetz Foundation

I can find no google hits for the foundation, apart from this article and its mirrors. (My search was for "Windisch-Graetz Foundation" OR "Fondazione Windisch-Graetz".) As citations have been requested since March, and none have been provided, I have removed the following sentence and request that it only be restored with appropriate (WP:RS) references:

In 1997 he founded the Windisch-Graetz Foundation for humanitarian interventions towards the poor, the sick people and the Catholic Church, including landmine injuries to children resulting from the Serbian-Kosovo war.

Ian Spackman (talk) 22:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• For the record, I have got google hits for "Fundacija Windisch-Graetz" [1][2] and for "Fondation Windisch-Graetz" [3]. However, while the hits for "Fundacija Windisch-Graetz" seem to indicate existence and its probable connection with the subject of this article, they literally do no more than that; and while the hits for "Fondation Windisch-Graetz" are far more substantial, this was founded by a distant relative (second cousin?) of the subject and is clearly not the organisation referred to here. PWilkinson (talk) 23:09, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Congratulations – good searching! Ian Spackman (talk) 11:25, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Pictures of W-G castles

I might be wrong, but my understanding is that the family’s title to these castles was lost during the second world war, and that they were paid compensation after some lengthy litigation. Anyway, they are all usefully present in the article Windisch-Graetz, and in the absence of sources showing Mariano Hugo’s ownership of them, I don’t think that they fit on this page. Therefore I’ll remove them – but do of course revert me if you know better. Ian Spackman (talk) 11:25, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Profession

I edited the article's lede to refer to Mariano Hugo as "A major industrialist by profession,[2] he is currently ambassador of the SMOM to Slovenia.[4]". Although I cited the source as the Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels, Fürstliche Häuser , the reference to "major industrialist" has been labeled "vague" Perhaps someone can suggest how better to translate the profession given for Hugo, which is cited in the 1991, 1997 and 2001 versions of Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels, Fürstliche Häuser with the single word, "Großindustrieller"? Otherwise, I don't see why it should remain labelled "vague". FactStraight (talk) 06:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

What industries? What companies? Where are they? Define major. I for one had never heard of him before the farrago of this article and those for others in the family. - Sitush (talk) 09:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, who writes Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels, Fürstliche Häuser? I don't mean the editors, I mean who writes the entry for the guy himself. If it is like Who's Who then it is an unreliable source. - Sitush (talk) 09:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I have now answered my own question: Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels, Fürstliche Häuser is effectively a self-published source as the articles in it are written by the families themselves. While SPS is in principle ok for biographical articles such as this, there are limitations. I think we need to make it clear that this is SPS and we need to avoid terms such as "major" - it could be self-styled POV. There is in addition the problem that the article is primarily reliant on this work as a source, which is not permitted. This is seeming more and more like it should go to AfD: I'll give it a few hours for comments and then probably propose it. - Sitush (talk) 10:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels, Fürstliche Häuser is certainly not a "self-published" source: it is widely regarded as the successor to the original Almanach de Gotha (so much so that in royal genealogy it is common to refer to it as "the Gotha", when referring to post-1944 entries, the year the original stopped publication). Like the original Gotha, entries are submitted to heads of families to review for accuracy (that is, heads of dynasties determine which titles and marriages in their families are recognized -- non-dynastic noble families just verify such facts as birthdates, names, spouses, addresses). But articles are written by the book's staff editors, who operate under the direction of a board of directors. GHdA is the German equivalent of Burke's Peerage. For instance, although a few of the chivalric memberships claimed in this article are included in GHdA, most are not (that doesn't mean they're bogus -- they may have been acquired after the last edition was published). More significantly, although this article (and many online genealogies) claim that Mariano Hugo's mother was a legitimated member of the noble House of Serra (she was the daughter of a duke by the wife of an Italian principe, but was born out of wedlock and only acknowledged later by her father)and as such grant her the title (due to legitimate daughters of all Italian ducas and princippi) of Donna, but GHdA does not: the 1997 version states that his mother was "Maria Luisa (Marlise) Serra di Gerace, *Wien 30.7.1921, E-u. DevD. d. souv. MaltRrO., JustizD. d. KonstantinO. von St.Georg, AdoptivT. d. Don Giovan Batista Principe u. Marchese S., 12. Principe di Gerace" In other words, she is listed as the untitled, adopted daughter of Prince Serra -- and her mother is omitted entirely (although, as I said, it is in fact well-known who she was -- a member of the Carafa d'Andria ducal family). I do not claim that Mariano Hugo did not "self-describe" himself to GHdA as a major industrialist (I have no idea), but precisely because GHdA enjoys such a sound reputation, the description must be considered well-sourced. The fact that you have not personally heard of him is understandable. But he is well known in international royal and genealogical circles: aside from his own significant position at the Papal court, his wife is a former model famous (more than he) in her own right. Moreover, the family was much in the news last year because of the tragedy they suffered. In fact, I have a magazine article on it which I will look for. I don't know whether Prince Mariano Hugo or an imposter was editing the article here (I suspect the latter), but it hardly matters: the man and his family are notable regardless. FactStraight (talk) 15:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

A single event does not make for notability, however much newsprint it may have generated. You have said above that the GHdA relies on input from (and potentially "censorship" by) the families: that makes it self-published. I'm really not remotely concerned about his wife, his mother, his cousin's dog's vet etc - the article is about him, not them. Notablity is not determined by being "well known" in certain circles: it is determined by widespread coverage in verifiable, reliable sources. That is what is required here and reliance on the GHdA or an appointment as an ambassador of a nano-state is unlikely to achieve it. Furthermore, unless something else turns up soon about his industrial activities, I'm going to have to remove it. Any "major industrialist" generates acres of newsprint (even if only on the financial pages), so something should be out their somewhere (and preferably in the English language). - Sitush (talk) 16:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Input from the families is not even slightly the same thing as being self-published. Any information on anything will usually rely to some extent on information originally sourced to the subject of the article. Certainly journalists rely on such information all the time. As long as it is published by a reliable secondary source, it doesn't matter where the original information comes from. I'd add that our policy is dubious of self-published sources, not self-written ones. GHdA is not published by the Windisch-Graetz family. john k (talk) 16:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

So why is Who's Who repeatedly stated to be a non-reliable source? It isn't published by the people listed either? - Sitush (talk) 17:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure. The British Who's Who should be considered a reliable source. john k (talk) 22:07, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I've now spent over an hour Googling various permutations of his name etc to find an references to him being an industrialist. I'm getting nowhere with it, other than mirrors of WP etc. GHdA - SPS or not - seems not to be reliable on this point, which is the one I tagged. I have never tagged GHdA-sourced information for any other reason than this and have been involved with this article for some time. Either my abilities with Google are particular poor today (possible, but not normal as I'm always sourcing weird stuff) or the GHdA entry overstates his position by quite a margin. Is being a member of a cadet branch of a long-time powerless noble dynasty - and a mostly ceremonial ambassador for a minute state to another only slightly less minute one - sufficient for notability? It strikes me that his wife has a greater claim. - Sitush (talk) 17:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Prod

This individual is the head of a princely house, a senior member (including ambassador) of the SMOM, a well-known Vatican official, and a major Italian businessman. The reality is that this article would not have been prodded were it not for the disruptive edits of one editor. That's a problem, but prodding and deletion is not the solution. Noel S McFerran (talk) 12:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide any evidence of his "industrialist" status, other than what may be a self-authored piece in the major source for this article? As for the other points which you make, well:

1. a minor princely house, since it is an offshoot of a more major one
2. an ambassador of a very minor state for a nano-state (or is that the other way round?)
3. please provide evidence that he is well-known.

These issues have been raised several times and, so far, no-one has been able to resolve them. Not for want of trying, I must add. Perhaps you can do better. - Sitush (talk) 12:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The whole 'ambassador' thing was presented originally as if he were a proper ambassador, you know, with an embassy and all. But it's just an ambassador of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta; a lay religious order with 12,500 members and uncertain international diplomatic standing.  pablo 14:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

1. According to Il Mondo (November 1, 1993), "Prince Mariano Hugo Windisch Graetz is the largest private shareholder in Banco di Napoli. ... Sig Windisch Graetz's business interests today comprise some 80 companies controlled through a Rome-based holding company, Sogesco, which was acquired in 1990. He owns 82% of Sogesco, and his brother Manfred owns the other 18%. Sogesco's capital was increased in 1992 from L20m to L10bn. The group is active in three sectors, finance, property and agriculture." Noel S McFerran (talk) 21:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Much of what you say here is verifiable from several sources, and I have added a sentence to the article. However, the latest source I have found connecting him with Sogesco is from 1997, and everything I've seen about his business affairs seems to relate to investments in finance and agriculture, not industry. And while I'd tend to regard GHdA as reliable about genealogy and claimed hereditary (and possibly other honorific) titles, I'm not sure I would about its subjects' occupations. PWilkinson (talk) 10:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, the bank was a small one and pretty much collapsed due to dreadful management in the 1990s. I think it was taken over but would have to dig around to prove it.

BTW, 10 billion lire was not a lot of money. I mean, it is more than most people have but in the context of businesses it was not a great amount, assuming the more common definition of "billion". The exchange rate was something like 0.0004 - 0.0006 US$/UKP. So, which definition of billion was it? - Sitush (talk) 11:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The milliard definition - so, yes, perhaps a few million UKP. And, according to Italian Wikipedia (but I think completely unsourced), the bank was indeed taken over. I'm left wondering just how successful (or otherwise) a businessman Mariano Hugo zu Windisch Graetz has really been. PWilkinson (talk) 11:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

2. Mariano Hugo is the head of Line 2 of the Windisch-Graetz family. Line 2 is not inferior to Line 1. There are many mediatized princely houses which have more than one head of line. Noel S McFerran (talk) 21:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

What does "mediatized" mean? You've lost me on this one but presume it is a common genealogical word. - Sitush (talk) 11:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

See German Mediatisation. Traditionally the members of these houses were "equal" for marriage purposes to those of reigning houses. Noel S McFerran (talk) 11:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

3. The SMOM has full diplomatic relations with over a hundred countries; there is absolutely nothing "uncertain" about this. These hundred countries don't refer to the SMOM as a "nano-state". Noel S McFerran (talk) 21:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but I'm not convinced. Most people will never have heard of it. I do realise that there is a WP article for SMOM, but notability is not inherited and I'd prefer to see some evidence that the diplomatic relations amount to something more than a ceremonial function. - Sitush (talk) 11:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Most people have never heard of most things on Wikipedia; that's why Wikipedia is here. I would not argue that every SMOM ambassador was notable enough for a Wikipedia article. But I would argue that it is a contributory item to notability. In the case of Mariano Hugo, we have at least four contributory items for notability: head of princely house, SMOM ambassador, Vatican official, and major businessman. Of course, for many people it is the beauty of his wife which counts above all other things! Noel S McFerran (talk) 11:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

4. As for being "well-known". Watch any video of a head-of-state being received at the Vatican. It is very likely that you will see Prince Windisch-Graetz leading the head-of-state into the papal audience. Noel S McFerran (talk) 21:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I have greeted several members of the British royal family, on various occasions when they have visited. Am I notable because of this? Or even well-known? Does sitting next to the late Diana, Princess of Wales at a dinner count for anything? Does someone fancy writing an article for me? <g> - Sitush (talk) 11:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Mariano Hugo is an important Vatican official. Noel S McFerran (talk) 11:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if you will consider this as evidence, but today (16 July 2011) Vienna was at a standstill for the requiem Mass and burial of the last Crown Prince of Austria, Otto of Habsburg-Lothringen. People not only filled the Cathedral but also lined the streets for the procession to the Capuchin crypt, where members of the Austrian Imperial family are buried. Among the very few people who sat at the Cathedral altar during the service and who later led the procession from the Cathedral to the Capuchin crypt, walking alongside the casket and ahead of the family, was Prince Mariano Hugo of Windisch-Graetz. He and the few others who held such prominent positions were wearing the Austrian Order of the Golden Fleece (a distinct honor which, in itself, ought to prove that he is a well known and distinguished person, given that Archduke Otto of Austria saw fit to make him a Knight of the Order). For the record, I do not know the person in question or have any partisan interest in his inclusion in Wikipedia, but I will confess to being mystified that there is such controversy about including him when there are many other less prominent people , including European aristocrats, who have Wikipedia articles to their name with full genealogies (to the 16 great grandparents). As they say in French, the Windisch-Graetz are "une des familles qui ont fait l'Europe," and their mediatised status in the Almanach de Gotha meant that they were considered as having royal rank and could therefore marry members of reigning royal families. I believe that his marriage to Archduchess Sophie of Habsburg would have therefore qualified as an "equal" marriage by the old rules of Ebenbürtigkeit. Aside from his family's prominence, Mariano Hugo has achieved personal recognition by the Pope and by the late titular heir to the Austrian throne. What else is needed?

Being there is irrelevant to Wikipedia. What is required is verifiability using reliable sources. - Sitush (talk) 17:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, we knew he’d turn up: it’s the sort of thing he likes to go to. But so what, exactly? Do we need articles on everyone who is prominently placed at major funerals? Or even that subset with notably straight backs? Ian Spackman (talk) 03:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Photo

If people would like to know what this gentleman looks like, he is the layman (i.e. non priest) at the centre of this photograph (taken today at the beatification of John Paul II) immediately to the viewer's right of the Princess of Liechtenstein. [4] He wears the "uniform" of a Gentleman of His Holiness. Noel S McFerran (talk) 00:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Stemma-con-GF-e-SS..jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Stemma-con-GF-e-SS..jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Citations needed and warning messages

This article still has several tags:

• school in Rome
• University College of Buckingham
• graduation year
• degree topics
• renewal as SMOM ambassador to Slovakia
• Order pro merito Melitensi
• Order of the Holy Sepulchre

I don't think that any of these could be considered major issues.

There are several warning messages at the top of the article:

• puffery
• cleanup required
• citations needed
• editing by the subject of the article (two warning messages)

In my opinion (with the exception of citations needed) these issues have now been addressed. I suggest that the warning messages be removed. 99.242.18.194 (talk) 21:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I disagree on most, if not all counts, and having checked on this article from time to time since its inception in the hope that something worthwhile would emerge, have now nominated it for deletion. Feel free to comment there. Probably best if you log in first though - you don't have to, but please do if you have forgotten to do so. pablo 22:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Bearing questions of neutrality in mind, it may be worth noting that 99.242.18.194 has family connections with the subject of this article. See this edit to User talk:M.Hugo Windisch-Graetz where he signs off ‘I remain, Your Serene Highness, your obedient and devoted servant’. Ian Spackman (talk) 16:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I remember seeing that & darn near falling out of my chair. However, it does not necessarily imply a family connection; it does suggest a form of obeisance (or, although unlikely in this case, sarcasm). - Sitush (talk) 16:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, a personal connection between their families: ‘My mother is an old friend of your cousin Princess Olga’. Ian Spackman (talk) 16:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow, I never knew that Princess Olga is a member of my family. :-o Sitush (talk) 17:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

That is the NORMAL way of concluding a letter to a prince. Those who don't regularly correspond with princes can be forgiven for not knowing this. Perhaps we need a Wikipedia page about correspondence with royals.As regards "a personal connection between their families", please read Six degrees of separation. 128.100.125.177 (talk) 20:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, one should not namedrop (as Her Majesty The Queen said to me, only the other day), but I can assure you that it is not the "normal way of concluding a letter to a prince" in the UK. What it did suggest was what had long been suspected in any event, ie: Hugh the Boss has either been self-editing or has been in some way complicit in the edits made by others to this article. - Sitush (talk) 20:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Or, of course, it might just mean that the IP was deluded. - Sitush (talk) 20:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Well when I sent Wales a note inviting him to my 18th birthday I omitted all that tut at the end. I believe the wording was "See you there then, I hope!" Mind you he couldn't make it in the end. Busy I expect. pablo 20:30, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Incestuous trivia

I have just removed some content that I regard to be "incestuous trivia", and said as much in my edit summary. Being some sort of sidesman at a society wedding, for example, is not a notable thing. It might be for the person in question, but it is not for us. - Sitush (talk) 20:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Chief witness is the equivalent of best man, not "some sort of sidesman". Even the Daily Mail article makes the comparison to best man. 128.100.125.177 (talk) 20:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I knew what a chief witness was when I wrote my message. It is a sideman role. It is of no particular notability: we are not the Daily Mail's gossip column. For that matter, I would seriously question whether the Mail is a reliable source! - Sitush (talk) 20:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

You clearly do not know what the chief witness role is. It is a LEGAL position in a wedding. Different countries require different number of witnesses in order for a marriage to be valid. It is NOT a sidesman.

You also deleted the god parent role - something important to many people. 128.100.125.177 (talk) 20:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Please stop assuming things about me. I have been chief witness, on multiple occasions. I have also been best man, actually on more occasions. Despite appearances, I am quite a likeable guy. Being a voter is a legal position but we do not include it in everybody's article. I think that perhaps you need to revisit (or look for the first time) at the Five Pillars. - Sitush (talk) 20:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Err, are we possibly missing the point of that ‘Whiff of Scandal in Royal Wedding’ article? It seems available in full online only behind various pay-walls, but part of it is currently here. According to Kay, W-G was a ‘a hugely contentious’ choice of main witness at the wedding because he had been revealed through wire-taps as ‘an associate of the exiled son of the last King of Italy, Prince Victor Emmanuel de Savoie, who has been implicated in a series of prostitution and illegal slot machine rackets’. And that ‘his close friends in the Vatican and in high-powered Roman political circles could help Victor Emmanuel to recover hereditary lands and titles’. Now, I absolutely agree with Sitush that the Daily Mail is not the most reliable of sources. But it is not necessarily making up scurrilous nonsense and if the supposed scandal [is it one, exactly?] were to be verified from other reliable sources, that might help a little to establish W-G’s notability. Obviously the greatest care would be needed to avoid breaching the WP:BLP policy. Ian Spackman (talk) 20:50, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

P.S. In checking the link at goliath.ecnext.com, I see that they are now showing only a still more truncated version of the article. Ian Spackman (talk) 20:50, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Having spotted the same issue, I have been digging into that issue for the last hour or so but other than the stuff you mention, and mirrors/blogs etc, can find no substance. It is not unknown for the DM to muckrake and, in fact, I recall seeing somewhere recently that they rank higher than many might think on the list of UK newspapers who have had to print retractions/settle out of court etc. "Associate" is in any event a vague term and any half-decent journalist would know that by using it they could avoid any charge of libel. - Sitush (talk) 21:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I’ve had a very quick dig as well in the interim. Judging by the archives of La Repubblica (roughly the Italian equivalent of The Grauniad) there is something there which could be added to the article. He is, or was, a friend of Vittorio Emanuele and a lobbyist on his behalf with the Italian authorities at a very high level. But so what? What the Mail did was to try to invoke guilt by association: but I see no smoking gun. And what of the story we could reasonably add to the article would amount to no more than another little bit to the bag of bits which, so far, seems not to weigh quite enough on the notability scales. Anyway, I am not really interested enough to add it, but I would be happy for someone – preferably somebody more fluent in Italian journalese than I am – to do so. Ian Spackman (talk) 00:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe the information is worthy of inclusion. However I would I would place it in the "Upbringing and family" section as it relevant here where the Kent connection is mentioned. - dwc lr (talk) 18:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Gentiluomo di Sua Santita

I want to stop a seemingly imminent edit war, which appears to be brewing despite one contributor's request that the other (who appears possibly to be editing while logged out) discuss it here.

So, how about we include both Gentiluomo di Sua Santita and Papal Gentlemen? Since the target WP article itself is titled with the latter, and the former is a redirect, then for now the order should be "Papal Gentlemen (Gentiluomo di Sua Santita)". Should the title of the target article be changed, following a suitable discussion there, then obviously we would reverse the order here. - Sitush (talk) 07:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

That would make sense. 'Papal Gentleman' seems the more obvious English term. If the target article is incorrectly titled (ie not at its common English name) it would make sense to rename it, however that discussion needs to happen on the relevant talk page. pablo 11:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mariano Hugo, Prince of Windisch-Graetz. 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/20120406172021/http://www.orderofmalta.int/news/39627/grand-master-greets-the-president-of-the-republic-of-slovakia-rudolf-schuster/?lang=en to http://www.orderofmalta.int/news/39627/grand-master-greets-the-president-of-the-republic-of-slovakia-rudolf-schuster/?lang=en
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120425225830/http://www.savoydelegation-usa.org/museum/UserView.asp?DocumentID=23&strTotalHits=True to http://www.savoydelegation-usa.org/museum/UserView.asp?DocumentID=23&strTotalHits=True

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) 14:50, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Prince Hugo Coat of Arms.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:06, 29 January 2020 (UTC)