Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility/Archive 1

message: Victoria of the United Kingdom is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 22:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Victoria of the United Kingdom]]

message: What are your ideas on how we can improve this work group space? plange 03:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What would you guys like to see? 

message: Thanks to kingboyk, we now have the assessments split into work groups to make things easier to digest! What does this mean? Well, now we have a nice work list that shows not only the quality scale, but also any comments left in the project banner template. Also, you'll notice we now have stats for this workgroup displayed on the workgroup page, and you also now have your own log of changes to quality and importance... plange 05:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  1.0 assessments and this work group 

message: We currently have:
*Kings consort
*Empress dowagers
*Queen consorts
*Queens regant
Oughtn't we have Queens consort, Empresses dowager, etc, as we have Kings consort? Charles 02:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably should-- where do we propose them? I've never made categories in the main space before... plange 04:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should gather more opinions here and if we reach some sort of understanding, we can bring them up at WP:CFD and have them renamed. Charles 04:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consort/dowager categories 

message: Thought everyone here would be interested in the discussion on the guidelines for notability for royalty. plange 04:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guideline discussion 

message: There is discussion going on at Template_talk:German_title_Freiherr regarding changes to the following templates:
:*Template:German title Herzog (Duke)
:*Template:German title Herzogin (Duchess)
:*Template:German title Fürst (Prince)
:*Template:German title Fürstin (Princess)
:*Template:German title Prinz (Prince)
:*Template:German title Prinzessin (Princess)
:*Template:German title Reichsgraf (Count of the Holy Roman Empire)
:*Template:German title Graf (Count)
:*Template:German title Gräfin (Countess)
:*Template:German title Reichsfreiherr (Baron of the Holy Roman Empire)
:*Template:German title Freiherr (Baron)
:*Template:German title Freifrau (Baroness (by marriage))
:*Template:German title Freiin (Baroness (by birth))
:*Template:German title Edler (Noble "lord")
:*Template:German title Edle (Noble "lady")
:*Template:German title Ritter (Knight)
A previously uninvolved editor is proposing changes to the templates and is calling on the okay from a fairly inactive earlier editor of the templates. I am not against the changes, I am just worried about them going through without more opinions. I would like to see what appears for each title preserved, but it looks like the changes wouldn't be as fluid as one would like. Charles 19:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  German title templates 

message: We have categories for Russian emperors, Russian empresses, Russian tsars and Russian tsarinas. All Russian emperors were tsars, but previous tsars were not emperors. Since they are "best known" as tsars and tsarinas, oughtn't one set of categories be used? Charles 19:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russian imperial/tsarist categories 

message: Mary II of England is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 16:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Mary II of England]]

message: Dear workgroup, After discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography the importance= field has been changed on the Project template. The changes and how they affect this workgroup are as follows:
*importance= has been deprecated in favour of priority=.
*priority= is the same as importance, it's just a friendlier word. The meanings of the grades haven't changed.
*Importance params should be removed (not an urgent task, just don't use importance= from now and on change any you see to priority= if you feel like it)
*importance/priority is no longer assessed on a Project scale, except for the ~200 top core articles which use a new parameter core=yes
*this means that the priority= ratings are now for the exclusive use of the workgroups
*The workgroups are free to work out their own "importance" (priority) ratings. priority=Top is no longer off limits. So, for example, I've upgraded John Lennon to priority=Top. He's not on the core bios list but that doesn't matter, as the priority is only for the workgroups and Lennon is no doubt top priority/importance in the arts & entertainment field.
Hope that helps. Any questions to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography please. --kingboyk 09:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to {{tl|WPBiography}} 

message: I've just had a useful exchange with , the founder of WikiProject British Royalty. DBD had been removing our templates - which I explained probably wasn't cricket :) - but it did raise the question of scope and redundancy.
Therefore we've started discussing whether the British Royalty project ought to be a child project of WPBiography. I think yes. Issues:
*Their scope will probably extend beyond biographies a little (into, perhaps, general articles on British royalty or the royal palaces). As a child project I don't think that matters.
*Templating: It's desirable that we don't spam talk pages by having two project banners for projects with such similar subject areas. Either we could put some WPBio categories and features into their template, or add support for the new child project into our template. I think the latter would be way better, keeping the code in one place. I'm perfectly willing to do it, and can even make the template look like it's totally different to  if need be. If this sounds like a good idea, let me know and I'll do some work in my sandbox.
*Project space: Leave it where it is or move it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Royalty/British Royalty? I don't suppose it matters too much. Leaving it where it is with suitable categorisation would let the child project retain more of an independent feel, which I guess is important.
Comments please. --kingboyk 12:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, by the way, the British Royalty group would get their own worklists/Mathbot assessments too, as I'd ensure these links turn red:  or . --kingboyk 12:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm cool with this - I should certainly like to retain our independence, although there are certainly fearures to WPBio I wouldn't mind making use of - like ratings and so on; templates - ours currently allows us to 'claim' articles and categories, and invite/recruit people in the one template, and tbh, I should much rather keep the template nice a simple - typing
Visual output removed due to auto-category effects // DBD 21:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can probably code it to look more like the former than the latter, but to actually be an instance of . Leave it with me and I'll try to some magic in my sandbox :) --kingboyk 13:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Sidebar idea is a nice one - allows some integration with WPBio whilst retaining your independent project space. You'd be able to add your project areas to the sidebar of course. --kingboyk 13:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject British Royalty]] 

message: I have two issue with the templates being used by the Wikipedia:WikiProject British Royalty. I have tried raising the points with the founder there, but it has fallen on deaf ears. They are implementing :Template:Infobox British Royalty on all members of the British Royal family, including monarchs. However, :Template:Infobox_Monarch is already in place on many of these pages, and is more than aptly suited to the task and gives a uniformity amongst all monarchs. The other issue that I have is that they are implementing their infobox in articles where the individual in question is not only part of the British Royal family, but of other royal families in Europe, including Queens of other countries. This besides the style of the box being difficult to read. --Bob 18:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey woah, fallen on deaf ears? We has a discussion, and I didn't see what you meant, so you, what, go to some higher authority? - As I explained, I believe the use of the IBR on monarchs to be justified because the category of British Royalty is more specific than that of Monarch. And, were there any other country-specific royalty infoboxes, and we had a clash on one articles, we would discuss and establish rules for where each is used. And the style can be discussed within the WikiProject's talk page - in fact, I've encouraged it to no avail. If you don't like the style, then play around with our copy of it, and we can discuss it // DBD 09:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Template Usage

message: I've now majorly hacked our template to not only support the British Royalty child project but to retain their choice of colours.
Here's a few example uses (comment these out or delete them after a few days please):
British royalty Featured Article, on the core biographies list
Visual output removed due to auto-category effects // DBD 21:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, I go on a wikibreak and something huge happens :-) Welcome BRoy! What should we do with the British Isles link on the Project page? Should it go instead to the BRoy project page? It does have some useful content there currently though which would be nice to keep. Maybe you guys could put the content on your page? We could also move the BRoy project to a subpage, like Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Politics and government/United States and you would still keep your ability to manage the page as you currently do... --plange 01:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, directing it to them would be best. They want to retain their independent page names, which is fair enough :) --kingboyk 07:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Looking at it Plange, I think if DBD agrees the Brit Royalty group could take charge of that large box. Our page would then either link to them or - probably better, to keep it all one place - transclude from them. --kingboyk 08:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, sounds about right. I think the next thing to do is further categorise - into England; Scotland; Wales; Irelands; Britain (inc UK); Islands? How might I go about this? // DBD 09:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd advise against it at this stage - I'd get some momentum going before thinking about that. Up to you though; Plange is the best person to answer as the organisation and pages we're talking about were mostly her work. --kingboyk 09:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template changed to support the British Royalty child project 

message: The above sub-project has total scope overlap with this workgroup and ought to be contacted. --kingboyk 14:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the heads-up! I'll reach out to them --plange 14:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Medieval Scotland/BioProject]] 

message: Wikipedia's coverage of Queen consorts for non-British monarchs is quite dreadful (often it's coverage of actual monarchs of small countries like Württemberg is similarly dreadful, but one step at a time...)
On my user page, I've been trying to compile a list of modern queen consorts who are without articles on wikipedia.  I thought people here might be interested.  It's at User:John Kenney/Queens. john k 00:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Queen consorts 

message: Mary I of England is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality.  Sandy (Talk) 02:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Mary I of England]]

message: Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality.  Hbdragon88 03:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson]]

message: Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory.  These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages: 
*User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory 2, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Philosophy and religion Directory, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Sports Directory, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory/United States, (note: This page will be retitled to more accurately reflect its contents)
*User:Badbilltucker/History and society directory, and
*User:Badbilltucker/Science directory
and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory.
The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. 
It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 22:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now moved the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. B2T2 14:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project Directory 

message: This topic seems broad enough, and the potential for articles on subjects besides merely biography articles, suggests that a full WikiProject on Royalty might be in order.  Particularly given some of the discussions we've been having of late over at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles).  I'm not personally much of one to organize something like that, but might it not be a good idea to convert this to Wikipedia:WikiProject Royalty and go from there? john k 16:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What non-bio stuff would it cover? --plange 22:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, articles on titles and on monarchies as institutions, articles on dynasties, articles on succession laws in different countries...surely it isn't that hard to come up with a sense of the possibilities? john k 23:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess my imagination was limited because I don't really work on royalty stuff. Just saw this note because I set up the structure for all the workgroups :-) --plange 23:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Would there be any interest in turning this into a ''real'' wikiproject? 

message: James II of England is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy (Talk) 21:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[James II of England]]