Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility

Add topic
Active discussions

Recent moves & mergesEdit

There has been a raft of moves and mergers by Coldstreamer20 in recent days. I think they are a mixed bag:

  1. Anjou was split into County of Anjou and Duchy of Anjou.
  2. Saintonge was split into County of Saintonge and Saintonge (region).
  3. County and Duchy of Nevers and Nivernais were merged into Duchy of Nivernais, which I have undone while leaving the new article in place and moving the first to County of Nevers.
  4. Agenais was moved to County of Agénois, which I have reverted.

Bringing this to this talk page because I'm not sure where else to find interested editors. There is probably validity in the Anjou split, but it leaves us with no article for Anjou and lots of bad links. There is an RM for Armagnac (province) to County of Armagnac, which I can support. Srnec (talk) 00:22, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Sumerian King List has an RFCEdit


Sumerian King List has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Zoeperkoe (talk) 12:33, 7 December 2021 (UTC)


If you have an opinion, please share. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:07, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Cerdic of Wessex#Requested move 26 December 2021Edit

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Cerdic of Wessex#Requested move 26 December 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink ( ) 17:17, 26 December 2021 (UTC) — Shibbolethink ( ) 17:23, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Merge requestEdit

Participation is welcome at a proposal to merge Maqpon Dynasty into Skardu. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:39, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Duarte Nuno de Bragança#Requested move 6 February 2022Edit

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Duarte Nuno de Bragança#Requested move 6 February 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Favonian (talk) 17:36, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Regents being added to infoboxesEdit

I've noticed in the bios of those who were never monarchs or later became monarchs, somebody has slowly been adding Regent of X or Regent to their infoboxes. I don't dispute that those people were ever regents, but do they really need them added to the infoboxes?. GoodDay (talk) 03:48, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Well since I’m this said “somebody” I would like to explain why I think they should have info boxes regarding them being regent. Regents were in a lot of ways temporary monarchs most had complete control of government and had much influence over monarch so they effectively ruled the Kingdom until there monarch was of age or was no longer incapacitated by a disease or insanity. Not adding that they were regent would be like not putting an info box for a President or a sovereign. And regents should be shown on the info box of the monarch there were regent for because it shows that though they were monarch they had little to no control over the government during that particular time. Orson12345 (talk) 23:09, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

We need a licensed updated image at Meghan, Duchess of SussexEdit

To help end a little spat over an infobox image caption. We need an update image of Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. The current image is before her marriage & thus the root of the caption dispute. GoodDay (talk) 23:52, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!Edit

Please note that Isabella I of Castile, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by MusikBot talk 00:05, 21 February 2022 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

Prince Pavlos of GreeceEdit

Hi! I am quite surprised by something which appears in Pavlos, Crown Prince of Greece. It says: "but the [marriage] ceremony proved to be legally invalid and had eventually to be repeated civilly (not normally required in the UK) in Chelsea because of an obscure law requiring that marriages in England be conducted in English" and the sentence is referenced by Marlene Eilers's book Queen Victoria's Daughters. I usually trust Ms Eilers but this is quite surprising and I can't find other reference of this. Can someone verify this point? Thank you very much! Konstantinos (talk) 16:38, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:List of current constituent monarchs#Requested move 8 March 2022Edit

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:List of current constituent monarchs#Requested move 8 March 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 17:41, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

FAR for Tiridataes I of ArmeniaEdit

I have nominated Tiridates I of Armenia for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 17:46, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Title conventions for rulers of Mali EmpireEdit

I have been working on revising the articles on rulers of the Mali Empire, which often have inconsistently structured titles, and I believe it would be a good idea to try and reach some kind of consensus about what format is preferable. This seems to be the most appropriate WikiProject at which to have this discussion. There are seven different naming conventions that were in use before I started working on these articles (I have already requested moves for some of these, so the titles are not necessarily the same now):

Though it's not relevant to this discussion, note that many of the spellings here need revision (e.g. Kassa is a non-standard transcription of قسا (Qasā), which is one of several manuscript variants along with قنبا (Qanbā) for the same name).

Sunjata and Mansa Musa are well-known enough to be subject to WP:COMMONNAME, but it would be useful to have a standardized format to favor when COMMONNAME doesn't clearly apply and a bare name+ordinal isn't clear enough. "Mansa [name]" is preferable to "[name] (mansa)" as the more natural disambiguation, and the postpositive "[name] Mansa" appears to be inaccurate. It doesn't seem clear if it's appropriate to use "[name] Keita" in most cases, and it wouldn't work for the usurpers Sākūra and Ṣandakī. "[name] ibn [father]" might be practical in some cases (e.g. Muḥammad ibn Qū and Qanbā ibn Sulaymān) but would be inappropriate in some cases (e.g. "Khalīfa ibn Mārī Jāṭa" would be a made-up, speculative name, and Sulaymān ibn Abī Bakr is rarely used) and impossible in others (e.g. Sākūra, whose father is unknown).

This leaves "[name] of Mali" and "Mansa [name]" as the two best name formats I can think of. Despite WP:NCROY saying that regnal titles are not usually included in article titles, I think that an exception should be made in this case, as nearly every mansa of Mali is often referred to as "Mansa [name]", whereas the format "[name] of Mali" is somewhat of an invention of our own to fit title conventions. As such, I propose that article titles on rulers of the Mali Empire should consistently take the format "Mansa [name]" unless a different name is clearly preferable.

One final note is that I'm not sure how appropriate the use of ordinals is here, as they seem to be only intermittently used by historians and are not present in the primary sources. What's the policy around here for applying ordinals to monarchs in societies where they were not traditionally used?

Does anyone here have any thoughts or suggestions on this matter? Pinging Doug Weller and Catjacket, both of whom I have interacted with previously on topics pertaining to the Mali Empire, and I'm going to leave notes at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Africa and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mali as well. Ornithopsis (talk) 04:11, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Ancillary to this discussion, I think Kassi (wife of Suleyman of Mali) needs to be renamed for several reasons, but I'm not sure of the best way to do it either. Ornithopsis (talk) 05:34, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Owana Salazar pageEdit

Right now the Owana Salazar page is a mess. This is what I posted on the talk page just now: "I'm not seeing really anything that would actually support this subject resurrecting her ancestor's royal house. The sources for the royal part of her career (versus music) are abysmal. The "Portugal embraces Hawaii's royal house" is a press release from The Programa – O JANTAR DE REIS Guimarães source is no longer available, but was a blog from Wordpress, and therefore fails WP:RSP. Then there are the issues with the "Marriages and issue" section - there are no sources whatsoever and it looks like OR. I'm tempted to completely remove any mention of this sovereignty/royalty promotion, considering there are no contemporary sources that support it. It's all OR or unsourced, and looks like pure promotion of her restarted royal house. I am interested in hearing other editors thoughts."

I'm interested in hearing other perspectives, but at this point in time it looks to me as if it needs to be almost completely overhauled. --Kbabej (talk) 22:24, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

This analysis looks very reasonable to me. —JBL (talk) 22:37, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
I've taken a stab at removing the glaring promo material, press releases, and obvious OR. I'm not sure how reliable the Pasifika Artists source is, given it's her management company. Different websites had all copied the bio they created, so I removed those and replaced with the original. Given WP is using the management company four times in a short article, ideally other sources will be found. Overall, the article doesn't appear that strong once all the promo is stripped away. --Kbabej (talk) 23:56, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
I found the section on her claim to be overly technical and somewhat opaque, so I have tried to replace it with a simpler version - we don't have to present her exact argument or detailed counter arguments, just the general idea of it. (wouldn't object to its removal in its entirety, though) Agricolae (talk) 03:09, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
We need to be careful about what she is claiming. Based on the cited source, she claims that her mother was named aliʻi nui (monarch) by a sovereignty group, and that her mother in turn nominated her as kuhina nui (something like regent), naming Owana's son as aliʻi nui. The source portrays Owana as supporting this family claim to the crown, not a personal claim, so I think we need to be more nuanced in how we refer to this in the lede (if we even mention it - if she is not claiming the crown for herself, it makes it even less lede-worthy). Agricolae (talk) 15:12, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
@Agricolae: That's an interesting distinction I hadn't thought of. I'd support editing it to make it match what the source is actually saying. I couldn't find any actual RS that state she is a claimant to the crown. --Kbabej (talk) 15:20, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
It is confounded by Owana's own web page (non-WP:RS), in which she claims to be 'head of the royal family', with her son as her heir, blurring the distinction (it is unclear if her claim has evolved over time since our cited source, or if this represents intentional obfuscation). I am not sure how best to represent this ambiguous situation. Agricolae (talk) 17:40, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure we can use that though, per WP:BLPSELFPUB as it fails the "unduly self serving" test. Claiming you are the head of a royal house is probably as self serving as you can get. --Kbabej (talk) 18:30, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, I get the problem with WP:SPS for self-puffery, but we are already making a direct statement in the lede of what the claim is, and the question is one of accuracy. It would be unduly self-serving were we to add to our article a statement about the claim based solely on an SPS, but that is not the situation here. Rather, we are already reporting that some sort of claim is being made, and in such circumstances it is not uncommon to use an SPS by the subject in order to make sure Wikipedia is not misrepresenting their actual position. My personal preference, however, would be to take it out of the lede entirely. Agricolae (talk) 19:05, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
I would support that. --Kbabej (talk) 21:08, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sourcesEdit

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

  • John Smith "Article of things" Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[ Article of things]" ''''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Just an FYI that this script has been invaluable in cleaning up the extremely abundant trash sources from nobility articles, since all you have to do is scan for pink highlights in the refs. JoelleJay (talk) 18:30, 29 April 2022 (UTC)


By my count there are 26 articles on Wikipedia about styles of the form His/Her/Your/Their [Noun]. twenty-two 23 of these are located at "[Noun]", with "[Noun] (style)" for disambiguation where necessary. four 3 are at "His [Noun]". I think the four 3 should be moved to match the other twenty-two 23, creating 26 nice consistently-titled articles.

I was going to just go ahead and do this when I noted these moves were included within a larger failed move proposal from three years ago. I'm minded to open another move request, but this time ignoring the rest of the proposal and concentrating just on the four 3 odd-styles-out.

I don't see a good argument for maintaining the inconsistency, as there's no difference in usage between the set of 26 and the set of four 3 styles, but one could be inferred from the difference in title. It's also against WP:TITLECON: makes the encyclopedia look haphazard and unprofessional.

A major argument against it last time round was that the "pronouns are part of the style". For what it's worth, Debrett's is quite happily using styles of this form without their pronouns when discussing them generally ("... would be entitled to the style Royal Highness and the title ... was created Royal Highness, but ... with the style of Highness and ...", all [1] p. 58) and only applies one when explaining how to it is used. So is the Queen ("... should have and enjoy the style, title and attribute of Royal Highness with ..." [2]). I don't think Wikipedia should aim to surpass both Debrett's and the Queen in formality, whether or not the argument is technically correct.

However, given the last discussion went down in flames I thought I'd float the idea here first to see what people think and to try to pick the best option to propose. I suggest there are three options (or four, if do nothing counts), and I'm going to list them here in the order of my personal preference.

Option 1: "Naked" style, unpossessed by pronounsEdit

  • Pros: Consistency, only four 3 moves, satisfies MOS:GNL, complies with majority existing precedent
  • Cons: Three more parenthetical disambiguations, doesn't satisfy "pronoun is part of the style" argument

Option 2: Second-person possessiveEdit

  • Pros: Consistency, satisfies the "pronoun is part of the style" argument, complies with MOS:GNL
  • Cons: 26 moves, no precedent

Option 3: 3rd-person masculine possessiveEdit

  • Pros: Consistency, satisfies "pronoun is part of the style" argument
  • Cons: twenty-two 23 moves, goes against MOS:GNL

Option 4Edit

  • Do nothing
  • Pros: Doesn't require consensus
  • Cons: Doesn't fix anything

Very grateful for comments. Charlie A. (talk) 23:03, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

I've moved one of option one back to its original title because it was moved by the sock puppet of a block evader. DrKay (talk) 07:08, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, I've updated the proposed moves above to account for the change. Charlie A. (talk) 21:55, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Per WP:TWODABS, Imperial Majesty (style) could be moved to Imperial Majesty. DrKay (talk) 12:02, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Agreed. It's been a week now and no-one here has suggested this is a bad idea, so I'm going to go ahead and open a move request for Option 1, and include Imperial Majesty too. Charlie A. (talk) 20:10, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Done: Talk:His Eminence#Requested move 14 May 2022. Charlie A. (talk) 20:49, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Page move: Katherine, Crown Princess of Yugoslavia to Katherine KarađorđevićEdit

Please review the following page move:[3]

Please contribute to the discussion at Talk:Katherine Karađorđević#Not even her courtesy title is "Crown Princess". Verbcatcher (talk) 14:22, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

John III, Duke of Mecklenburg-StargardEdit

Anyone able to help with this one I found via Special:Random.

Not an expert on this area of history, but it needs some cleanup; any editors willing to work with me to make this a bit better than it is now? --Easteary861 (talk) 16:40, 26 May 2022 (UTC)