Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Knights Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order appointed by King Edward VII/archive1
This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Cowlibob (talk | contribs) at 18:24, 5 April 2015 (manual closure of promotion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by SchroCat 07:53, 25 March 2015 [1].
List of Knights Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order appointed by King Edward VII (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
- Nominator(s): Noswall59 (talk) 18:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This article lists those who have received the highest grade of one of the orders of knighthood in the UK at a time when Britain was a leading power in the world; the list includes foreign heads of state, notable British soldiers, courtiers and ambassadors, reflecting the diplomatic relations and social structures of the time. Due to the number of people awarded the honour since it was founded in 1896, it seems sensible to split it into appointments by reign, and this is the first, covering the appointments made by Edward VII (reigned 1901–1910). I believe the article is well-written, with a lead which introduces and summarises the topic well. This article follows the same format as the list of Queen Victoria's appointments which was promoted to FL in October 2014. It is complete and incorporates sorting on the name, country of origin and date of appointment of individuals. Similarly, all items in the list are reliably sourced, as is the lead. Many thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 18:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]
- Support - Great job. This is a very good list. But how about including birth and death date of the recipents in parenthesises after the name? Since many of the noble receipts share the same first and last name as their relatives it would help clarify who the recipients are when there is no wikilink. See the example below, where the recipient is the father Konstantin von Neurath and not his son of the same name (Konstantin von Neurath). P. S. Burton (talk) 18:20, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Name | Country | Date of appointment | Office | Occasion | Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Konstantin, Baron von Neurath (1847–1912)* | German Empire | 21 April 1904 | Lord Chamberlain to the King of Württemberg | Visit of the Prince of Wales to Württemberg |
- @P. S. Burton: Thank you for your comments and for the linking you have done on the article. I appreciate what you're saying here, but my concern is that the original source does not specify their birth/death dates and, in some cases, doesn't even give their full names (e.g. Count d'Arnoso); therefore, this would require additional material to support those facts and some of the people, especially the foreign figures, are much harder to track down in reliable reference material (at least anything online). This is especially true where people don't even have articles on their own language wikis. This means that it may simply not be possible to add this information, at least not consistently anyway. Do let me know what you think. Many thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 15:44, 2 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]
- Yes. you are probably right that it would be impossible to identify all recipients. P. S. Burton (talk) 00:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @P. S. Burton: Thank you for your support, —Noswall59 (talk) 00:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Resolved comments from Bencherlite
| ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Continuing from above.
(Incidentally, what's the advantage of
|
- Support some of your phrases in the notes end with a full-stop, others don't. Best to make it consistent. Perhaps the same is true of your references (or it might be that my glasses need cleaning again). Apart from that, we're now into "I might have done it differently" territory in some respects, which isn't a reason to oppose. For future lists, you can save yourself some typing by using {{sortname}} (which even handles names you don't want to link). Well done. BencherliteTalk 21:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Bencherlite: I will look over the full-stops and learn to use the sortname template. Thank you for your comments and your support, —Noswall59 (talk) 10:43, 20 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]
- What sets the criteria for which people have notes and which don't? I'd keep the list self-contained, meaning that there should be short biographic information for all of them. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:19, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Crisco 1492: The information in each note is taken from the original gazette and consists of the occasion given for the appointment, and the person's office. For most knights, this effectively gives the reason for the appointment. In some of the older sources, appointments are seldom given, and so the notes column is left empty unless I can find the information elsewhere. Bencherlite pointed out that royals received orders for being royal, and so I ought to explain their relationship to the King. Otherwise, I never intended to add biographical information in itself because I felt it was out of the scope of the list, and also because it might create inconsistency: you can see how many of the foreigners lack articles on the English Wikipedia (a shame, I know) and this is telling about the English-language sources available online. I wouldn't know where to find reliable information about members of the Austrian Royal Household, Portuguese nobility, or the Japanese diplomatic service, and so some may lack information. I have just finished my term at University, so I am free to spend some time over this, however. If you could be a bit more specific about what and how much information to include, I can have a look at it. Many thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 11:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
- In most cases we have articles on the individuals (a blessing, really) so a single sentence should be easy for those. "King of Siam", etc. Occasion of the appointment may be available, though I wouldn't be sure of that. Basically, it's fine and dandy to have a list of people made knights grand cross, but we should standardize whether we give the reason why or not. Otherwise it will be confusing for individuals not familiar with the subject. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:19, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Crisco 1492: Thanks for your reply. I've added info to the empty notes columns. There are still four or five for whom I can find very little, but they are titled, so perhaps that will suffice to explain their importance? Regards, —Noswall59 (talk) 13:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
- That works better. Guess it's enough. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- letters patent - why the lower case?
- Done
- Of those 97, six were members of his own family, three were Indian princes, one was an Archbishop, 31 were - Per WP:NUMNOTES, comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all in numerals.
- Done
- Link The London Gazette on first mention. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Done
- I've corrected each of these. Many thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 14:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
- Support on prose. Good work. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks for your support, —Noswall59 (talk) 16:09, 17 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. - SchroCat (talk) 07:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.