This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Royalty (a child project of the Royalty and Nobility Work Group), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to British Royalty on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you should visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.British RoyaltyWikipedia:WikiProject British RoyaltyTemplate:WikiProject British RoyaltyBritish royalty articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Berkshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Berkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BerkshireWikipedia:WikiProject BerkshireTemplate:WikiProject BerkshireBerkshire articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora articles
Would this be the first or second American to marry into the royal family? The note states that W. Simpson did not marry Edward VIII until after his abdication. However, I would think he (Edward VIII) was still a member of the royal family and therefore Markle the second American. Dbsseven (talk) 15:51, 27 November 2017 (UTC) Dbsseven (talk) 15:51, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, he retained his royal title, HRH, but it was denied to his wife. The citation says she is the first biracial Jewish American and the first American welcomed into the royal family, which is slightly different to being the first American. (i.e. There was one other but she wasn't welcomed and she wasn't biracial or Jewish.) Celia Homeford (talk) 09:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Celia Homeford:, thank you. Is there a way to clear this up a bit for readers unfamiliar with this aspect of the royal family? (ie. Does "marrying into the royal family" require you be given a royal title also? Or is the marriage itself sufficient?) I think the "welcomed" language is much clearer. Or maybe something like that if welcomed is too ill-defined. Dbsseven (talk) 14:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like someone already changed the language. Dbsseven (talk) 17:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Name
Should be changed to Wedding of Prince Henry and Meghan Markle. GoodDay (talk) 17:25, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Only one sentence in the entire article is about a wedding. Everything else is about two people, not about an event, and merely repeats the information from their biographies. The article about the wedding might be warranted in the future but is now simply premature. Another premature thing is describing Markle as Harry's spouse. Users editing articles about royals apparently have a tendency to rush things and write months in advance. We discussed that recently at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Third child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, when an article about a celebrity pregnancy treated its subject as a person notable from conception. In a similar fashion, this wedding is purported to be notable from the moment a ring was seen on the woman's finger, despite the fact that we have only a single sentence to write about it. Surtsicna (talk) 00:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do not get me wrong: I was not trying to apply any consensus to this situation. I never even mentioned any consensus. I did, however, draw attention to the tendency to write about things prematurely. Royalty articles have been my main area of editing since I registered in 2008. There is nothing ad hominem about referring to "users editing articles about royalty", since editing articles about royalty is not shameful. Or do you disagree? Now, a stub is an article that is short but has the potential (i.e. enough info available around) to be expanded, right? The problem here is that there is not yet anything to write about, so it's not merely a stub. We have a single reliably sourced sentence about the wedding. Everything else that is reliably sourced is not about the wedding; anything else that is about the wedding cannot be reliably sourced because the information has not been released (and will not be released for many more months). We could spend the following months reporting tabloid speculations, but should we? I doubt it. Surtsicna (talk) 01:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe there is anything shameful about editing this article either. However, ad hominem has nothing to do with shame, but rather addressing the presenter rather than the content. (In this case the editorial style of the editors, rather than the content of those edits.) I have expanded the article with additional information, with citations from the BBC and CNN. I don't believe source meets the definition of a tabloid, or are unreliable. And the facts added are more relevant in a wedding specific article than either participant's articles. (And I believe this is exactly the purpose of stub articles, to be expanded with information appropriate cited from reliable sources.) Dbsseven (talk) 02:38, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
