This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
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 within the scope of WikiProject British Royalty (a child project of the Royalty and Nobility Work Group), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to British Royalty on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you should visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.British RoyaltyWikipedia:WikiProject British RoyaltyTemplate:WikiProject British RoyaltyBritish royalty articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California 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.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora 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.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora articles
This article was created or improved during the Women in the world contest hosted by the Women in Red project in November 2017. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in RedWikipedia:WikiProject Women in RedTemplate:WikiProject Women in RedWomen in Red articles
Tina Sanders (28 December 2020). "Meghan Markle's Wikipedia was edited just before Prince Harry reveal". Gruntstuff. Retrieved 28 July 2020. The IP deal with is linked to a Los Angeles PR agency with no identified hyperlinks to the duchess, in keeping with The Telegraph, which speculated that the modifications might have been made by mates...
Iris Goldsztajn (31 August 2022). "Meghan Markle Reportedly Got Her Wikipedia Page Changed After She Met Prince Harry". Marie Claire. Retrieved 11 June 2022. Page Six reported in 2020 that the then-actress' Wikipedia page had made the object of a bunch of changes in October 2016... At the time, the dominant theory was that friends of Markle's had asked for these changes to be made. Now, though, author Tom Bower is claiming that it was the future duchess herself who worked with the PR company to have her page modified.
This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.
Latest comment: 2 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In the introduction, I propose adding a new line informing readers of her latest polled popularity among Royals. Meghan's popularity has fallen from well over 50% to just 30% in recent years. It would be biased not to inform readers of this substantial factual change. This is not intended to slander, but rather to inform factually of a significant change.
Propose adding:
Meghan's popularity among the UK public has declined significantly in recent years, according to opinion polls, where she now regularly ranks among the least popular members of the British Royal Family.
The article reads "In December 2022, Meghan was found to be the second most disliked member of the British royal family". It seems in June 2024, according to your yougov source, she is the third most disliked. I'm not seeing where in the source it supports the claim that her popularity has declined. I can only see that it supports she is currently one of the less popular royals. DrKay (talk) 09:34, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 days ago7 comments3 people in discussion
The name of this article is neither the subject's legal name nor her common name and I propose changing it to "Meghan Markle" which is her common name and also a name she is legally entitled to use.
Per the Canadian government section on "Style of Address": "As the former Meghan Markle, “Princess Meghan”, “Meghan, Duchess of Sussex” or “Meghan” may be heard informally, but are not used officially."[2] She is correctly known as the Duchess of Sussex. Conveniently, that page redirects here.
I think it is an odd thing to be fixated on, when 'Duchess of Sussex' is commonname (there is often not just one) and chosen name. Nor is it a surprise, when her husband and children are known as Sussex. Also, to rule on legal name for a BLP is another odd matter and Markle also is redirect and easy to find here too. Your link appears to not work or go to the right place, but as it is recognizing it is former name, it also seems no reason to move. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:30, 16 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I did not rule on what her legal name was, but provided a reliable source. (The link now works.)
duchess of Sussex is fine to redirect here. Are you saying you object to putting Meghan with it? Your source does not object or seem offended by it, indeed it recognizes it might regularly be used. I don't think that source is discussing legal name at all nor would it, as it is discussing a matter of style in Canada and she is a resident of California who married in the UK. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:07, 16 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
The status quo is fine, it was no real surprise when it was chosen and it has served fine in the six years since. It is acceptable as commonname, and avoids former name.Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 days ago4 comments3 people in discussion
The Northwestern University catalog from the years she attended describes that within the BA in Communications it's possible to obtain a minor in international studies. A double major would mean satisfying the requirements for a degree in international studies, which requies fluency in three languages etc. I know there are sources which seem to say she does have a double major, however it just isn't possible, not even in theater and international studies. I'm going to simplify the text just to say BA in communications. I know that some sources may say differently but it is absurd to include a clearly wrong fact just because it can be found in a news source.Createangelos (talk) 20:12, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
This has been gone over before. It is not a minor in the catalogue, the catalogue calls in an adjunct major, and Northwestern itself referred to that and her degree with a double major.[3] And you offer nothing but your say so, and thus every reason to believe you are wrong not the sources, and Wikipedia follows sources, not what editors claim they think know. I have also removed your claim which violates WP:BLP. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:49, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
News about alumni isn't reliable source since we would not expect the writer to check degree register.
Does the university provide a list of degree-holders with majors and minors? if so, it would be a reliable source for a claim about her degree.
it seems that a lot of analysis would be required to determine that no degree in international studies was available therefore she could not have majored in it. If you want to make that argument, you need a reliable source for it. TFD (talk) 05:16, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
In this article, it is sourced to two newspapers, not to the Northwestern publication. (At any rate, Kristen Samuelson is the writer for Northwestern and what she does presently is here: [4], there is no reason doubt her based on any assumption, or that she and her editors were not conversant in acceptable terminology at or for the university.) But if you are saying we can't do any original research on this in primary sources, I agree. 'Not majored in it' would be a conclusion, editors can't draw on their own, and not even from 'no degree', double majors have one degree. And also not from what the OP thinks the 'proper' coursework is, or how the OP thinks the university should have been organized to provide it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:57, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the 
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the