Talk:William IV

message: To my eyes image 2 is superior. It has a better contrast, color balance and resolution than image 1. DrKay (talk) 14:23, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed that image 2 is better. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:57, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

text: Image 2 is better & I wish the fellow who attempted to change it, would stop & seek consensus first across several bio articles, before making such bold changes. GoodDay (talk) 21:15, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted what he did because at the time nobody had responded to the article talk page post he had made. So since at the time there was no “consensus” I changed it back.  When I saw he changed it back I checked to to see if anyone responded to him on the article talk page. I then saw that after I reverted his edit somebody responded agreeing with him so after that I didn’t change it back. Orson12345 (talk) 22:18, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't use male pronouns for a person whose identity is a complete mystery to you. Your 'explanation' here is faulty in many ways, but that one really irritates. DrKay (talk) 22:26, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Since statistically, 85% to 90% of Wikipedia contributors are male, it seems completely reasonable to me to use male pronouns by default. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:35, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You may wish to educate yourself by reading Wikipedia:Editors' pronouns instead of doubling down on insulting behavior. DrKay (talk) 19:08, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

text: I completely forget I’m so very sorry. In regards to my explanation I don't find it faulty but truthful. Again I’m very sorry if I upset or offended you that was not my intention.  Orson12345 (talk) 22:54, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

text: Unless Shee intended green sky, 2 seems superior.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:35, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main image 

message: The Early reign section mentions he created his eldest son, George, Earl of Munster. The Later reign and death section includes "William and his eldest son, the Earl of Munster, were estranged at the time, but William hoped that a letter of condolence from Munster signalled a reconciliation. His hopes were not fulfilled and Munster ...". Apart from the later section referring to the son as if he hadn't been mentioned earlier does it need editing anyway? At 16:49 on 3 March 2023 "Royalty are usually known by their first names" appears in the edit summary. Mcljlm (talk) 13:12, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems OK to me. The second usage is with a shortened form "the Earl of Munster". He would not be referred to by first name as Munster was not royalty, but simply nobility due to his creation as an earl.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:36, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eldest son 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Elizabeth II which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 18:46, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

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) 20:02, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC of interest