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 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 Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania 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.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania 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 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 Maryland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Maryland 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.MarylandWikipedia:WikiProject MarylandTemplate:WikiProject MarylandMaryland articles
This article is incredibly bloated with useless information, rumors, suspicions and innuendos with no proper sources. Proper Wikipedia style is to provide an overview of a subject, not a detailed accounting. We do not publish facts and details about a subject simply because we discovered the information in a third-party source. In Wikipedia MoS, (WP:NOTEVERYTHING), it dictates that "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject." Also, we never publish rumors, suspicions and innuendos or information that we believe is commonly known. Every sentence and every word must meet the standard of whether it is important enough to be included. If you are simply adding information you found in a press release or a biography about a person, then you are probably adding unnecessary content that adds to the weight of the article. Wikipedia must keep articles to only the most basic information to keep down unnecessary demands on its bandwidth that can result in long load times. Please be exceptionally discerning when choosing that content to add and what is too much. I am editing this article to remove the bloat and bring it into proper Wikipedia standards. My edits are in no way a reflection about how I feel about the writing and/or editing skills of any particular editor. 69.180.218.186 (talk) 23:50, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's readable prose size is only 28kB, which is well within article size limits. See WP:SIZERULE. DrKay (talk) 09:38, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. You are absolutely correct. However, it keeping with the MoS of Wikipedia, it is important to keep articles as tight as possible. It is observing not just the letter of the law, so to speak, but also the spirit of the law. Also, and this is just as important if not more, encyclopedia writing is by its nature tight and to the point. To be in proper style, we should measure the weight of each word. We relay the information required using the fewest, most direct words possible and provide a source so the reader can verify the information and do his or her own further reading using our citations. Again, thank you for assisting on this article. 69.180.218.186 (talk) 00:01, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:69.180.218.186 This is a WP:Featured Article, which means that it has been carefully reviewed and found to be one of the best articles on WP and the text is generally expected to remain stable. If you think major changes are needed, then you need to establish consensus for them here on the talk page. I think your judgement of what is "a rumour" is off-balance, also (and if rumours are mentioned in WP:Reliable sources then we do mention them in articles). The Nazi sympathies of Edward and Wallis are sourced in the main text and their meeting with Hitler, far from being irrelevant is the topic of its own (substantial) article: 1937 tour of Germany by the Duke and Duchess of Windsor. The comments about bandwidth and loading times are nonsense. Furius (talk) 00:19, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That said, the sentence reading "Hearsay and conjecture have clouded assessment of the Duchess of Windsor's life, not helped by her own manipulation of the truth. But, in the opinion of her biographers, there is no document that proves directly that she was anything other than a victim of her own ambition, who lived out a great romance that became a great tragedy" doesn't strike me as being in normal wiki voice and should be changed. Furius (talk) 00:23, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Article Name
Why is the article named "Wallis Simpson" and not "Wallis, Duchess of Windsor"? She was married to Ernest Simpson for 9 years, and to the Duke of Windsor for 35 years. She resumed her maiden name after her divorce from Simpson. ThreeOfCups (talk)
A bot will list this discussion on requested moves' current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.
Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. She is most commonly known as "Wallis Simpson". Britannica also titles their article on her as such.[1]Rreagan007 (talk) 19:22, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Meghan, Duchess of Sussex is probably best known as Meghan Markle. Catherine, Princess of Wales may be better known as Kate Middleton. Sarah, Duchess of York may be better known as Sarah Ferguson. Wallis, Duchess of Windsor was only named Wallis Simpson for 9 out of her 90 years. It's more appropriate to call her by the substantive royal title she held for the last 49 years of her life. ThreeOfCups (talk) 20:31, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All those examples are of currently living people, not someone who died decades ago. And the Meghan Markle article being moved was highly contentious and involved numerous discussions and even Jimbo Wales himself. I'm guessing this proposed move will also be contentious. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:40, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. Wallis's case is quite exceptional. She was never granted the style Royal Highness nor made a princess of the United Kingdom unlike the other women you mentioned so she was never a royal; she was simply married to one. Also, looking at her husband's article, it's currently at Edward VIII not "Prince Edward, Duke of Windsor" even though the latter is the title he had held for 35 years. So in essence, moving this page creates an inconsistency with the one on her husband. The two of them are mostly remembered as "Edward VIII and Mrs Simpson" especially when discussing the abdication. Keivan.fTalk 20:43, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. As I stated earlier, the reality is that both Wallis and Edward are mostly remembered due to the 1936 abdication, and are frequently referred to as "Edward VIII and Mrs Simpson". It is true that she was the Duchess of Windsor for 49 years, but her husband was similarly the Duke of Windsor for 35 years yet his page is at Edward VIII not "Prince Edward, Duke of Windsor". Moving this page to the suggested title would only create an inconsistency with the page on her husband. Keivan.fTalk 20:49, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
She was a royal duchess, regardless of whether she had the HRH. Also, she wasn't married to Edward VIII while he was king, so it's not possible to make the article titles parallel. She was never queen to his king. Her notability is in the fact that she married him. If she'd remained Mrs. Simpson, she'd hardly be remembered. ThreeOfCups (talk) 20:55, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, she was not a royal duchess. All royal duchesses use the style Royal Highness which she was not entitled to. But the issue is not really about the label she can be described with. It's just that we have articles on many nobles that use their common names rather than their official names and titles (Elizabeth Longford is but one example). She was never queen to his king. Her notability is in the fact that she married him. Yes, she was not a queen consort to the then king, but she was a mistress to him. And she gained notability through her role as a mistress for whom Edward VIII abdicated his throne. "Wallis Simpson" is simply her common name. Keivan.fTalk 08:21, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those weren't royal dukes. Princess Marina of Greece and Denmark was the wife of the Duke of Kent, who obviously was not a sovereign. estar8806 (talk) ★ 21:28, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, but it also clearly doesn't fully support the proposal you've made, which is against COMMONNAME anyway. estar8806 (talk) ★ 23:25, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And in any case the majority of articles on deceased wives use their birth names, so even if NCROY doesn't apply, CONSISTENT does. estar8806 (talk) ★ 23:26, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CONSORTS includes a wide variety of acceptable stylings and says outright that there's no consistent rule. I'm not sure why WP:COMMONNAME has to take precedence over WP:NCROY, and specifically "Royals with a substantive title," when "Wallis, Duchess of Windsor" is recognizable, natural, precise, concise, and consistent with articles about many members of the British royal family from the past 100 years. ThreeOfCups (talk) 03:29, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're completely contradicting yourself. Above you said WP:CONSORTS doesn't. And now all of a sudden it does? You were right the first time, it doesn't.
And WP:COMMONNAME does in fact take precedence over WP:NCROY because it is a policy, NCROY is not. And the "Royals with a substantive title" portion of NCROY does not apply because she did not have a substantive title, she had a courtesy title. She was not created "Duchess of Windsor", she held that title as the wife of the Duke of Windsor.
And again, there are far more articles on deceased British princess by marriage where their birth name is used as opposed to their title by marriage. As a matter of fact, Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester and Diana, Princess of Wales are the only two exceptions in the last century (so is Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother, but that's more of a CONSORTS exception). And do you know why all three of those are known by those titles? Well that is a little thing called WP:COMMONNAME. estar8806 (talk) ★ 03:43, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If COMMONNAME takes precedence over NCROY, then fine. That's why I asked the question in the previous section. When no one responded, I requested the move. Because WP:NCROY, "Royals with a substantive title." makes it super clear what the article name should be based on that convention. ThreeOfCups (talk) 04:20, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NCROY should never be used as the sole reason to go against WP:COMMONNAME. WP:NCROY is just a guideline to help standardize article titles, but WP:COMMONNAME is the main policy to follow for article titles. WP:NCROY itself states that: "It is generally advisable to use the most common form of the name used in reliable sources in English". Rreagan007 (talk) 06:45, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Wallis Simpson is clearly the common name. JIP | Talk 09:27, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and snow close if it meets the criteria. Killuminator (talk) 11:31, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
