Talk:George II of Great Britain

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:George I of Great Britain which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 20:30, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: Per MOS:CREDITS: "image credits in the infobox image are discouraged, even if the artist is notable" (emphasis added). Nikkimaria (talk) 23:17, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a featured article, and the attribution was included when it was made such on October 1, 2011. "Discouraged" does not mean "disallowed", as you appear to interpret it. As long as the artist has a Wikipedia article, there is no inherent problem with noting authorship. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 23:20, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: "Discouraged" means "should not generally be done unless for a good reason", and "was included when this provision of the MOS did not yet exist" is not a good reason. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:37, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It is good reason enough. Thomas Hudson was a renowned portraitist, and I see no good reason not to note his authorship. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 23:52, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: As a featured article, this article is expected to follow the MOS, which indicates that "notable" is not sufficient reason for inclusion in cases like this. I see no good reason to disregard that. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:08, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The caption appeared as it did when the article became an FA. Having the caption just read "Portrait, 1744" is just completely uninformative. Hudson had a particular style and it's absolutely worth acknowledging that. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 00:15, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Which, again, was before this guideline existed. Having a caption with a date allows you to locate it within the subject's lifespan, but if you object to it I'd be fine with omitting it entirely. Hudson's style is not the subject of the article (and not discussed in the article). Nikkimaria (talk) 00:22, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I think the caption is absolutely fine as it is. Just because it was before the guideline existed does not mean it needs to be retroactively applied. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 00:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: As standards evolve, articles evolve along with them. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:32, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, there's no prohibition. So long as the author has an article, it's completely fine to attribute. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 00:33, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: "It's not prohibited" is not a reason to do something that's discouraged. Hudson's not the subject of this article and not key to understanding the subject; it's unnecessary. And because this is an FA, it's expected to follow the style guidelines. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:39, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, it's absolutely fine in context. If you want to hold a RFC on this, you can, but I completely disagree with your interpretation of the guideline. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 00:41, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Caption

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) 20:00, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC of interest 

message: It would be interesting to know something about the political context in which George was granted that title, since it seems to imply a certain committment to the Hanoverian succession (which Queen Anne seems to have avoided at other moments). Oudeístalk  13:14, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duke of Cambridge