Talk:William IV: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:20, 28 December 2006

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
FA	This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Template:Featured article is only for Wikipedia:Featured articles.

Military history: Maritime / British / European FA‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

FA

This article has been rated as FA-class on the project's quality scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force

Explanation of reversion

As a policy, Wikipedia prefers the use of names rather than titles to refer to specific individuals.--Theo (Talk) 16:32, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re use of titles

Remobed all titles of HRH and Majesty because they are unnecessary - they are reserved for living people as they are forms of address and in an encyclopedia to keep referring to them as "His Royal Highness and His Majesty" looks superfluous and zealous and unprofessional - PLUS this is not done on pages of Henry VIII, Charles I etc.

merging

I've added merge tags to get the articles on his daughters (Charlotte and Elizabeth) merged into this one. One died on the same day she was born, the other only lived a year. Neither was significant or was capable of doing anything significant. (And I love that Charlotte's article has sections titled "Early life" and "Later life" when she lived less than a day--someone was using a template!) Tocharianne 14:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose- at least for Elizabeth as she was expected to ascend as Queen and was in the direct line of succession. And if you didn't like the section names, it would probably be better to rename or remove them rather than propose redirection. Plus, the move should not have been made until there was more discussion. Astrotrain 16:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record someone else moved the articles, not me. At any rate, we'll hold off on moving Elizabeth until having a discussion here. Tocharianne

Support I don't think that just being born into the royal family is sufficient to get an entire article, especially when there's nothing that can be added to rescue an article about an infant from stub-hood. She was third in line for the throne for a grand total of only 3 months, so I think it's exaggerating to say that she was "expected to ascend as Queen". Tocharianne 17:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support It was I who moved the articles - because I agree thoroughly with Toch's sentiments. – D B D does... 18:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Self-evident with Charlotte. And should imo to be done also with Elizabeth - her presumed heiress-ship does not give sufficient encyclopedic content to the article about her. Mere genealogical things are not worth a biography article, because they are as easy and relevant to be given in father's article. The situation would be other only in case of her having actually succeeded to the throne, imo. Maed 21:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 20:21, 28 December 2006 edit Tocharianne (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 1,444 edits m →merging: forgot a word ← Previous edit		Revision as of 21:20, 28 December 2006 edit undo Maed (talk \| contribs) 1,986 edits →merging Next edit →
Line 28:		Line 28:

	* '''Support''' It was I who moved the articles - because I agree thoroughly with Toch's sentiments. – '''[[User:Danbarnesdavies\|D]][[WP:BRoy\|B]][[User talk:Danbarnesdavies\|D]]''''' does...'' 18:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)		* '''Support''' It was I who moved the articles - because I agree thoroughly with Toch's sentiments. – '''[[User:Danbarnesdavies\|D]][[WP:BRoy\|B]][[User talk:Danbarnesdavies\|D]]''''' does...'' 18:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

			* '''Support'''. Self-evident with Charlotte. And should imo to be done also with Elizabeth - her presumed heiress-ship does not give sufficient encyclopedic content to the article about her. Mere genealogical things are not worth a biography article, because they are as easy and relevant to be given in father's article. The situation would be other only in case of her having actually succeeded to the throne, imo. [[User:Maed\|Maed]] 21:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)