Talk:Mary, Queen of Scots

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Featured articleMary, Queen of Scots is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 9, 2012.
May 10, 2012Featured article candidatePromoted

Queen of Scotland[edit]

A quick search confirms that Mary did use the title Queen of Scotland, which should then be in the infobox and succession box at the bottom ("by the Grace of God Queen of Scotland, [Queen] Dowager of France"). It is surprising that the article lacks a "Titles, style, and arms" section similar to the one at Mary I of England#Titles, style, and arms. Her coats of arms are currently prominently displayed in a random section, and the official titles she used throughout her lifetime are nowhere to be found. Apparently, in addition to the title Queen of Scotland, she also used the titles Dauphine of Viennois, Queen of France, [Queen] Dowager of France, and Queen of England and Ireland at different times. Is this not noteworthy? Surtsicna (talk) 01:52, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

The arms are displayed next to where they are discussed in the text. DrKay (talk) 07:52, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Somebody changed it to Queen of Scots, but I changed it back. GoodDay (talk) 02:30, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
I would like to see a section on what her titles were at different times. Arg Matey (talk) 18:50, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Calendar issue[edit]

In checking sources for the article, I found some that give Mary's execution date as 18 February while a majority give 8 February. The disparity is explained in the article Adoption of the Gregorian calendar--Protestant England adopted the "new" calendar about 170 years after its adoption by the Catholic countries. So I presume travellers moved back 10 calendar days when crossing to France in 1587, and forward 10 days on returning to England. So am I right that the execution was held on 18 Feb (old or Julian calendar) which translates to 8 Feb (new Gregorian)? Bjenks (talk) 17:05, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

No, it's the other way around. As explained in the article, all dates in this article before 1752 are Old Style. It is 8 February in Old Style and 18th in New Style. DrKay (talk) 18:04, 14 March 2018 (UTC)


While I appreciate Daduxing's efforts, I neither agree with his or her changes to the ancestry chart nor with his or her attitude. It is the user propising a change who should gain a consensus, not the person reverting to a previous, stable version, per WP:BRD. I did provide a reason for reverting the edit. The reason is that the template should be easy to read, with lines of descent straight wherever possible and crossing other lines as little as possible. The Stuarts should be on one side of the template and the Tudors on the other. The unnecessarily increased number of lines of descent crossing each other, with Tudors appearing between two Stuart branches, made the template an illegible mess. If the chart cannot be understood at the first glance, it fails its purpose. Surtsicna (talk) 13:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

The earlier version does seem easier to read because it has more straight lines, and it does make sense to have the Stewarts all one one side and the Tudors on the other rather than the Stewarts coming in on both sides, crossing over the Tudors. The earlier version also uses about 1.2kb less of code. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Surtsicna 1) There are only 2 places where a line is crossing another one. The same in both versions. There is issue here.
2) If by the "lines" you are referring at this line:,----'. That's a more complex explanation, but in a nutshell, because of the technical reasons.
This charts are better displayed when the boxes are vertically aligned. If not, depending on the size (inches) of the monitor/display and the browser used, you could have undesired rendering. In this case: like with the boxes of "Mary, Queen of Scots"; "Elizabeth Hamilton"; "James III" (etc) where the connecting line (above/below) is on the left side of the box and not in the middle as normal.
Second, as with above mentioned boxes, the borders doesn't fit the text. You have the borders of the boxes bigger than the text, with undesired empty spaces. This creates a visual discomfort, and for the same reason, the boxes are not aligned. The same with the boxes of "Margaret Tudor", "Margaret Douglas", etc.
Sure this depends on the size of the display/monitor and the browser. Firefox displays better than Chrome, because of the way in what Chrome is breaking the text lines making some boxes bigger than others (compare "Henry VIII of England" with the other boxes). Another visual defect (this can also be controlled by inserting some break-line (<br>) to control where a line should break)
3) Those borders are too thick and this is distracting the attention from the informations that really matters (the text and the connecting lines). I consider that this should be dealt with anyway
4) The only valid argument here is that you designed it to be the Tudors on the right and the Stuart on the left. But now depends of what you choose: This or a proper display that can be rendered well on different devices/screens.
5) But don't tell that my chart can't be read because that's a nonsense. My chart is visually better, orderly, not chaotic as the other version. --Daduxing (talk) 17:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. I don't look at these charts much, and I wouldn't come down firmly on one version or the other. However, I don't see Daduxing's version as being an improvement on what was there before. Deb (talk) 17:46, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Why Deb? What's the reason? --Daduxing (talk) 18:08, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't think it looks any better and I don't think it's any easier to follow. Obviously this is going to be a subjective comment, but that's just how I see it. If you forced me to express a preference, I think I would go for the original precisely because there is more empty space so the boxes look less cluttered. (And I use Chrome.) Deb (talk) 20:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Could someone please insert this image of Mary, Queen of Scots in the article?[edit]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

I don't see where it would naturally fit and the number of images was just reduced to avoid over-crowding. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:05, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Maybe in a small gallery at the bottom of the article, joining other images? What use is of the images if no one is going to see them? Maybe I can do it? But I require authorizing from... you?

Galleries are generally discouraged not always encouraged. It's particularly unlikely that one would be considered suitable if it contained only a single image. But perhaps you could explain what this image is and why you think it's so important? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:55, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Galleries are NOT "generally discouraged" AT ALL - I'm amazed people still trot out this hoary myth. WP:GALLERY used to read that way until about 2008, but it was talking about gallery-only "articles", which used to be prevalent. They have been very common in FAs on visual subjects for years. If "the number of images was just reduced to avoid over-crowding" as Celia Homeford tells us, then a mini-gallery of one or two rows is probably a good idea. Johnbod (talk) 00:23, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
The guideline does say 'Gallery images must collectively add to the reader's understanding of the subject; avoid similar or repetitive images'. I'm not seeing that this particular image is telling us anything different from the portraits already in the article. However, it may be worth considering restoring the gallery of coat of arms that was in the article before; that was showing information (on how her coat of arms changed over the years) that is now lost. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:36, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
So I've now adjusted the offensive hoary myth. A mini gallery with one single image still doesn't sound like a very good idea to me. But hey, perhaps that's just a hoary myth. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:42, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Both unsigned IP ("joining other images") & I clearly envisaged a gallery with other pictures - say those recently removed. So what you're still doing is failing to grasp the idea. Johnbod (talk) 13:43, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Apologies for "still failing to grasp the idea". This thread is titled: "... please insert this image of Mary, Queen of Scots in the article?" The IP's (and your) suggestion looks to me like using a single non-notable image to shoe-horn in a whole new gallery. Maybe, in the case of historical coats of arms, as per Celia's suggestion, that would be a good idea. Except that the image here is not a coat of arms. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:51, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Late to the party: I don't see anything in this particular image that improves my understanding of her (and there are too many images already). It can be seen, as many others, in the commons category, is even the first of the 2nd group. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:47, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree it's not an especially vital portrait, but not at all that there are too many images. Johnbod (talk) 13:43, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello! It's the IP. And this is my response specially directed to Martinevans123 13:51, 27 June 2018 (UTC). I apologize in advance for the fact that English is not my first language and that even years after studying it so much I still don't comprehend many idioms (shoe-horn) and phrasal verbs (shoe-horn in) before grabbing a dictionary. But I will try my best to answer to what you're saying, which seems to me like:

1) That I want to insert a whole new gallery of images just for the sake of having this "non-notable" image exhibited, perhaps the other images actually being even less notable. YES & NO. While I do not deny that I personally LOVE that portrait of the Queen and that that is the only reason I want the image to be in the actual article, I think there are many valuable pictures of at least equal appraisal to the one in question.

2) That I want to insert a whole new gallery of images which will overcrowd the article. Well, I suppose galleries accomplish the opposite of overcrowding. Besides, if the image is so non-notable (just like so many others appearing in Wikipedia Commons), I think a gallery is the best idea, because they are not always clicked-on by users, who can easily scroll back and forth the pictures without paying much attention (or stare at the one that calls them the most) because they are mostly an addition to the article and not critical to it (like the images exhibited sideways of the text). I personally think it's enriching.

3) That I want make the image I support fit at all costs in a gallery. No, because as you mention the gallery is non-existent, which in turn suggests that the community hasn't found yet a lot of pictures valuable enough to be in the article, meaning that the images to be showcased in the new gallery would be of at least equal value to the one I'm endorsing.

4) That I want to insert the image I'm in favor of in order to trick everyone into wanting a whole new gallery, or my unspoken idea of such. Honestly no. But I like the idea that a whole new gallery would be included. Maybe a gallery only displayed at the user's will by clicking on the button "show".

Just imagine all those artists painting portraits to no end. If this Wikipedia committee decides more pictures of Mary Stuart (including the one presented by me) are not to be showcased, all of their hard work will be for nothing. And it will be your fault... collectively speaking.

I thereby urge this Wikipedia committee to provide for, in no time, a gallery of images, pictures and portraits, similar to the one contained in Wikipedia Commons, but much more compact in size, well concealed and encompassing much less pictorial representations regarding Martha...I mean, Mary Stuart, Queen of the Scots.

Thanks everyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Ah right, collectively. For a moment I thought it was all my fault. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:35, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
There are two links in the article to galleries of images of her. Perhaps the problem is that they are tucked away right at the bottom of the article where hardly anyone will see them. I'd prefer to see them in the 'See also' section. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:12, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Good idea, Celia. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:18, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Height of "scaffold"[edit]

@DrKay: I've no intention of joining an edit dispute over this matter, but ask you to reconsider the logic of your peremptory ruling. The eyewitness drawing on the page clearly shows a perimeter railing fence around what Tomascon calls "a dais". Without starting a discussion of perspective drawing in the 16th century, I will suggest that such a fence would be at least four feet high, making the floor of the dais a maximum of four feet above the floor of the hall, conceivably necessitating "two or three steps" for a lady to ascend. If the dais floor height were a mere two feet, it would surely require at most one step to ascend. On acceptance of sources, I do not have either Fraser or Guy to scrutinise, but am very impressed by the contemporary 8-page "exhaustive report" of eyewitness Emanuel Tomascon. I ask you not to arbitrarily dismiss that plausible detail but at least to have the article acknowledge a disparity or conflict of respectable sources, please. Bjenks (talk) 01:54, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I think it's silly to say "either two or eight feet high" when we do not need to say either. The picture speaks for itself. DrKay (talk) 16:27, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
The picture can bear interpretation, but I agree there is no need to specify a height in the face of contradictory accounts. Lamartine's (1864) translated version gives "about two feet and a-half above the ground" but not sourced. Bjenks (talk) 05:02, 30 August 2018 (UTC)