This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Royalty (a child project of the Royalty and Nobility Work Group), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to British Royalty on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you should visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.British RoyaltyWikipedia:WikiProject British RoyaltyTemplate:WikiProject British RoyaltyBritish royalty articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
A fact from Coronation of George II and Caroline appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 6 May 2023 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that during her coronation, Caroline of Ansbach's dress was reportedly so covered in jewels that she required a pulley to lift her skirt for her to kneel?
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Hi Tim O'Doherty (talk), review follows: article created 17 April and is of good length; sources used look to be generally reliable (the blog is a British Library one from one of their curators so looks good enough), I am not familiar with Historic UK and I could not see any news articles or books by the author (Jessica Brain), could you advise what makes it reliable? I didn't pick up on any overly close paraphrasing and Earwig looks OK (it is thrown by some quotes and book titles); image is used in article and is correctly and freely licensed; hook facts are interesting, mentioned in the article; ALT0 checks out to source cited, I will have to AGF on the offline source for ALT1; a QPQ is awaited. Would be a good one to run on 6 May, the date of Charles III's coronation - Dumelow (talk) 20:27, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, just realised you are exempt from the QPQ requirement as you have no prior DYKs. Just my query on Historic UK then - Dumelow (talk) 20:28, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Dumelow, thanks for the quick response. I used Historic UK for no particular reason; it just happened to be convenient at the time. Historic UK runs a historical magazine, which should be an RS. There's similar information on Walpole's own article, and the sources there seem to be reliable (see this). Caroline and George's FA articles also have the same information, each with their own sources, which, I admit I haven't read, but they seem to be reliable also. Yes, I agree that it would be good one to run on the 6th. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:47, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose (for now). I agree; it is generally frowned upon to move a page during the DYK process. Maybe try proposing the move again after 6 May? Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:42, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support for consistency. However, I do think we should hold to Tim O'Doherty's suggestion.
Support per WP:TITLECON. There's no need for territorial designations, otherwise the page should have been named "Coronation of George II of Great Britain and Caroline of Ansbach", which is unnecessarily long and in contrast to the format favored by the community and chosen for other similar articles. In Mary I's case, there was no consort crowned alongside her, thus the "of England" is necessary for disambiguation purposes (she's not the only monarch known as Mary I). Keivan.fTalk23:22, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If all that is changing is the title of the article, which is all that is proposed, then I don't understand why anything about the review would be invalidated? Why a DYK hook prevent an improvement to the encyclopaedia, particularly given that the point of DYK is to promote and highlight improvements to the encyclopaedia? Thryduulf (talk) 22:41, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While I can understand not moving the article while it's on the main page, there is plenty of time to fix any "errors" before it goes live. Editors' convenience should never get in the way of what is best for our readers. Thryduulf (talk) 09:58, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If we were to name the page after the parent articles, the article should have been at "Coronation of George II of Great Britain and Caroline of Ansbach", not its current title. Similarly, Coronation of George V and Mary would have been at "Coronation of George V and Mary of Teck" (which gives the wrong impression that George V was "of Teck"), and Coronation of George VI and Elizabeth would have been at "Coronation of George VI and Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother" (which is ludicrous as she was not crowned as a queen mother). Thus the community came up with the format "Coronation of [King's name] and [Queen's name]" per WP:CONCISE (you can trace relevant discussions on the talk pages for other coronations). It helps avoid unnecessarily long titles and works fine. Territorial designations are not required when there has been only one George II married to a Caroline that was crowned. No other man named George II has been married to a woman named Caroline and crowned together with her. Keivan.fTalk05:41, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm well aware of that, as you can see in my previous comment. Yet you cannot be consistent with the parent article for one half (the male) and then throw in merely the first name for the other half (the female). You either keep it consistent with parent articles for both, or follow the long-standing format established by community consensus which is "Coronation of [King's name] and [Queen's name]" without any territorial designations. Keivan.fTalk07:24, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need for consistency with the biography of the consort, especially if it is titled according to her birth name.
Long established format established by consensus? NCROY has been a failure from its start. You can’t force a consistent solution where none ever existed in real life.
There is a need for consistency with the biography of the consort, if the whole idea is for the name of a secondary article to match the title of a parent article.
This has nothing to do with WP:NCROY. The matter was decided in a series of successive RMs (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). Users decided that the prefix "King" or "Queen" should be dispensed with and titles should be kept as short as possible per WP:CONCISE.
If you truly believe that the format you are suggesting ("Coronation of King [Name] and Queen [Name] of [realm]") can find support within the community, you can always open an RM that covers all articles on different coronations together. I, personally, would advocate for any reasonable format that would keep the titles consistent. Until then, I don't understand why we should be singling out this particular page. Keivan.fTalk11:09, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the links to the six RMs. I had not seen them. I would not have agreed with stripping King and Queen from most titles, on the basis of RECOGNISABILITY, and COMMONNAME if filtering for distant-perspective sources.
Who knows. We might as well end up moving Victoria's page to "Victoria, Queen of Sweden" (similar to Anne, Queen of Great Britain). It depends on who the primary target for "Queen Victoria" is. Though I think I'd be in favor of giving the shortest possible name to the living person. That's why I think Catherine, Princess of Wales should be moved to "Queen Catherine" when she becomes queen, but these are discussions for the future. Keivan.fTalk12:18, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mary of Teck was also known as "The Queen", but she's still listed as "Queen consort of the United Kingdom". None of the examples you've put forward are titled "Queen [NAME]". But, this is a tangent. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:23, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the infobox, yes, she's described as "Queen consort of the United Kingdom". That's the norm for all articles on queens consort, including Alexandra of Yugoslavia, Marie of Romania, etc., but in the body of their articles they are described merely as "Queen of [country]". The reason that Mary of Teck is not at "Queen Mary" is because there are a dozen of queens name Mary, including some queens regnant. Also, for deceased consorts it's preferable to go with maiden names per WP:NCROY especially when they have similar first names (ex. Caroline of Ansbach, Caroline of Brunswick, etc.), while for living ones it's usually "Queen [Name] of [Country]" (Queen Letizia of Spain, Queen Silvia of Sweden, etc.) Camilla's case is exceptional because she has thus far been styled "The Queen Consort" unlike other living queens. If that changes, her page should be moved per WP:NCROY and WP:TITLECON. There's no need to use one format for her page or the page of future British queens, and another for queens from other countries. Keivan.fTalk20:32, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you. But, if William does end up king, and assuming Catherine lives to then, and assuming they don't divorce, then she will be William's consort, no doubt about that. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:43, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, her rank will be that of a queen consort, but like previous queens she is most likely going to be known as "The Queen" or "Queen Catherine" because no announcements have been made about her future title. Also, that is why the articles about other coronations used to be titled "Coronation of King [regnal name] and Queen [first name]". Similarly, we have Crown of Queen Alexandra, not "Crown of Alexandra, Queen Consort". Keivan.fTalk21:00, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - before creating this article, the only British coronation pages were of monarchs, rightly or wrongly, without the kingdoms in which they reigned in their titles, i.e. it's called Edward VII, not Edward VII of the United Kingdom. So it was essentially up to me to set the precedent, with the choice of in- or excluding "of Great Britain". The format, as it were, is "Coronation of [MONARCH'S ARTICLE NAME] and [FIRST NAME OF CONSORT]". Looking at it that way, I chose to include. But the pre-this-article precedent can also be interpreted as "Coronation of [MONARCH'S FIRST NAME AND ORDINAL] and [FIRST NAME OF CONSORT]". Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:39, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Start a discussion about improving the Coronation of George II and Caroline page
Talk pages are where people discuss how to make content on Wikipedia the best that it can be. You can use this page to start a discussion with others about how to improve the "Coronation of George II and Caroline" page.