Talk:Princess Maria Josepha of Saxony (1867–1944)

message: :The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was move to Princess Maria Josepha of Saxony. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 07:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Maria Josefa of Saxony → Princess Maria Josepha of Saxony - The lady was never ruling queen or empress consort, she was only married to an archduke. This article's name should revert to her maiden form of name per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles). Gryffindor 16:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Obvious as it falls in line for the treatment of princesses vs consorts. Charles 17:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The maiden-name usage on this subject makes no sense to begin with; this is one of the worst examples. Septentrionalis 18:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then may I suggest you post your grievances on the talk page of the naming conventions? Until then we need to comply with the rules. Gryffindor 19:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The naming conventions are a guideline, which may be ignored with cause. My reasons for believing that this branch of them is an imperfect guideline, which generalizes beyond prudence, are already on Wikipedia talk:naming conventions (names and titles). You didn't see them? Septentrionalis 20:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With all due respect I don't understand why this is such an issue. Leaving it at the current format would lead users to believe she was queen consort, when in fact she was not. I don't think ignoring guidelines is the way out here, it would all be in chaos. Gryffindor 20:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This implication (which is denied by the text of the article) only follows for a reader who knows the Wikipedia convention on the subject. Since I think most of those readers are already represented on this talk-page, is this really a problem? ;->Septentrionalis 03:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I have to say I'm not convinced the move is justified.  I would support whatever is the most common usage. Deb 21:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text: *Most of the 313 google results for "Princess Maria Josepha"  appear to be for the third wife of Ferdinand VII of Spain. I will agree that this may raise a problem of disambiguation, but awarding the name to someone other than the primary use seems an odd way to solve it. Septentrionalis 23:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text: *Compare this site, which uses "Archduchess Maria Josepha of Saxony"  Septentrionalis 23:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Archduchess Maria Josepha of Saxony"? Since when are archduchesses from Saxony? Septentrionalis what exactly are you saying, that the current form "Maria Josefa of Saxony" should be left as it is, or would you rather have her as "Archduchess Maria Josefa of Austria"? please explain... Gryffindor 15:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: :Obvious as it falls in line for the treatment of princesses vs consorts. Charles 17:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The maiden-name usage on this subject makes no sense to begin with; this is one of the worst examples. Septentrionalis 18:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then may I suggest you post your grievances on the talk page of the naming conventions? Until then we need to comply with the rules. Gryffindor 19:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The naming conventions are a guideline, which may be ignored with cause. My reasons for believing that this branch of them is an imperfect guideline, which generalizes beyond prudence, are already on Wikipedia talk:naming conventions (names and titles). You didn't see them? Septentrionalis 20:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With all due respect I don't understand why this is such an issue. Leaving it at the current format would lead users to believe she was queen consort, when in fact she was not. I don't think ignoring guidelines is the way out here, it would all be in chaos. Gryffindor 20:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This implication (which is denied by the text of the article) only follows for a reader who knows the Wikipedia convention on the subject. Since I think most of those readers are already represented on this talk-page, is this really a problem? ;->Septentrionalis 03:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I have to say I'm not convinced the move is justified.  I would support whatever is the most common usage. Deb 21:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text: *Most of the 313 google results for "Princess Maria Josepha"  appear to be for the third wife of Ferdinand VII of Spain. I will agree that this may raise a problem of disambiguation, but awarding the name to someone other than the primary use seems an odd way to solve it. Septentrionalis 23:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text: *Compare this site, which uses "Archduchess Maria Josepha of Saxony"  Septentrionalis 23:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Archduchess Maria Josepha of Saxony"? Since when are archduchesses from Saxony? Septentrionalis what exactly are you saying, that the current form "Maria Josefa of Saxony" should be left as it is, or would you rather have her as "Archduchess Maria Josefa of Austria"? please explain... Gryffindor 15:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: *Support Septentrionalis 15:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Maria Josepha of Saxony

message: *Support Second  choice. Actually used here, presumably of Saxony on the same principles of disambigustion as "Mary of Teck" Septentrionalis 15:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archduchess Maria Josepha of Saxony

message: So what did she do for the last 25 years of her life? Septentrionalis 03:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other business

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Princess Maria Josepha of Saxony (1867–1944). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050912031351/http://www.kaisergruft.at/kaisergruft/mjosefa.htm to http://www.kaisergruft.at/kaisergruft/mjosefa.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:24, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified