User talk:West Virginian/Archive 10

ICHTHUS

January 2012

In this issue...

• From the Editor
• What are You doing For Lent?
• Fun and Exciting Contest Launched
• Spotlight on WikiProject Catholicism

---

Ichthus is published by

WikiProject Christianity
For submissions and subscriptions contact the Newsroom

Hello Caponer!

First of all my sincere thanks for all the great work you do!

Two requests:

• 1. Would you please not categorize people whose French descent is too minimal to mention (e.g. one great-great-grandparent) as being "of French descent"?

• 2. Some royal ladies actually have belonged to the same dynasties as their husbands. Most haven't though, so could we please not categorize them as if they did?

Cordially, SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for raising these issues with me and for all your efforts in contributing to Wikipedia, Serge. I concur with the first point, but regarding the second, does not a royal lady and spouse traditionally take the feminine title corresponding to her husband's and considered as belonging to his dynasty upon marriage? Editors on Wikipedia have usually assigned married female royals to both the dynasty of their birth and to that of their husband's. Has this policy been officially changed and codified as such somewhere? Thanks again! --

talk

) 00:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, I think its a question of modernizing our attitudes. If we don't add men to women's dynasties, I don't think we should add women to men's. It also is much less confusing always to apply strict genealogy, and I find the advantages dominant in doing so. Most (as I wrote) do not belong to their husbands' or wives' families genealogically. Also, WP (unfortunately) does not allow the royal ladies to be listed mainly (article names) under their usually more important married positions (I just hate that) - so why should we add them to families where they don't actually belong? SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Serge, answering this question will involve editors reaching a consensus to result in agreed upon guidelines to be listed at the WikiProject for royalty. Only after that consensus has been reached can any rule regarding dynastic categories be enforced by other editors. --

talk

) 12:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I haven't seen any guideline or policy or agreed-upon opinion dictating that we should categorize women under the families of their husbands (when genealogically incorrect). I hope I never do, for reasons explained. I've had to expian them a few times before, but never had a dispute about this. SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

There's no dispute here, I would just like this one matter resolved by a consensus of editors and other stakeholders. I'll see about where the proper resolution can be decided upon and then that way, the agreed-upon outcome can be codified and made available for other editors to follow. Without that resolution, editors will be going around giving guidance to other editors that is merely their personal opinion. --

talk

) 14:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)