Talk:Florestan, Prince of Monaco

message: This text in this article appears to be taken directly from http://www.philatelia.net/bonapart/plots/?more=1&id=122. It appears that the author of this website may have taken it from a book listed in the Bibliography section of that website, but it is difficult to tell which, if it is the case at all. Chuychuychuy98 (talk) 04:44, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Plagiarism 

message: How come Florestan is styled Florestan I ("the first"), when to my knowledge there hasn't  been a Florestan II ("the second")?  I thought a monarch/Prince was only given an enumeration if there was more than one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.66.115.174 (talk) 15:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Florestan '''''I''''' 

message: The current policy is as per this MoS reference:
:If the topic itself concerns a specific country, editors may choose to use the date format used in that country. This is useful even if the dates are linked, because new users and users without a Wikipedia account do not have any date preferences set, and so they see whatever format was typed. For topics concerning the UK, Australia, Ireland, New Zealand, most member states of the Commonwealth of Nations, and most international organizations such as the United Nations, the formatting is usually 17 February 1958 (no comma and no "th"). In the United States and Canada, it is February 17, 1958. Elsewhere, either format is acceptable. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English for more guidance.
Perhaps Nunh-huh is referring to this section on disputes over styles:
:In June 2005, the Arbitration Committee ruled that, when either of two styles is acceptable, it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change. For example, with respect to British spelling as opposed to American spelling, it would only be acceptable to change from American spelling to British spelling if the article concerned a British topic. Revert warring over optional styles is unacceptable; if the article uses colour rather than color, it would be wrong to switch simply to change styles, although editors should ensure that articles are internally consistent. If in doubt, defer to the style used by the first major contributor. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jguk
The substantial reason for the change in date formats in this article is that Monaco uses the "littleendian" international date format of Day Month Year. In addition, the date formats were inconsistent and I rationalised them, as per my edit summary. --Jumbo 00:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You really needn't spam this one-sided presentation on each article you convert in your crusade.   Emulating Monaco's date format is a dubious, rather than a substantial, reason for making the changes you seem intent on inflicting on all articles. It would be appropriate for you to wait until the community comments on what you are doing rather than simply  doing as you please. - Nunh-huh 05:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using International dates 

message: Florestan received only a small income from his family, so, as it turned out, his marriage to a descendent of one of the old families of Champagne (province) was, in fact, "financially favorable."
:Doesn't make sense. Do you mean 'but, as it turned out...' ? Valetude (talk) 09:56, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarify, please 

message: (non-automated message) Greetings! I have opened an RfC on WT:ROYALTY that may be of interest to users following this article talk page! You are encouraged to contribute to this discussion here! Hurricane Andrew (444) 18:58, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC of interest