Wikipedia

Talk:Wedding of Prince William and Catherine Middleton

Latest comment: 6 years ago by BD2412 in topic Requested move 19 June 2018
Learn more about this page


Diana

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

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 (talk • contribs) 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
edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

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

Title Upon Marriage section - Titular link with Wales?

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

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

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago43 comments17 people in discussion
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 Prince William and Catherine Middleton → Wedding of Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, and Catherine Middleton – Per consistency with Wedding of Charles, Prince of Wales, and Lady Diana Spencer; Wedding of Prince Andrew, Duke of York, and Sarah Ferguson, Wedding of Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex, and Sophie Rhys-Jones and 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, User:Timrollpickering is reverting me. Is it in order to set up a move discussion for the rest of them while this one is still in progress? The longer titles go against 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:PRECISE and 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.
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wedding_of_Prince_William_and_Catherine_Middleton&oldid=1243319919"