Talk:Wedding of Prince William and Catherine Middleton

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
WikiProject iconLondon Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconUnited Kingdom
WikiProject iconThis 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.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.


Diana

Why is there nothing here about the woman in black, suspected to be Princess Diana? Or the supposed ghost when Wills and Kate were on the balcony? The Woman in Black is of much speculation in the wedding and media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clements1997 (talkcontribs) 18:12, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because, as you say, it's speculation and has no place in the article. Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:37, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because that's nonsense. 79.243.196.15 (talk) 14:44, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 28 external links on Wedding of Prince William and Catherine Middleton. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:49, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Title Upon Marriage section - Titular link with Wales?

This section states that Prince William now has a titular link through his 'four' titles with the four nations of the United Kingdom. However, I do not believe that Prince William's previous name of 'Prince William of Wales' is a titular title? Surely this designation is purely a courtesy title in assocation with his father's position as Prince of Wales, and is not a titular title at all? Furthermore, given his new peerage titles, it is extremely doubtful whether Prince William would now use this designation anyway? If there is agreement I suggest this last sentence of this section be either revised to reflect this fact, or removed altogether.Ds1994 (talk) 16:48, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The source http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-13235825 mentions it. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:57, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously Prince William is linked to Wales through his father's title, but the name 'Prince William of Wales' is NOT a titular title, it is a courtesy title. On this particular question the source material you provide is irrelevant in this context. My question still stands in this regard - the association can be mentioned but not in a titular capacity. At the very least this particular point in the last sentence should be removed. Do you understand the difference between a substantive title and a courtesy title, and the use of the term 'titular' in this respect?Ds1994 (talk) 17:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Titular just means title, it doesn't specify if it by courtesy or substantive. The source is not irrelevant as it is what supports the assertion in the article. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well it was certainly a courtesy title, a title that the Duke of Cambridge no longer uses. In this context alone the last sentence still remains extremely tenuous. Particularly so as the three peerage titles held by Prince William are substantive titles, and are not merely 'titular'. Also, please improve your English, your syntaxal construction is dreadful. You should not be commenting on this section if you have a poor command of the English language. This is my last contribution on this topic, as I am not discussing a specific English topic (Personal attack removed).Ds1994 (talk) 18:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 19 June 2018

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a
requested move
. 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.

Not moved. There is no consensus after extended discussion, and a reasonable policy-based to maintain the current concise title. bd2412 T 02:36, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wedding of Charles, Prince of Wales, and Camilla Parker Bowles. CookieMonster755 02:27, 19 June 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. Dekimasuよ! 01:35, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

OK,
WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. Opera hat (talk) 12:12, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
New RMs are not a problem but mass moving a whole set of articles whilst a discussion is going into consistency for an outlier doesn't make for the easiest of discussions. Timrollpickering 12:14, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I'll do it after lunch. Opera hat (talk) 12:15, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It would be quite cumbersome, to change a bunch of article titles. Therefore, best to just change this article's title, to match the others. GoodDay (talk) 17:16, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not that cumbersome; I did it in literally seconds earlier on today. Opera hat (talk) 17:20, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, it would definitely not be best to change an article's title simply to match others. If the groom did not hold a peerage before his wedding day, it is nonsensical to include it in the article title. If Catherine is listed by the name she used before the wedding day, William should be too. Surtsicna (talk) 17:41, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
William was given the title Duke of Cambridge just before marrying. GoodDay (talk) 18:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, just before marrying. He was not known as Duke of Cambridge until his marriage. No source called him Duke of Cambridge before he married Catherine. None. Surtsicna (talk) 19:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He was given the title by his grandmother before he got married (a matter of hours, I believe). He didn't become Duke upon his marriage. GoodDay (talk) 19:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's absurd pedantry. He did not become Duke of Cambridge upon his marriage but neither was he known as Duke of Cambridge before his marriage. The wedding everyone (including reliable sources) talked about was that of Prince William. His father, on the other hand, was known as Prince of Wales before his marriages. Surtsicna (talk) 22:24, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
William was already Duke of Cambridge, when he married. Therefore, my stance won't change on this matter. GoodDay (talk) 22:57, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again, pedantry. No reliable source called him Duke of Cambridge until after the marriage. Your often professed preference for consistency over verifiability is unfortunate for Wikipedia. Surtsicna (talk) 23:03, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose per
    WP:CONCISE and arguments by Surtsicna: "No other Prince William married a Catherine Middleton". The short form should be adopted on ALL such pages IMO. The further down the royal 'pecking order' one goes, the less recognisable the specific Dukedom/title becomes. The simplest recognisable form of the royal should be adopted, (ie Prince Forename) and the simplest recognisable form of the name of the non-royal - on the morning of the wedding (ie before they took the vows). eg Wedding of Prince Charles and Diana Spencer … Wedding of Princess Elizabeth and Philip Mountbatten etc. Pincrete (talk) 18:44, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
requested move
. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.