- Comments:
- I find all the extra Christian names, titles, post-nominals etc rather distracting. E.g. "His Royal Highness Manuel Marie Philippe Charles Amelio Louis Michel Raphael Gabriel Gonzague Xavier Francois d'Assise Eugene, Duke of Beja" could perhaps be "The Duke of Beha (later Manuel II of Portugal)".
- I have removed the multiple Christian names from royals. I do feel that it works well with civilian/noble appointments, but, if it is a problem, I will remove them.
- Also the notes could be improved: e.g. (1) I would guess that the Duke of Teck got the award not because he was a captain in the Life Guards but because he was a member of the royal family, and e.g. (2) I'd rather not have to leave the article to find out who Paul Wolff Metternich was. Perhaps combine the "Office" and "Occasion" into one column ("Notes"), rename "Notes" as "Ref(s)", and say something about each one? At the moment, for instance, the table doesn't support the claim in the lead that several future kings were recipients of the honour - one has to click through on every possible name to find them, which isn't good enough from my perspective. BencherliteTalk 13:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- In the case of the Duke of Teck, he probably did get the award because he was in the royal family, but no source explicitly states that; furthermore, I don't suggest that he got the award because of his commission—as the paragraph above the list states, it indicates his branch of service. The office column includes the information provided in the original gazette. I have kept the occasion column separate because it allows people to be grouped by occasion, which couldn't be done otherwise. Again, I can change this, and will do, if you think it's necessary. (See my response to your first point for the issue with the kings).
- Are we missing a visit to Italy and a visit to France in April/May 1903?
- Yes, I've added those now.
- Consider linking to former nations e.g. Austria-Hungary (which is down as "Austria Hungary" in Coudenhove's entry)
- Done with Austria-Hungary, German Empire and Russian Empire.
- Should the title omit the word "King" per the main article Edward VII?
- How would I rectify this?
- Shouldn't we have urls pointing us to the ODNB biographies where you're using it as a source?
- Done, with subscription needed tag added.
- Citation 9 isn't required, and if you want to retain it, it should be a note not a citation
- Citation 10 isn't required, because the lead is taken to be sourced from the table below already - we don't need to say that specifically.
- Why do we need to know about women or the 1984 renaming of the lowest order? Neither are relevant here. Perhaps trim it right down to something like this:
It was instituted with five grades, the highest which was Knight Grand Cross (GCVO); it conferred the status of knighthood on holders (apart from foreigners, who received honorary awards not entitling them to the style of a knight).
- I thought it was best to give a general overview, but I have changed to your version.
- Why is Salisbury "Amongst the most notable of the civilian appointments"?
- I have removed the "most notable" statement.
- That's enough for now, I think. A lot of work has clearly gone into this already but I'd be interested in seeing your replies to these points. BencherliteTalk 13:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Continuing from above.
- I really don't like "The Most Noble John George Edward Henry Douglas Sutherland Campbell, 9th Duke of Argyll KT GCMG" as opposed to John Campbell, 9th Duke of Argyll, and similarly for all the honorific titles and post-nominal letters. It's not the Wikipedia way to refer to someone, outside their own article, with a fistful of titles and honours either side of their name.
- Re the Duke of Teck etc. I'm not asking you to say that he got the GCVO because he was a member of the royal family. I'm asking for something like this:
(Incidentally, what's the advantage of data-sort-value="X" instead of ((sortname))?) You can combine the office and occasion fields because all of the "occasions" were awarded on the same date, so can be found that way (NB even at the moment it's not sortable by occasion, so you don't lose anything by combining the information it contains with another column).
- If you link Austria-Hungary once, you have to link it every time it appears as this is a sortable table.
- To get rid of "King" from the article title, the page would have to be moved. Perhaps that's something to decide/do after closure of the FLC as moving pages mid-FLC risks confusing bots and people! BencherliteTalk 17:37, 9 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- @Bencherlite: Thanks again for your comments. I have now gone through the whole list and removed every honorific (e.g. his majesty, most noble), post-nominal and all middle names where it is clear that it is a middle name (in some foreign cases, it is not always clear). I have retained military ranks and the prefixes "Sir", "Count", "Prince" and "Lord", which I believe is policy, but everything else has been trimmed back as requested. I can remove those too, but I don't think they are superfluous. I have removed links in the countries column. I have amended the Duke of Teck and his two brothers who received the award, as you requested; if there are any others, let me know (I can't think of any, but will check over once more). I have also merged the office and occasion columns as requested. Lastly, I don't have a particular reason for the sorting preference - I think it was just the first way I learnt to apply sorting to tables—I wasn't aware that it was functionally any different. Again, let me know if this is all correct now. Many thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 22:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC).Reply[reply]
|