Talk:Louise Mountbatten: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:34, 12 September 2022

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Louise Mountbatten 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

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Biography: Royalty and Nobility C‑class

	Biography portal 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
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility (assessed as Low-importance).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Sweden C‑class Mid‑importance

	Sweden portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-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.SwedenWikipedia:WikiProject SwedenTemplate:WikiProject SwedenSweden articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Germany C‑class Low‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany 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.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Women's History C‑class Mid‑importance

	History portal 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
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Queen Louise of Sweden.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:07, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 }}
-==Mountbatten was not Queen of Sweden==
-I believe it is unneccessarily confusing in the lead of this article to assert what amounts to "Louise Mountbatten" as being Queen of Sweden. The use of surnames & maiden names for all women of royalty is beginning to be carried too far on Wikipedia, and into sentences where it makes little or no sense. It's not supposed to confuse, but give a genealogical bit of info - then only where appropriate, such as re: marriages. In this case I tried to make it clear, in the lead, that she was not a queen under the name of Mountbatten but that was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Louise_Mountbatten&diff=871184739&oldid=871177624 reverted] with an edit summary that contains personal critique ''and'' irrelevant info about her husband's birth. President Kennedy's wife was not first lady of the U.S. as ''Jacqueline Bouvier''. Same same. Some women choose to keep their former names when they marry. Louise was not one of them. Ergo, it still needs to be fixed, and I'll try again unless anyone fixes it before I can get to it again. --[[User:SergeWoodzing|SergeWoodzing]] ([[User talk:SergeWoodzing|talk]]) 09:21, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
-:Your views on the use of maiden names for royal women are well known and noted, but contrary to common historiographic and encyclopedic practice.<br>There was no personal critique in the edit summary. There was a critique of the edit. Everyone can see that. If you honestly think otherwise, sue me.<br>The argument about Gustaf VI Adolf's birth is not irrelevant. He was not "Gustaf VI Adolf" when he was born, but to argue that it is incorrect to state that Gustaf VI Adolf was born in 1882 would be unnecessary pedantry. So is claiming that Louise Mountbatten was not Queen of Sweden. I understand that you would have us prohibited from describing [[Anne Boleyn]] as the second [[wife of Henry VIII]] because she might not have been a Boleyn while married to him, but that is unconstructive pedantry.<br>Your edit did not even make sense by your own arguments. If Louise Mountbatten did not keep her name after marriage, then it was not "Louise Mountbatten" who became Queen of Sweden. She did not marry a king but a prince, and had not been a Mountbatten for over two decades before becoming queen.<br>Also, the sentence sounded simply ridiculous. [[User:Surtsicna|Surtsicna]] ([[User talk:Surtsicna|talk]]) 11:09, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
-::I use an article talk page to discuss the content of that article, [[WP:TPYES|not other users]]. Anne Boleyn had no legal name (there were none in those days).  Louise Mountbatten is one of the many women who did not keep her own legal surname when she got married. To avoid unneccessary confusion, we should try to clarify, whenever & wherever possible, that her name was no longer Mountbatten after she got married. Birth years are irrlevant to that. And my personal opinions are also irrelevant.  --[[User:SergeWoodzing|SergeWoodzing]] ([[User talk:SergeWoodzing|talk]]) 11:06, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
-Reverted again, with no comment here & with personalized edit summary again. Seems impossible to discuss constructively w/o personalization. --[[User:SergeWoodzing|SergeWoodzing]] ([[User talk:SergeWoodzing|talk]]) 14:31, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
-:If you honestly think that there was a "personalized edit summary", go to [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents]] and report me. If you will not, I will take it that you keep making those accusations for the attention. [[User:Surtsicna|Surtsicna]] ([[User talk:Surtsicna|talk]]) 15:44, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
-This is not a question of naming conventions but of how to word her lead name with the least possible risk of confusion, in this particular case. There are no standard solutuions that fit every context. She did not choose to use her maiden name when married and queen. That should be obviously worded, not worded so as to confuse the reader. --[[User:SergeWoodzing|SergeWoodzing]] ([[User talk:SergeWoodzing|talk]]) 14:35, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
-:Every wording you've suggested so far has only increased the risk of confusion. The article does not say that she used her last name as queen. It merely introduces her using her common and unambiguous name and defines her as Queen of Sweden, which is what she was. The biography by Margit Fjellman, cited in this article, is titled "[https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&ei=R_wDXKnAH5KlwQLHp5CoDA&q=%22louise+mountbatten%2C+queen+of+sweden%22&oq=%22louise+mountbatten%2C+queen+of+sweden%22&gs_l=psy-ab.3...48950.51102.0.51343.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.tTxjtUoU8WQ Louise Mountbatten, Queen of Sweden]". So much about that. [[User:Surtsicna|Surtsicna]] ([[User talk:Surtsicna|talk]]) 15:44, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
-[[File:Pictogram voting comment.png|18px]] '''[[Wikipedia:Third Opinion|3O]] Response:'''  I think {{u|Surtsicna}}'s logic is sound that when you use a name you're referring to the person across the whole of their life, rather than just when they had that name. You could add a footnote explaining the change? ─ [[User:ReconditeRodent|ReconditeRodent]] « [[User talk:ReconditeRodent|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/ReconditeRodent|contribs]] » 21:09, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
-:Thank you! Would you like to suggest a wording for the footnote? My wordings for the lead have twice been called pedantic by an editor who, sadly, always personalizes every discussion. Very effectively makes me lose focus & interest (see [[WP:TPYES]]). --[[User:SergeWoodzing|SergeWoodzing]] ([[User talk:SergeWoodzing|talk]]) 10:40, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
-::And ridiculous whining makes me lose control over my eye muscles. I suppose we all have afflictions to bear. I would like to note that no such footnote exists in the article about any queen consort in history. The case of Louise Mountbatten does not significantly differ from others. [[Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother]], for one, has reached FA status without much ado about the evolution of her legal or common names. My point is that this article has a long list of higher priorities. [[User:Surtsicna|Surtsicna]] ([[User talk:Surtsicna|talk]]) 12:44, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
-:::Could this be covered by the "Titles, styles, honours and arms" section perhaps? I don't know, but otherwise I think a footnote saying something like "Officially '''Louise of Sweden''' when Queen, with no surname." after her name or "After which she became '''Louise of Sweden''', with no surname." after the bit which talks about her becoming Queen would be fairly innocuous (if I've got that right). I didn't personally know that's how it worked so it's not wholly redundant, but it also seems pretty straightforward to infer that they're the same person. That is to say, this doesn't mean we can add a footnote to every page like this – the place to debate that would probably be [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)]]. ─ [[User:ReconditeRodent|ReconditeRodent]] « [[User talk:ReconditeRodent|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/ReconditeRodent|contribs]] » 15:45, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
-::::Thank you! Very constructive. And I appreciate your insight that all cases are not the same, that some may need more clarification than others. I will add such a footnote unless there is multiple resistance here in the next few days. --[[User:SergeWoodzing|SergeWoodzing]] ([[User talk:SergeWoodzing|talk]]) 12:10, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
-:How about ''"...was [[List of Swedish consorts|Queen consort of Sweden]]..."''?    [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 13:03, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
-:PS: Keep in mind, the next ''monarch'' will be ''Queen of Sweden'' & I've noticed we've got inconsistency on these articles, as well as with ''Queen regnants'' bios. Best we make up our minds, as to which gets to have ''Queen of Sweden'' shown in the pros. Will it be the ''regnants'' or the ''consorts''? [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 13:10, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
-::[[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]], I do not think we need either qualifier when the sentence itself makes it clear. For example, in this case, it is said that Louise was queen from her husband's accession until her death. That makes it clear that she was a consort. In the case of [[Mary of Teck]], we say that she was queen "as the wife of King George VI." For queens regnant we usually say that they reigned or ascended, which makes it clear they were not consorts. But I do not think that is the issue here (if there is any issue at all). [[User:Surtsicna|Surtsicna]] ([[User talk:Surtsicna|talk]]) 13:20, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
-:::I would prefer consistency for <u>all</u> pros of Queen regnants & Queen consorts. I haven't checked out the King consorts bios. Would be something for [[WP:ROY]] to handle, but hardly anyone goes there anymore. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 13:22, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
-::::Regarding women of this and the last century, this concerns the fact that many of them kept their ''maiden'' names after marriage, and that it is important for us to be as clear as possible about that: who did, who did not? I've tried tro make that point above, but perhaps I've been unclear myself? --[[User:SergeWoodzing|SergeWoodzing]] ([[User talk:SergeWoodzing|talk]]) 10:34, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 == A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion ==