Talk:William I of Württemberg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Royalty and nobility work group.

This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Biography because it uses a stub template. If you agree with the assessment, please remove {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page. If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{WPBiography}} template, removing {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.

	Germany Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no

Contents 1 Ancestry Table 2 What's wrong with redirects? 3 before undoing, consensus 4 ADD INFO

[edit] Ancestry Table

Since so other titles are used and since her sister is refered to as Caroline of Brunswick, the article's ancestry chart ought to remain the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cladeal832 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect, when the ancestry charts were first being implemented, they were being linked as the article titles did or should appear, according to WP:NC(NT) and also to avoid redirects. They are going to be changed back to that form for the sake of consistency with article titles and with WP:NC(NT), which is a standard for article titles. Wikipedia is not consistent for all royals and WP:NC(NT) only gives consistency for groups of royals, such as monarchs, consorts and other royals. Charles 20:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted the ancestry and again linked according to WP:NC(NT), and am going to explain here per an admin's advice. The reason for linking the names this way is to bypass redirects and present the names as they would appear in article titles which are generally the simplest forms. That way, if a person decides to write an article by seeing the name, they can put brackets around it and link from there. It avoids misleading people to create articles under titles that will only be moved because of WP:NC(NT). The convention prescribes the form Name of Place for kings, emperors and their consorts, Name, Title of Place for lesser sovereigns and holders of substantive titles and Title Name of Place for all other cadet royals. This is how the names have been adjusted also since the implementation of the new ancestry templates and it in itself is consistent in how it treats groups of royals. Charles 03:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What's wrong with redirects?

What's wrong with redirects? 24.57.196.130 04:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Why are redirects needed if the articles are named the way they are for a particular reason? Redirects are to aid in the location of an article, if the name of the article is already known and follows a naming convention, it should be linked as such. Charles 04:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] before undoing, consensus

All people mentioned in this article as given titles. This is a different then the ancestry chart discussion and the article itself it not under the guide line given since it deals with titling of articles. What is your point, as willing to bet you'll have one?

Some of the edits have destroyed links and others are redirecting when they were previously piped. Charles 21:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

not one links is without an article. Nowhere in WP:NC(NT) is there a mention pro-piping or anti-redirects. What say you? Spencer creek woods (talk) 21:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Previously you messed up Henrietta's link and put others through redirects to include titles (which isn't really necessary), but I see now you have changed the link to Henrietta to suit your spelling. Your edits are purely for your own personal preference and therefore reverting them is wholly and entirely nonconstructive. Charles 21:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Henrietta is my spelling. Henriette is wikipedia's spelling. Henrietta is the English version of the name, same as Frederick or William or Augusta, which are used in this article. Henriette vs. Henrietta is mute point in regards to redericts since no matter what the article must be redirect anyhow because of the dates in the tilte. English wikipedia is full of inconsistancies with titles. Look at the Grand Duchesses of Russia artiles (Grand Duchess Elena Pavlovna of Russia vs. Anna Pavlovna of Russia) or Queen Victoria's daughters, who were all born with the same title;

• Alice of the United Kingdom
• Princess Louise, Duchess of Argyll
• Princess Beatrice of the United Kingdom

Spencer creek woods (talk) 22:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

There is currently discussion to find an appropriate naming convention for Russian Grand Duchesses. One set of inconsistencies does not warrant another. Also, the naming for grand ducal consorts is under discussion (Alice), Princess Louise is named according to the naming convention for peers and Beatrice is properly named according to WP:NC(NT). Also, Anna Pavlovna is named according to the convention for queens consort and Elena Pavlovna is named that way for the same reasons Beatrice is named her way. Charles 22:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

What about spouses ie Natalia Alexeievna of Russia or Alexandra Iosifovna of Altenburg or Princess Elisabeth of Saxe-Altenburg or Grand Duchess Elizabeth Fyodorovna. Also, what is the actual issue with the content of the article, not in the wilder Wikipedia universe, but just in this article itself? Spencer creek woods (talk) 22:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, there are conventions being discussed for the wives of Russian grand dukes and tsars. Just because disparity in naming exists doesn't mean it won't be or shouldn't be fixed, if not now then later (as discussions are ongoing). The problem initially was with the infobox being changed. It was all reverted because the changes made along with it were simply preferential changes in addition to the non-conforming change to the monarch infobox. Reverting back after becomes problematic, because there is no reason to do so. Charles 22:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Since it's not links as they all go to the correct page, in what actual way is this version problematic? Spencer creek woods (talk) 22:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ADD INFO

This article is looking pretty empty outside of basic details of his birth, his marriages, and his death. Cladeal832 (talk) 19:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)