Talk:Princess Eléonore of Belgium

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Royalty and Nobility 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 supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility (assessed as Low-importance). An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article. Belgium Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belgium, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Belgium 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.BelgiumWikipedia:WikiProject BelgiumTemplate:WikiProject BelgiumBelgium-related articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Women's History Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 17 April 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.

...a baby is born. Can we not put this with her parents? Charles 07:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A male-line grandaughter of a monarch deserves a page in my opinion. She is notable.--UpDown (talk) 10:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. She meets the notability criterium just as any other royal. She's a child of the heir apparent. Her father will become one day King of the Belgians. If you scratch her, you have to scratch all grandchildren of Queen Elizabeth, Queen Beatrix, King Juan Carlos, King Harald, etc as well -- fdewaele, 16 April 2008, 14:06

"In my opinion"... Well, okay, we know that that is only a personal opinion. And no, Fdewaele, you are wrong, the grandchildren of Queen Elizabeth have mostly been alive long enough to be notable. Arguably, a lot of the others are not. The male-line grandchildren of a monarch are not automatically notable. She is a baby, basically a day old. Let her live a little before we give an article to a footnote or what is basically an Almanach de Gotha entry. Articles like this sink Wikipedia's credibility as an encyclopedia. Sure, we are not limited by paper but have a little more fortitude in not having to write about a baby just because she's a princess. I don't think these entries are encyclopedic, they are slavish displays of royal worship, and that's coming from a monarchist! Charles 01:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That seems not to be the practice of wikipedia. The fact that she's a grandchild of a reigning monarch is notable enough to warant an article. Couple that to the fact that she's a child of the heir apparent. The same practice has been followed with regards to other royal houses where princes have been given an article from birth. There's thus no reason to make an exception for the Belgian royal family.

As to opinion... well don't forget yours is just an other personal opinion as well. -- fdewaele, 16 April 2008, 14:06

A very, very good final point there. There is not "slavish displays of royal worship". She is the daughter of a future King, that is notable. There does appear to be some bias, the grandchildren of Elizabeth II all have articles, and no issue has ever been raised there, and that's because we have easy access to English language sources about them. However, grandchildren of European monarchs we do not have such easy access to English language sources, so their articles get less information. But that is no reason to delete them. --UpDown (talk) 08:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Fdewaele, the practice of Wikipedia is to have articles on individuals who are individually notable. That the grandchildren of Queen Elizabeth II have articles is mostly due to the fact that their notability centres around more than the event of their birth. Being a prince or princess opens the door to being notable but one is not automatically encyclopedic because they were born all of two days ago... "Notable enough" shows a clear understanding that there really isn't sufficient notability beyond an incident of birth. I have never made an exception of the Belgian Royal Family, I have the same opinions for many of the minor Dutch royal children (most or all of whom where born in the 2000s, I believe) as well as the children of various deposed royals (Orléans, Hesse, etc) and even some Grand Dukes of Russia. The argument "royal = notable" doesn't really hold and is rather weak when really people are creating article listing the given names, birth dates and godparents of children who haven't done a notable thing in their entire lives. That's where it usually stops. The information that may truly matter about these people (uh, the fact that they were born or exist) belongs in the articles about the people who really are notable, those being their parents, who usually perform official duties. Like I have said before, in recent memory to people who have insisted on lovingly "maintaining" stub articles on people in line of succession to the British throne, being a part of an notable group does not confer encyclopedic notability on the individual components of that group. Royalty as a whole is notable but being royal with nothing else isn't notable. Again, this can be wholly dealt with via a section on children or even a sentence in most cases in the articles of the parents.

To UpDown, you are confusing a language barrier with the reality that the apparent or perceived preeminence of the British Royal Family is a longstanding phenomena that overshadows other royal families. That other royal families are rather well-behaved and otherwise low-key is not our problem. In my opinion,

Viscount Severn shouldn't even have an article. What do we know about him? Well, he's "rather small, very cute and very cuddly" and he went to the hospital before. Sounds like a smashing and interesting section in the lives of the Earl and Countess of Wessex. On its own? Not so much. Lady Louise Windsor too. And many others. Charles 09:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I really don't understand this little crusade of yours Charles. Grandchildren of monarchs are notable. I all strongly feel that your going round constantly merging or AfD articles actually means the ones that should be deleted either get less attention, or people go against deletion because of your campaign. Royalty are notable for being royalty and for the surrounding press attention, which Lady Louise and Viscount Severn will get in their lives, as will Eleanore in Belgium. And just because this is an English language encyclopedia does not mean we ignore non-English language countries.--UpDown (talk) 07:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a campaign other than trying to make Wikipedia a little more credible with regard to content. If people are voting "keep" because of misconceptions like yours then they have issues and probably shouldn't be allowed to edit until they cool down. Add people when they are notable, not before.

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. I don't expect people who seemingly fawn over less-than-a-week-old babies to ever understand that though but I'll try. Not all coverage gives notability to a subject. Coverage about Eléonore is best used as sources in her parents' articles. Charles 15:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Eleonore is not a traditional name. The first queen of Belgium was Marie-Louise from Orleans, the second wife of Leopold I. --AndreaMimi (talk) 12:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fabiola indeed refers to Queen Fabiola, the wife of Eléonore's granduncle Boudouin. Anne most likely refers to her maternal grandmother who is named Anna. -- fdewaele, 16 April 2008, 14:09 (CET)

And Victoria comes possible from her godmother Crownprincess Victoria of Sweden. But what's about Eleonore and Marie ? --AndreaMimi (talk) 12:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the parents do have a penchant for names not connected to the royal family. Neither Gabriel nor Emanuel were names ever used by the Belgian Coburgs. As to Marie, it could connect to Marie-Louise and to the Virgin Mary as they are devoutly catholic. -- fdewaele, 16 April 2008, 14:25 (CET)

I see. Yes, the name Gabriel and Emanuel too are not traditional. And Eleonore also.

Elisabeth comes from an relative, the Duchess in Barvaria - niece of the famous Empress Elisabeth - married with Albert I. from Belgium.

And when the children grown up and don't like there first names, they can took on of there second names. ;). --AndreaMimi (talk) 12:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eleonor used to be a popular royal name during the Middle Ages. The daughter of the current Prince of Asturias is named Leonor as well. -- fdewaele, 16 April 2008, 15:51 (CET)

I know, that Leonor is the spanisch version of Eleonore and also, that it a traditional name. I know the Great-Grandmother from Johanna of Spain (1478-1555) was also namend Eleonore/Lenor. A Family Tree about this time is my ressource. --AndreaMimi (talk) 14:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The most well known Eleanor would probably be Eleanor of Aquitaine, mother of Richard I and John I of England. You can find other royal Eleanor's under

Queen Eleanor. -- fdewaele

, 16 April 2008, 16:37 (CET)

That, and all of their children have El somewhere in their names :)

talk) 14:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

With the best wishes. --AndreaMimi (talk) 15:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken out the task. Editorofthewiki 19:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consider it supported by me. Charles 19:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]