Talk:Coronation of George II and Caroline

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton (talk) 18:27, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Queen Caroline in her coronation robes by Charles Jervas
Queen Caroline in her coronation robes by Charles Jervas

Created by Tim O'Doherty (talk) and Alansplodge (talk). Nominated by Tim O'Doherty (talk) at 16:33, 17 April 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Coronation of George II of Great Britain and Caroline; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

  • Hi Tim O'Doherty (talk), review follows: article created 17 April and is of good length; sources used look to be generally reliable (the blog is a British Library one from one of their curators so looks good enough), I am not familiar with Historic UK and I could not see any news articles or books by the author (Jessica Brain), could you advise what makes it reliable? I didn't pick up on any overly close paraphrasing and Earwig looks OK (it is thrown by some quotes and book titles); image is used in article and is correctly and freely licensed; hook facts are interesting, mentioned in the article; ALT0 checks out to source cited, I will have to AGF on the offline source for ALT1; a QPQ is awaited. Would be a good one to run on 6 May, the date of Charles III's coronation - Dumelow (talk) 20:27, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, just realised you are exempt from the QPQ requirement as you have no prior DYKs. Just my query on Historic UK then - Dumelow (talk) 20:28, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Dumelow, thanks for the quick response. I used Historic UK for no particular reason; it just happened to be convenient at the time. Historic UK runs a historical magazine, which should be an RS. There's similar information on Walpole's own article, and the sources there seem to be reliable (see this). Caroline and George's FA articles also have the same information, each with their own sources, which, I admit I haven't read, but they seem to be reliable also. Yes, I agree that it would be good one to run on the 6th. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:47, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply Tim O'Doherty (talk). If you are happy with it then I am good to AGF on the source, the statement it cites is not especially contentious - Dumelow (talk) 06:32, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot. If needs be, I can always find another source. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 06:49, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 23 April 2023[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. DYK is no longer an issue since it was deselected. (non-admin closure) Diverging Diamond To the left! To the right! 14:36, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coronation of George II of Great Britain and Caroline → Coronation of George II and Caroline – There's no need for the title to be this long (WP:CONCISE). Every other coronation article is titled "Coronation of {Monarch} and {Consort}" ("Consort" where applicable), so WP:CONSISTENT applies here too. Estar8806 (talk) 19:44, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not opposed - I titled it the way I did for consistency with both Coronation of Mary I of England and George II of Great Britain. But, I would suggest holding off on this until after 6 May, because moving it now will cause a redirect on its DYK appearance on the Main Page, which is undesirable. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:36, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose (for now). I agree; it is generally frowned upon to move a page during the DYK process. Maybe try proposing the move again after 6 May? Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:42, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for consistency. However, I do think we should hold to Tim O'Doherty's suggestion.
AKTC3 (talk) 22:02, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:TITLECON. There's no need for territorial designations, otherwise the page should have been named "Coronation of George II of Great Britain and Caroline of Ansbach", which is unnecessarily long and in contrast to the format favored by the community and chosen for other similar articles. In Mary I's case, there was no consort crowned alongside her, thus the "of England" is necessary for disambiguation purposes (she's not the only monarch known as Mary I). Keivan.fTalk 23:22, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now - Wait until after the DYK appears on the main page. Change vote to support as DYK has been deselected. DDMS123 (talk) 01:48, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question is there a reason why the links in the DYK cannot be changed? Thryduulf (talk) 08:33, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Thryduulf - The DYK has already been fully reviewed and promoted and as you can see above, you cannot modify it as the discussion is closed. DDMS123 (talk) 18:55, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If all that is changing is the title of the article, which is all that is proposed, then I don't understand why anything about the review would be invalidated? Why a DYK hook prevent an improvement to the encyclopaedia, particularly given that the point of DYK is to promote and highlight improvements to the encyclopaedia? Thryduulf (talk) 22:41, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Thryduulf It causes technical "errors", so it is much preferred to move pages after the DYK has run its course. Unlimitedlead (talk) 03:21, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    While I can understand not moving the article while it's on the main page, there is plenty of time to fix any "errors" before it goes live. Editors' convenience should never get in the way of what is best for our readers. Thryduulf (talk) 09:58, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Thryduulf Good point. I would take this up at DYK. Unlimitedlead (talk) 10:50, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose in favour of consistency with its parent article, George II of Great Britain. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:28, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If we were to name the page after the parent articles, the article should have been at "Coronation of George II of Great Britain and Caroline of Ansbach", not its current title. Similarly, Coronation of George V and Mary would have been at "Coronation of George V and Mary of Teck" (which gives the wrong impression that George V was "of Teck"), and Coronation of George VI and Elizabeth would have been at "Coronation of George VI and Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother" (which is ludicrous as she was not crowned as a queen mother). Thus the community came up with the format "Coronation of [King's name] and [Queen's name]" per WP:CONCISE (you can trace relevant discussions on the talk pages for other coronations). It helps avoid unnecessarily long titles and works fine. Territorial designations are not required when there has been only one George II married to a Caroline that was crowned. No other man named George II has been married to a woman named Caroline and crowned together with her. Keivan.fTalk 05:41, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The parent article of Coronation of George V and Mary is George V. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:18, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm well aware of that, as you can see in my previous comment. Yet you cannot be consistent with the parent article for one half (the male) and then throw in merely the first name for the other half (the female). You either keep it consistent with parent articles for both, or follow the long-standing format established by community consensus which is "Coronation of [King's name] and [Queen's name]" without any territorial designations. Keivan.fTalk 07:24, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no need for consistency with the biography of the consort, especially if it is titled according to her birth name.
    Long established format established by consensus? NCROY has been a failure from its start. You can’t force a consistent solution where none ever existed in real life.
    Actually, I think it should be Coronation of King George II and Queen Caroline of Great Britain and Ireland. The dropping of the title of regnants, and keeping of the title for all others, reflects diplomatic communications, sources too close to the subject, and carrying it over to Wikipedia titles has tied royalty in knots. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:35, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a need for consistency with the biography of the consort, if the whole idea is for the name of a secondary article to match the title of a parent article.
    This has nothing to do with WP:NCROY. The matter was decided in a series of successive RMs (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). Users decided that the prefix "King" or "Queen" should be dispensed with and titles should be kept as short as possible per WP:CONCISE.
    If you truly believe that the format you are suggesting ("Coronation of King [Name] and Queen [Name] of [realm]") can find support within the community, you can always open an RM that covers all articles on different coronations together. I, personally, would advocate for any reasonable format that would keep the titles consistent. Until then, I don't understand why we should be singling out this particular page. Keivan.fTalk 11:09, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I just came randomly to this page from the RM Table page. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:31, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the links to the six RMs. I had not seen them. I would not have agreed with stripping King and Queen from most titles, on the basis of RECOGNISABILITY, and COMMONNAME if filtering for distant-perspective sources.
    I think an RfC might move them all back one day, probably with the coronation of Victoria, Crown Princess of Sweden, and the need to move Queen Victoria to Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom, which would then be a good model. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:41, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Who knows. We might as well end up moving Victoria's page to "Victoria, Queen of Sweden" (similar to Anne, Queen of Great Britain). It depends on who the primary target for "Queen Victoria" is. Though I think I'd be in favor of giving the shortest possible name to the living person. That's why I think Catherine, Princess of Wales should be moved to "Queen Catherine" when she becomes queen, but these are discussions for the future. Keivan.fTalk 12:18, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Tangentially, I disagree. Upon the crown princess of Sweden's accession, she should become Victoria, Queen of Sweden, but Queen Victoria goes to Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom, with Queen Victoria still redirecting to the British queen. Upon Charles's death, Catherine, Princess of Wales should move to Catherine, Queen Consort, for consistency with Camilla and Albert. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:33, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no evidence that Catherine will be known as "The Queen Consort". She is most likely going to be simply "The Queen", similar to Queen Caroline, Queen Charlotte, Queen Caroline, Queen Adelaide, Queen Alexandra, Queen Mary, and Queen Elizabeth. Not to mention that Camilla is about to become known as "The Queen" and her page will soon be moved when that change happens. Keivan.fTalk 20:15, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Mary of Teck was also known as "The Queen", but she's still listed as "Queen consort of the United Kingdom". None of the examples you've put forward are titled "Queen [NAME]". But, this is a tangent. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:23, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In the infobox, yes, she's described as "Queen consort of the United Kingdom". That's the norm for all articles on queens consort, including Alexandra of Yugoslavia, Marie of Romania, etc., but in the body of their articles they are described merely as "Queen of [country]". The reason that Mary of Teck is not at "Queen Mary" is because there are a dozen of queens name Mary, including some queens regnant. Also, for deceased consorts it's preferable to go with maiden names per WP:NCROY especially when they have similar first names (ex. Caroline of Ansbach, Caroline of Brunswick, etc.), while for living ones it's usually "Queen [Name] of [Country]" (Queen Letizia of Spain, Queen Silvia of Sweden, etc.) Camilla's case is exceptional because she has thus far been styled "The Queen Consort" unlike other living queens. If that changes, her page should be moved per WP:NCROY and WP:TITLECON. There's no need to use one format for her page or the page of future British queens, and another for queens from other countries. Keivan.fTalk 20:32, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you. But, if William does end up king, and assuming Catherine lives to then, and assuming they don't divorce, then she will be William's consort, no doubt about that. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:43, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, her rank will be that of a queen consort, but like previous queens she is most likely going to be known as "The Queen" or "Queen Catherine" because no announcements have been made about her future title. Also, that is why the articles about other coronations used to be titled "Coronation of King [regnal name] and Queen [first name]". Similarly, we have Crown of Queen Alexandra, not "Crown of Alexandra, Queen Consort". Keivan.fTalk 21:00, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - before creating this article, the only British coronation pages were of monarchs, rightly or wrongly, without the kingdoms in which they reigned in their titles, i.e. it's called Edward VII, not Edward VII of the United Kingdom. So it was essentially up to me to set the precedent, with the choice of in- or excluding "of Great Britain". The format, as it were, is "Coronation of [MONARCH'S ARTICLE NAME] and [FIRST NAME OF CONSORT]". Looking at it that way, I chose to include. But the pre-this-article precedent can also be interpreted as "Coronation of [MONARCH'S FIRST NAME AND ORDINAL] and [FIRST NAME OF CONSORT]". Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:39, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Estar8806 Changing vote to support - the DYK has been deselected. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:20, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Coronation_of_George_II_and_Caroline&oldid=1154262950"