Talk:Wedding of Prince Albert and Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wedding of Prince Albert and Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

project's importance scale

.

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

On 23 March 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to Wedding of Prince Albert and Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon. The result of the discussion was Moved with modifications.

Requested move 23 March 2023

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.

The result of the move request was: Moved with modifications. Specifically,

Wedding of Prince George, Duke of York, and Princess Mary of Teck to Wedding of Prince George and Princess Victoria Mary. (closed by non-admin page mover) ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 18:35, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

– Per

WP:CONSISTENT should also be considered as other article titles regarding British royal weddings are titled in this format, such as Wedding of Prince William and Catherine Middleton and Wedding of Prince Charles and Lady Diana Spencer. Estar8806 (talk) 02:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:08, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Oppose moving items number 3 and 5. This results in awkward titles like Prince George and Princess Marina of Greece and Denmark where the brevity makes it seem like Prince George was a prince of Greece and Denmark. --Killuminator (talk) 12:11, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Killuminator - That's a fair point for the weddings of the Princes George. Perhaps Wedding of Prince George, and Princess Marina of Greece and Denmark and Wedding of Prince George, and Princess Victoria Mary of Teck may make more sense, with the comma separating the clauses as "Prince George" and "Princess Marina of Greece and Denmark/Princess Victoria Mary of Teck". Anyways, what would your votes be on the others? Estar8806 (talk) 20:28, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those commas are unjustifiable. I think Wedding of Prince George and Princess Marina would be much more natural; Wedding of Prince George and Princess Victoria Mary too. Surtsicna (talk) 19:19, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Items number 3 and 5 cannot be moved, similar to
Wedding of Albert Edward, Prince of Wales, and Princess Alexandra of Denmark which is not listed here. There should be no obstacles for moving the rest of them, but let's see what the community thinks. Keivan.f^Talk 17:38, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Support in principle, but I'd like Killuminator's concern to be addressed. The princesses do not need territorial designations either. Wedding of Prince George and Princess Marina and Wedding of Prince George and Princess Victoria Mary are perfectly precise titles and as concise as possible. Surtsicna (talk) 19:21, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I like this suggestion. If we are to omit territorial designations for males, then there's no need to keep them for females. Keivan.f^Talk 19:23, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm fine with territorial qualifications being dropped for both men and women and I find the commas dreadful. --Killuminator (talk) 23:33, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree. I suppose if the princes territorial designation is being omitted there's no reason Marina's and Mary's should be maintained. Estar8806 (talk) 01:54, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Killuminator Does that mean your vote is support, with the territorial designations dropped. Estar8806 (talk) 22:49, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- You can take it as a supporting vote but only for the alternative suggested by Surtsicna. --Killuminator (talk) 23:00, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Swell. I figured that, if anything, you would Surtscina's alternate suggestion. I hadn't thought of the possible confusion, and I also didn't know of the precedent of the
  Wedding of Prince Juan Carlos and Princess Sophia Estar8806 (talk) 01:09, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Oppose. They were all far more commonly known by their titles than their names. This just introduces confusion to something that was previously perfectly clear. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:24, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@
Wedding of Prince Juan Carlos and Princess Sophia exists as a precedent. Estar8806 (talk) 22:50, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
My point is that nobody ever calls or called the Duke of Kent Prince George or the Duke of York Prince Albert! They were always known as the Duke of Kent and the Duke of York (in fact, even his family didn't call him Albert - he was always Bertie). So these proposed titles are simply not the
WP:IDONTLIKEIT and a claim of conciseness by removing three words. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:02, 30 March 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.