Talk:Duchess of Richmond's ball

message: War and Peace, start of Chapter III: 
— PBS (talk) 16:19, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: See Palace of Zakret -- PBS (talk) 16:37, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Similar start to the [[Russian Campaign]] 

message: user:Surtsicna See WP:BRD, the idea you make a bold edit if it is reverted then it is up to you to gain a consensus on the talk page, not revert and ask the other editor to do so.
The surname is not needed, any more than it is for the Duke of Wellington or  William, Prince of Orange. In the case of the Duchess it is even less needed as her husband (who's surname name it was, her maiden name was  Gordon), is mentioned with surname in the next sentence. -- PBS (talk) 11:49, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:BRD also says you should explain in the edit summary why you are reverting an edit. I would have been very grateful if you had done that, since this way it seemed rather "brusque".Unlike the Duke of Wellington, the Duke of Richmond or the Prince of Orange, the Duchess of Richmond is the eponym of the Duchess of Richmond's ball, the subject of this article. She is the central personality in the article. If the woman had a surname, and that surname is good enough to be included in the title of the article about her, I do not see why we should make an effort to conceal it from the readers. To deny her a surname because her husband is mentioned with it later on strikes me as odd. If her own surname at the time was not Lennox, as you seem to imply, that should certainly be mentioned at Talk:Charlotte Lennox, Duchess of Richmond. Surtsicna (talk) 12:07, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not know as  "Charlotte Lennox, Duchess of Richmond's" ball or "Charlotte Lennox's" ball. The Duchess of Richmond is not the central personality of the article she is merely the hostess, if anyone is the central personality it is the Duke of Wellington. Usually one would write Mr and Mrs w. xyz one does not usually write Mr w. xyz and Mrs v. xyz. It the norm that the surname of the man is the married name of the woman. If that is not so, it would usually be noted, but not if it is. -- PBS (talk) 16:10, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:   Duchess of Richmond 

message: I cannot see why my new lede of 19/1/19 should have been largely reverted. The opening sentence seems clumsy, the Elizabeth Longford quote is not represented in the article, and is full of cites, which don’t belong in the lede. Valetude (talk) 12:57, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: We can not write in the passive voice of the article that it is the most famous ball in history, although it is often stated that it is in reliable sources, because it is a POV. To get around that we use a quote (see WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV). Likewise that most of the senior officers in the British Army cantoned around Brussels were there. We could move those quotes into an introduction and then summerise them, but as the whole lot is only a sentence long it is bloating the article for no good reason. As they are quotes they need citations. -- PBS (talk) 22:09, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Partly agree. But if the Longford quote were to be cited in the main article, would it not be acceptable to reference it briefly in the lede without the need for cites? Valetude (talk) 21:58, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lede 

message: Comte and Comtesse Mercy d'Argenteau  probably Eugène-Guillaume  Argenteau, but needs verification. -- PBS (talk) 22:00, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comte and Comtesse Mercy d'Argenteau