Wikipedia talk:Notability (royalty)

message: While I disagree with the proposal in general, one thing that should be adjusted is the inclusion of great-grandchildren and grandchildren.  This could lead to a bunch of useless articles if monarchies with harems are involved.  The Behnam 04:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have examples of this happening? Guidelines aren't supposed to try to cover every possibility you can imagine; they're just supposed to describe consensus that has already been achieved on certain issues. Kafziel Talk 13:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at House of Saud. How many "princes" of the royal blood are there going down several generations with multiple wives? Edison 22:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Harems

message: That the heading "Nobility" be changed to "Nobility and Baronetage". - Kittybrewster 22:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, and think we need to go further and assert plainly in the guideline that any British peer, baronet, or knight (including suo jure females) is Notable by definition.  (I would argue for wives as well, but am content to leave that for a later discussion!  ;-)  )  We are spending too much time arguing about it on various AfDs.  Laura1822 17:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with the proposal. Editors should not try to win AFDs by changing the text of a guideline. This proposal flies in the face of the main guideline for notability, Wikipedia:Notability (people) which says "All subjects of Wikipedia articles should meet the central notability criterion for inclusion, summarized here: The person has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. This criterion includes published works which meet the reliable source guidelines in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, scholarly papers, and television documentaries except for the following: Works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that just mention the person in passing, telephone directory listings, or simple records of births and deaths." Having a mere directory listing in a book of peerage is not sufficient. It is also too Brit-centric. Why would the guideline also make every person in the world with a title of honor notable? No one and no thing should get a free ride so they do not have to satisfy the general requirements to demonstrate notability as stated in WP:N. A king or a government can created titles for thousands of people who support them militarily, politically, or financially, but I fail to see how that makes the title automatically notable, and how it makes the title holder, his spouse, and all his descendants notable as well. Baronet says "The practice of awarding baronetcies was introduced by James I of England in 1611 in order to raise funds." That does not necessarily imply that every eldest son of an eldest son of that financial supporter is notable.  Many nobles have done notable things, and have sources to satisfy WP:N. The ones who have little more than a directory listing should not have individual articles, but could be included in a list of holders of a hereditary office if the office meets the standards of notability.  This proposal should probably be merged with Wikipedia:Notability (people), just as the special guideline for politicians is being considered for merger with that guideline. Edison 18:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea that inheriting a title automatically makes someone notable (in the sense we use in Wikipedia) really bothers me. Most of the titles have lost their meaning in these times, and trying to claim notability for merely inheriting or purchasing a title is vanity, mere vanity. No, no, let these so-called nobles and aristocrats do something that gains them notability, and then we can mention their titles, but please, no articles for people who have no other claim to notability. -- Donald Albury 13:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Titles may be vanity in countries that don't legally recognize them (aristocrats in those countries are not covered in this guideline), but many countries' governments and social orders are based on a rigid system of nobility. It's not up to us—despite our American point of view on titles and royalty— to decide when they've become "mere vanity". Guidelines are descriptive, not proscriptive. We can only say how things are, not how they should be. Kafziel Talk 13:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I would point out that (a) what's really at issue here isn't the set of current peers, but past holders of British titles.  And (b) this proposal isn't Brit-centric:  rather, it is trying to address an extant anti-British bias that is very clearly put forth above.  Notability is ultimately a subjective thing, and Wikipedia overall is supposed to be inclusive. Laura1822 17:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Besides which these people were notable by virtue of their title (and/or wealth and influence) as much as by their achievements. - Kittybrewster 19:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please explaion what makes a knighted Brit or other person who held a titles of minor nobility inherently notable? If they were also notable in government or military service, in business, in academia, or in any field of endeavor, then they are notable. But some nobility only are known as a directory listing, with little more known, apparently, than their title and maybe when they lived. Some lacked influence, and were dieased or disabled and did not do much of anything. Some lost their wealth through gambling or misadventure, and your proposal would still keep them with articles. Some such persons apparently accomplished nothing in life other than being fortunately born. "Kentucky Colonel" is an honorary title. Would it make sense to declare they are all inherently notable? "Bush Pioneers" raised money for G.W. Bush's political candidacies, just as 17th century Baronets gave money to Charles I. Would it be proper to declare they are all inherently notable? Is the idea that this, like a map or a gazette, includes every instance of something just for the sake of completeness, even if the entry will likely never be more than a sentence? It seems more sensible to include the members who have enough written about them to create a meaningful article, and for the rest just to perhaps put them in a list. Edison 20:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is so unusual to be given a knighthood that the distinction in itself necessarily makes the person notable. They are given the notable status by virtue of their achievements in their own field. Confusing arguments relating to a different cultural system does not seem to me helpful. - Kittybrewster 21:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Again, Edison, you're comparing apples and oranges. The "titles" you're talking about are American. America doesn't legally recognize titles, so they're not covered here. There's no comparison. And besides, a baronet would be part of the lesser nobility section and so would require more than just a title to be notable, even under this guideline. Kafziel Talk 21:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Minor royals, including Barons, Viscounts etc should not automatically be considered notable just by receiving a title. hey should also satisfy usual criteria for notabilty just like, as one editor put it, "commoners".--Vintagekits 23:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with Kitty and Laura- all British peers and baronets and their wifes are automatically notable and entitled to their own Wiki articles. I support this proposal also. Astrotrain 09:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless they satisy WP:N  and WP:BIO then it is crazy for these people who simply obtain a minor and insignificant title to get automatic notability. --Vintagekits 01:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: At the top of the project page it says that this is a failed proposal. I don't believe that the community as a whole has ever accepted that holding a title of nobility automatically confers notability. Donald Albury 20:37, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah yes - missed that somehow! Thanks Donald.  OGBC1992 (talk) 08:13, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal

message: The discussion further up this talkpage demonstrates that there's some confusion as to the status of illegitimate royal children under this policy. My interpretation is that, as it refers to official members of royal families, this would not include illegitimate children - they would still be evaluated for notability under the normal criteria of WP:BIO, as would those distant relatives of royal families who hold no official title and are not prominent in the line of succession. If no one objects, I will add a couple of sentences to the policy to make this clearer - am I right in thinking I'm allowed to do this, as this page hasn't been adopted as official policy yet? Walton Vivat Regina! 20:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Illegitimate children

message: This proposal has been here since last august, and there is still not much of a consensus for it. After all that time, I'd say it's unlikely that it will get consensus ever, and as such the proposal has failed. I'm sure someone will now say "but there is no consensus to reject it!", but I advise that person to read WP:POL - a proposal which lacks consensus either way is still rejected. >Radiant< 10:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say there's actually a pretty good consensus for it. Some people disagree on certain specific points (just like every other guideline), but almost everyone seems to agree that the guideline itself is useful and warranted. Kafziel Talk 15:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, and looking at this talk page, I'm not the only one. WP:N is sufficient, with WP:BIO where abosolutely necessary. No need for this. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 16:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Wikipedia:NR. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 10#Wikipedia:NR until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:24, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Wikipedia:NR" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: a trash ? VocalIndia (talk) 18:00, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: ???? JoelleJay (talk) 17:15, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  It Should be resumed