Talk:Meghan, Duchess of Sussex

Misnamed

This page is misnamed: unless the subject is divorced or succeeded she is THE Duchess of Sussex or even possibly Princess Henry of Wales. Not until After a divorce or her death will she become Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. Giano (talk) 20:55, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Infobox Photo

The current infobox photo is dated and a profile or side shot (not looking into the camera). In contrast, this free photo is current and offers a front view looking into the camera:

• • https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Official_calls_and_evening_reception_for_Duchess_of_Sussex_(1)_(cropped).jpg

I would like to replace the side shot image with the front view image in the infobox. Rather than begin an edit war, I'm posting here to talk first. -Classicfilms (talk) 23:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Dated? It has not even been a year since it was taken. She has not changed much, if at all. Surtsicna (talk) 02:03, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

The current image obviously isn't dated. Both images are from 2018. She's wearing a poppy in the evening reception one, which does seem dated to me. Ordinarily, you would never see someone wearing a poppy like that outside the first two weeks of November; it's a clearly a Remembrance Day event. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:23, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Ok. Then by this logic, no one will object if I change the caption of the image currently in the inbox from “Markle in 2018” to “The Duchess in 2018”?

• • https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Meghan_Markle_-_2018_(cropped).jpg

Thus, this article will be in sync with: Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge (infobox: The Duchess in 2014) or Sophie, Countess of Wessex (infobox: The Countess in 2018) or Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall (inbox: The Duchess of Cornwall in April 2014) etc. -Classicfilms (talk) 16:30, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I will object. She was not a duchess at the time and there is no reason to force uniformity, especially when it is at the expense of accuracy, grammar, orthography, and style. Surtsicna (talk) 17:16, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Ok, so it sounds like the current photo is dated. Fair enough. Thus I propose using the photo I suggested instead:

• • https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Official_calls_and_evening_reception_for_Duchess_of_Sussex_(1)_(cropped).jpg

which accurately depicts her as “The Duchess in 2018”. This would put this article in sync with : Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge (infobox: The Duchess in :::2014) or Sophie, Countess of Wessex (infobox: The Countess in 2018) or Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall (inbox: The Duchess of Cornwall in April 2014) etc. :::This photo is free to use, a head shot looking directly at the camera, and accurately depicts the subject. I'm not sure I understand the objection to using it. -:::Classicfilms (talk) 17:22, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

No, it is not dated. Two users have told you this. A woman does not Pokemon-style evolve into another being when she marries, regardless of whom she has marries. She is the same person now as she was a year ago and looks basically the same. Images are not chosen based on the subject's marital status. The photograph you suggest is pixelated. There are better photographs of her taken in New Zealand, but I am not sure any of them beats the quality of the March 2018 photograph. And once again, I object to pointlessly enforcing uniformity in even the smallest matters, such as caption wording. Surtsicna (talk) 17:48, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

The current photo is better quality. And agreed with above regarding caption. It's made clear throughout the entire article that she is now The Duchess of Sussex. We don't need to overdo it. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 18:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Ok Willthacheerleader18, fair enough. I appreciate your insight. One possibility would be to simply remove captions such as in these articles: Hillary Clinton rather than Hillary Rodham and Michelle Obama rather than Michelle Robinson- which would end the discussions of consistency in these articles- but that was not the point I had originally raised. I appreciate your argument about photo quality-thanks for answering my question. -Classicfilms (talk) 19:59, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Of course! I wouldn't be opposed to the caption simply saying "Meghan", but I do think "Markle" is more suitable in this situation. If there is a better quality photo taken of her after her marriage that replaces this one, then I would move for the caption to say "The Duchess" or "The Duchess of Sussex". -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 18:01, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you Willthacheerleader18 on all of your points above. Thanks for the feedback! -Classicfilms (talk) 19:56, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

RM

Apparently there is/was a move moratorium. Where did that get archived to? Agathoclea (talk) 09:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

It was archived yesterday: [2][3] But we couldn't see it because of this. Corrected now. Celia Homeford (talk) 15:49, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

• The move moratorium expired on January 5, 2019. Safiel (talk) 17:40, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Hospital

Please let us not clutter the article with unnecessary detail. The name of the hospital in which she was born, the exact time of birth, and length and weight at birth are not standard biographical information. Surtsicna (talk) 09:25, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

• Adding the detail of her birth place the reason is the royal families number is always show the birth place of them in Wikipedia inbox, for example of her husband Prince harry is have writing his birth place inside the main inbox of life and his grew background in the article, We can see the royal family biography in Wikipedia to helping to adding to adding her detail of birthplace in the article! Thanks Geoffreyrabbit(talk) 17:51 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Let us not clutter the article with unnecessary detail. Drmies (talk) 17:39, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
    • And who determines that is unnecessary? Dimadick (talk) 19:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
      • Those who reach a local consensus at an article Talk page? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Kate has the hospital included, as have both Sophie and Fergie? But including birth length and weight seems well over the top. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I saw the royal family number is write the birth place in the background for youth age,but I think just use time and date of birth and birth place in generally in article,I think no need to added about length and weight is only detailed in the article, Just keep the birth date and birth place in enough for simply recommend for birth.Geoffreyrabbit(talk) 14:17 19 February 2019