Talk:Autumn Phillips

Middle Name

The cite for her middle name is contained in the Privy Council announcement of the Queen's consent to the marriage. Ariadne55 (talk) 13:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopaedic???

Is this an encyclopaedia or a tabloid gossip column. There is nothing encyclopaedic about the colour or designer of bridesmaids' dresses, or about going to a family dinner with her then fiancé. Kevin McE (talk) 11:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Disagree on the first. The family dinner showed her status within the Royal Family before marriage, and for a royal partner this is important. I agree regarding the colour & designer of bridesmaids dresses though, but do believe the fact Zara Phillips was a bridesmaid should be kept.--UpDown (talk) 11:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Is it really remarkable that the groom's sister acts as a bridesmaid? Not that unusual in my experience. Kevin McE (talk) 16:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe not, but if you remove what might be counted as part of a "usual" life in an article on a royal you would be left with very little information. Royalty are notable for being who they are and the details of their lives are notable, not their careers like an actor or singer.--UpDown (talk) 18:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Which is why if I had seen the discussion in time, I would have added my voice in favour of the deletion of the article, on the grounds that she is not notable for anything other than her attachment to someone not notable for anything other than his attachment to someone else. Kevin McE (talk) 20:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

On that grounds every article for every royal would be deleted! They are notable for who they are - they do not need extra notablity.--UpDown (talk) 20:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed (which is largely why I have little sympathy with monarchism), but unto how many degrees of removal from any authority or anyone who actually carries out royal duties does this extend? Will the spouses of Peter and Autumn's children get articles? Their children? Is anyone of interest to the gossip columnists therefore worthy of an article? And if so, will the article be any more than a digest of scurrilous tittle-tattle? Kevin McE (talk) 23:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I would say that their children and their spouses would not get articles (unless of course they become notable for any reason). Any of their details would be on Phillips & Kelly's articles.--UpDown (talk) 07:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Date format

Please note the following about date format from Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) - "articles in Canadian English may use either format consistently. Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country will therefore normally use the corresponding date format" and later "If an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the whole article should conform to it, unless there are reasons for changing it on the basis of strong national ties to the topic." In other words, either date format can be used for a Canadian article, and when an article has developed using one format, it should not be changed without strong reason, the fact Canadian articles can use either therefore means they is no reason to change it.--UpDown (talk) 21:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware that either format can be used, but the dominant percentage of articles on Canadian subjects use the [month] [day], [year] format. Changing this to correspond is merely bringing it in line with the majority. Is there any particular reason this should not be done? --G2bambino (talk) 21:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes the MoS I quote. Unless you revert, I shall report you for directly ignoring the MoS. Changing date formats is disruptive. Either can be used, one has been used ALWAYS on this article, you have changed. You are directly ignoring policy. Why???--UpDown (talk) 21:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I have just done by third revert in 24 hours, for my reasons mentioned. You have also done 3 reverts.--UpDown (talk) 21:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

So, let me get this clear: you are threatening that if I don't revert you will "report" me? --G2bambino (talk) 21:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

For breaching the clear MoS that says date formats should not be changed unless for strong national reasons. The MoS makes clear Canada can use either, therefore those reasons don't exist. A clear breach of MoS.--UpDown (talk) 21:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't address what I asked. You threatened (which is itself against WP policy) to "report" me if I did not revert your changes, therefore trying to force me to undo what you did. Strange. --G2bambino (talk) 21:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

No threat. I asked you to revert your MoS breach. Simple. [Confusion may arise because I originally believed I could not revert because of your misleading 3RR comment, when I realised I could, I did]--UpDown (talk) 21:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Oohh.... I see. Well, then, can you explain how there's an MOS breach when the MOS says that either date format is acceptable? Your highlighted segment of the MOS that speaks of changing the format relates to breaking with the common format within an article, i.e. using [day] [month] [year] in one instance when the rest of the article uses [month] [day], [year], not that the entire article can't be changed in a consistent manner. --G2bambino (talk) 21:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Because the MoS says "If an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the whole article should conform to it, unless there are reasons for changing it on the basis of strong national ties to the topic." - in other words this article has developed in UK date format. As this can be used on Canada articles, to change it is distruptive and anti-MoS. It is generally accepted date format changing is disruptive and should only be done if necessary. The MoS makes it clear it is not necessary (had she been American is would have been fine).--UpDown (talk) 21:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the whole article should conform. That is not the same as saying "the whole article cannot be changed." I see a bonus in bringing the dates in-line with other Canadian articles. Given what I just mentioned, you still haven't explained why not. --G2bambino (talk) 21:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Because it is considered disruptive (indeed I have been ticked off before for even changing date formats on one article to conform). It is generally accepted that where a whole article uses a date format that is correct it should not be changed.--UpDown (talk) 22:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, so we've now gone from absolute law laid down by the MOS to what is "generally accepted." Well, when either format is correct, change is a possibility. When the majority of articles on Canadian subjects use one form, why should this one be different? --G2bambino (talk) 22:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Please note also this "In the early stages of writing an article, the date format chosen by the first major contributor to the article should be used, unless there is reason to change it on the basis of strong national ties to the topic." - no reason as defined by MoS, which says Canada can use either format. I suggest you try and get the MoS changed so Canada is in the same boat as the US for date formatting - this is clearly the issue.--UpDown (talk) 22:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah hah! And who was the first contributor to this article? None other than User:UpDown. Still, you are misusing the guideline: firstly, it says "in the early stages of the article," which we are long past now, and the "strong national ties to the topic" seem to be Canadian, which means either format is acceptable. It thus comes down to a decision between retaining one format or moving to another. I've given a reason for the move, you've given none for the retention of the status quo. --G2bambino (talk) 22:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you take this issue to an admin. I read the MoS very clearly, changing date format should not be used unless for strong national reasons, Canada can use the UK format, this has always been used for the article, so it should not be changed. If you disagree, take to admin or the MoS's talk page - we are clearly not going to agree on this.--UpDown (talk) 07:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

No need to direct your problems off to someone else to deal with. Perhaps you should stop making it so difficult for yourself: explain why the format should not be changed. What is it that's so important about [day] [month] [year] to this article that it must remain as such and therefore different from most other Canadian subject aricles? --G2bambino (talk) 12:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Because you are doing you normal trick of arguing and arguing, igoring what the <script type="text/javascript" src="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Omegatron/monobook.js/addlink.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>other person is saying and pretending they are not explaining themselves. I have given my reasons, you totally ignore them in a hope to suit your POV. Please ask an admin. This is not me directing problems elsewhere, it is getting a neutral 3rd party involved, rather than us bicker on here for ever. Why are you afraid of that?--UpDown (talk) 13:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not a trick, UD. It's a simple question posed to you, and one which you refuse to answer. Pointing to a guideline and saying that's the answer is not the answer; it's been explained to you how the guideline doesn't support your demands. Of course, if you continue to refuse to provide any rational explanation for why the format has to remain as it is, and continue your well-known pattern of reverting (all together adding up to some serious ownership issues), then neutral 3rd parties will probably be necessary. But all that can be avoided if you'd simply answer the question. Why are you afraid of it? --G2bambino (talk) 14:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not falling for this, its what you do with everyone, you keep going on and on and on asking questions. You never accept you maybe wrong. I have answered serveral times, if you cannot read these then that's not my problem. Let's try once more and see if can read it this time "I read the MoS very clearly, changing date format should not be used unless for strong national reasons, Canada can use the UK format, this has always been used for the article, so it should not be changed". That clear? I will not be discussing this further unless with a third party, something you seem reluctant to do.--UpDown (talk) 14:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

And as has been explained to you: the section you point to regarding the changing of the date format refers only to breaking from consistency within the article itself. As I am not proposing to do that, the section you point to is irrelevant to the discussion. Now, would you care to try again? If not, and you believe you cannot answer the questions put to you, feel free to seek out another opinion from a neutral party. I certainly won't stop you. --G2bambino (talk) 14:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe you are now being delibratley annoying and ignoring the guidelines. I am now wasting my time talking to you - you don't listen. If you change the date format I will revert it. Please see a neutral 3rd party admin.--UpDown (talk) 14:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Threatening future reverts does not reflect well on your attitude. But, if you want a 3rd party, off you go and get it. It wasn't my idea. --G2bambino (talk) 14:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I see you have successfully bullied one user away from Wikipedia this week, and frankly I feel like you are trying to make me the second. You whole attitude I find deeply worrying. But, to the point. I have tidied the page, adding back the extended lead (per WP:LEAD), changed reference from "Peter" to "Phillips" (he's not an HRH, so we use his surname), and tidied links. I also believe the extended info on what some journalist said and what the Canadian PM then incorrectly said is unnecessary. It is also POV, and many people commented on the situation. A good paragraph on the Act of Settlement article would be better, its not needed on Autumn's page. I have also changed the date format. As you are obviously afraid of taking it to a 3rd party (I am not afraid, if I'm wrong, I'm wrong - there is only one way to find out), I will take to the MoS talk page.--UpDown (talk) 11:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Changing date formats.--UpDown (talk) 11:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

As mentioned above, the MOS says "If an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the whole article should conform to it, unless there are reasons for changing it on the basis of strong national ties to the topic.". It is my interpretation of the above discussion that UpDown has created and evolved this article, in accordance with the MOS (that says that Canadian articles can use either format. There is no inconsistency here, the format is perfectly valid and I can see no reason for change. The statement "When the majority of articles on Canadian subjects use one form" does not help here. Have you counted them? Although G2bambino keeps asking UpDown for reasons to keep the format, he has not explicitly said why he wants it changed, other than "the majority use one form". The MOS supports both forms, and says change should not happen unless there are strong reasons for doing so. It is not UpDown's responsibility to stand up for the evolved format it is G2bambino's job to convince UpDown (and others) that a change is necessary.

Please G2bambino "explain why the format should not be changed." The fact that UpDown created the article is completely irrelevant here. I can see no reason to change the "status quo" to conform to the "majority" of Canadian articles, when the MOS clearly states that both can be used freely, and that date changes should not be undertaken "unless there are reasons for changing it on the basis of strong national ties to the topic". Equal ties to both formats do not do this.–MDCollins (talk) 11:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It took 10 seconds "earliest" in the edit history, to confirm that the article began with dmy format. There is no question that it should stay this way. Could I remind G2bamabino that edit-warring is totally unacceptable in such circumstances. Updown, please contact MOSNUM talk if there's any more trouble. Tony (talk) 11:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help. I now regret I didn't get a third party involved sooner, it would have saved us the edit war and argument.--UpDown (talk) 11:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly Agree per MOSNUM, Tony and Updown reasoning --«JavierMC»|Talk 12:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Although G2bambino keeps asking UpDown for reasons to keep the format, he has not explicitly said why he wants it changed, other than "the majority use one form. Pardon me, but please be more accurate. What I said was that the majority of Canadian articles use the [month] [day], [year] format. I'm willing to concede that this article should break from that consistency, if a valid reason for doing so is presented. However, nothing but "it's been that way since the article was started" has been offered as a reason. Certainly the status quo has a certain precedence over changes, but, the status quo need not remain simply because it has up until a given point. Again, why must this article be different from others in the same scope? It's really a rather simple question. --G2bambino (talk) 15:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

[Minor addition]: As per "edit warring": UpDown keeps hiding article wide edits behind the guise of the date format issue, and won't discuss them as long as it stands the way she wants it. I'm simply trying to keep the issue alive until it is resolved; though the arrival of outside opinion is a vast improvement from yesterday. --G2bambino (talk) 15:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

When an article is written with one date format, you are out of line changing it to your own personal preferences. According to The Canadian Style: A Guide to Writing and Editing, which is the Canadian government's authority on the subject, either date format is acceptable, and neither is preferable. Additionally, Phillips is related to the British royal family, which would use the British date format (3 May 1978), and was born in Quebec, which would use the French date format (3 Mai 1978). So I don't see the point in changing it to the American date format (May 3, 1978).RockyMtnGuy (talk) 16:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, but you're unfortunately wrong on a number of counts. The facts so far are 1) either format is acceptable, 2) most Canadian subject articles use the [month] [day], [year] form. However, what happens here (and elsewhere in future) is now pending the result of discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Changing date formats. --G2bambino (talk) 19:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

So everyone is wrong bar you? What was the point in getting others involved if you ignore them as well? You behaviour if getting very near to me making a complaint of sorts, its deeply unacceptable. You have ignored my points about the lead, everyone's points about the dates and untidied the links I tidied, removed the word "born", and repeated twin.--UpDown (talk) 21:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't comment on things I never said; sorry. --G2bambino (talk) 21:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

So you are refusing to discuss the changes?--UpDown (talk) 22:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Evidently I am not. --G2bambino (talk) 22:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

But you will not discuss the links, the word "born" you are removing, the repeated use of twins in the opening line of first section, and the lead.--UpDown (talk) 22:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

No, because those weren't the subject of this discussion. That is not, however, the same as "refusing to discuss the changes." --G2bambino (talk) 22:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think they'll ever come to a decision on dates - it's too hard to get the Brits and Americans to agree on anything, particularly anything trivial. In Canada, there's no real consistency in how date formats are used - in my experience there are at least four different formats in common use. As it happens, the official Canadian standard date format is the ISO format YYYY-MM-DD, although many people are too stubborn to use it. However, Wikipedia policy is that Canadians can use either the DD MMMM YYYY or MMMM DD, YYYY format, and if an article starts out with one format, there's no reason to change as long as it used consistently in the article. What counts is that the dates are readable and unambiguous, not whether they are preferred by 50% plus one of the population. Trying to change all the dates to a different format just results in edit wars as per the current example.22:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Other edits

I am also uneasy about some of your other edits, changing it to say Phillips is a member of the Royal Family ("Autumn did not know until six weeks after their meeting that Phillips was a member of the Royal Family") - he's not. The changing to calling her Autumn everywhere, not appriopiate for an encyclopedia, should be Phillips (only HRH/HMs should be referred to by first name), and the un-needed attention brought to what some journalist said in a paper about it (and what a PM incorrectly said). This is not needed on Phillips' page (especially as she converted), but on the Act of Settlement page.--UpDown (talk) 21:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Your opinions may be valid, but do not match the extent of your changes. A few words here and there is one thing, but a complete undo is all-together different. --G2bambino (talk) 21:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

A complete revert is necessary because of the extent of the bad quality of your change. Orignally, I added some of your good edits back, but most were bad. I am reporting you for MoS ignoring per the above.--UpDown (talk) 21:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Your link to royal family via Commonwealth realms article is also your usual POV pushing. A link to the page on the ACTUAL family, rather than a generic section about how it is shared is far better.--UpDown (talk) 21:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I see you're going to be uncooperative in this matter. Disappointing, but not a surprise. In fact, I was in the midst of making some changes specific to the points you raised above, only to find you'd done another blunt and thoughtless revert in the meantime. What a shame. --G2bambino (talk) 21:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It is also disappointing that your usual POV is being brought in, especially with the date format. As I said, some of your original changes I added back in.--UpDown (talk) 21:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I see no need for that tag - there is nothing wrong with the spelling, tone etc. Just because its not your version...!--UpDown (talk) 21:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't care if you added "some" of my changes back in. What I care about is your ownership issues with this article. As I said, I was in the middle of making changes in an attempt to satisfy the concerns you brought up, but you thwarted that attempt by bluntly reverting again. That, in combination with your threats, demonstrates a very territorial and defensive attitude. --G2bambino (talk) 21:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Not ownership, its keeping the article, well written, NPOV and relevant, and in line with MoS.--UpDown (talk) 21:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yet, you've just proved how you do have ownership issues: the article is only well written, NPOV, and relevant when you say it is. No cooperation, just an enforcement of your opinion. Not good. --G2bambino (talk) 21:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes of course it my opinion, what else can it be? But the date format is back up by MoS, as it referring to her by her first name. Both not my opinion but backed up by guideance. You are also trying to enforce your edits, adding the date format despite MoS for example. Had you co-operated firstly, maybe taking it to talk after my initial revert rather than saying you were adding back an date format then do a complete revert. Perhaps that would have been best rather than try and hide a whole edit under date format changing (which of course was anti-MoS anyway).--UpDown (talk) 21:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the 3RR. Although my 4th revert was a different revert, I take the point, and will revert it (although as I said, the tag is ludicrous).--UpDown (talk) 21:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Obviously the tag isn't ludicrous; we're here, aren't we? The date format is another issue that's being addressed in a separate discussion above, and was a guise that you used to cover a complete undo of my work; this, after all, was summarised as "RV - Date links not longer needed. And should not be in US format."

Now, the use of first names was one of your concerns that I was addressing when you went reverted again. But, you see, that fact highlights what seems to be the main problem here: your opinions on matters appear to be the be-all and end-all, not to be questioned or even worked with, and protected behind a barrage of quotes from WP pages. Yet, things aren't that simple. For instance, the first name thing goes beyond just referring to Autumn as Kelley or Phillips throughout the article; Phillips could also refer to Peter, and Kelley could also refer to Brian. How else to be sure confusion is avoided than to address the subject by her unique first name? --G2bambino (talk) 21:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I feel you are now clutching at straw. The "problems" you list above can happen at the article of any person, so by that we would use first names on all articles. In cases where it could cause confusion, that is addressed, by either saying "Autumn Phillips (or Kelly)", or just "Autumn", which would be acceptable in a singular instance where is avoids confusion. But it cannot be used throughout the whole article. Another problem with your changes, you shortened the lead, breaking WP:LEAD, which advises leads of good length. All this is why the nearly the whole edit needing reverting, there were just too many problems.--UpDown (talk) 22:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the problem can happen at any biographical article, but that doesn't mean it does, or that is should be allowed to happen here. So, something needs to change in order to avoid the issue; I made an attempt, but that doesn't mean it was the only solution. Udoing my attempt, though, does nothing to address the problem. --G2bambino (talk) 22:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no problem, that I can see, in this article about confusion. If their is an indiviual problem, fix that [Note in the last sentence, I wrote "Peter" because using Phillips would have been confusing about which one].--UpDown (talk) 22:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

And I see a problem; Kelley is used alone a number of times throughout the article; which one is that, Brian or Autumn? It also refers to (I assume) Autumn as Kelley after her marriage, when she clearly became Phillips. --G2bambino (talk) 22:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The subject of the article should be referred to by her surname after the first mention, per MOS Bio on subsequent use. In a paragraph with others who have the same surname, all should consistently be referred to by given name or complete name, per MOS Bio on family members. In an article on Autumn Phillips née Kelly, "Kelly" or "Phillips" refers to the subject of the article, because her family members would properly be referred to as Brian/Kitty/Chris Kelly and her husband as Peter Phillips. Similarly, at Peter Phillips, "Phillips" would refer to him not to his father or sister. As for UpDown's ownership issues, this isn't the first time she's done taken over an article and reverted away everyone else. Look at her contrib and talk pages. Still, what can one do? Ariadne55 (talk) 23:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I assume, then, that Autumn would be referred to as Kelley until her wedding, after which it would be Phillips. Or, is it Phillips throughout the entire article, as that is now what her name is, and in the title of the page? --G2bambino (talk) 23:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Either approach would work in this article, because it's so short. In general, an article flows better if it refers to the person by their best known surname throughout. Sentences where it doesn't make sense can be finessed with a pronoun, careful phrasing, or the phrase "the then". I edited Linda McCartney and some other articles that way and it went well. On the other hand, Elton John's page is an example of how a Kelly/Phillips approach can get out of hand in a long article. Ariadne55 (talk) 00:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I would say that Autumn should be referred to as Kelly until marriage, then Phillips, in the same way that you would not refer to Elizabeth II as "The Queen" before 1952. [Please note G2bambino it is Kelly not Kelley] I also do not believe people would think "Kelly" would refer to her father, the article is on her, so its fairly apparent. Any sentences referring to him would say "Brian Kelly".--UpDown (talk) 06:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about that - it looks a bit odd, maybe because "Kelly" can be used as both a forename and surname. I think consistency throughout the article is better than Kelly (hereafter known as Phillips) - especially if such a specific change is un-mentioned. As to which name is "more widely used", I'm not in a position to say. But my preference would be one or the other, not both.–MDCollins (talk) 13:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Names

Others have weighed in on how to deal with the article subject's name; hopefully I can summarise these correctly:

• Ariadne55: The subject of the article should be referred to by her surname after the first mention. "Kelly" or "Phillips" refers to the subject of the article, because her family members would properly be referred to as Brian/Kitty/Chris Kelly and her husband as Peter Phillips. [A]n article flows better if it refers to the person by their best known surname throughout.
• UpDown: Autumn should be referred to as Kelly until marriage, then Phillips.
• MDCollins: Consistency throughout the article is better than Kelly (hereafter known as Phillips) - especially if such a specific change is un-mentioned.Consistency throughout an article is paramount. The subject of the article should be referred to by the surname they are most commonly known as (or wish to be known as), throughout the article.–MDCollins (talk) 22:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

If I am to understand this correctly, Autumn should therefore be referred to as Phillips throughout the article. This maintains consistency, avoids confusion about whether Kelly is a first or last name, and maintains an encyclopaedic standard. I'll make the changes, without further issue, I hope. --G2bambino (talk) 15:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I've always understood it to be common practise to refer to people how they were at the time.--UpDown (talk) 21:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Others apparently disagree with you, so please work it out here. Personally, I'm inclined to agree with MDCollins and Ariadne55; consistency throughout makes sense from a reader's standpoint. --G2bambino (talk) 21:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I've clarified my view above. The example at the MOS is Elizabeth Taylor who is known as Taylor throughout the article. This is slightly different in that she was always known as that regardless of who she was married to. Do we know what surname Autumn is using post marriage? At the moment the subject is named Phillips, and so that should be used throughout the article (unless she uses her maiden name).–MDCollins (talk) 22:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe she's retained her maiden name. If we're to use one name throughout the article, I therefore think it should be Phillips, not Kelly; she's presently not known as the latter. Of course, if anything changes in the future, this page can be altered to suit. --G2bambino (talk) 16:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, she hasn't retained her maiden name. I maintain that two names are best, what the title of the article is is immaterial. Regretably the MoS doesn't appear to be clear on this, but the way I read it we should use they name appriopiate for the time the event occured. To say, for example, "Phillips graduated from University..." is, in my eyes, just wrong. She didn't, Kelly did. I don't think it confuses people in the slightest.--UpDown (talk) 16:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, for the time being I've maintained the use of Kelly throughout the article; there's really only one point where she's mentioned after the wedding, and it just seems odd to refer to her as Phillips only once, at the end. I suppose this discussion comes down, now, to whether or not it's Kelly or Phillips to be used consistently. I agree with MDCollins, and think it should be Phillips. Are you dead set on Kelly, UpDown? --G2bambino (talk) 00:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Three points

1. The lead, at present, is horrendously written. It has been unnecessarily split into two extremely short paragraphs, the start of the second one repeating nearly verbatim the start of the following paragraph in the article. It further has the word "born" repeated no less than three times, twice (albeit in different languages) in the same sentence. Compare the existing:

Autumn Patricia Phillips (née Kelly; born 3 May 1978) is the wife of Peter Phillips, himself the only son of The Princess Anne, Princess Royal, and Captain Mark Phillips, and the eldest grandchild of Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh.

Autumn Kelly was born in Quebec, Canada in 1978. After graduating from McGill University in 2002, she became a management consultant. The following year she met Peter Phillips at the Canadian Grand Prix and they soon became a couple. Their engagement was announced in July 2007 and they married in St George's Chapel, Windsor Castle on 17 May 2008.

to what I propose (though it may not be perfect):

Autumn Patricia Phillips (née Kelly; 3 May 1978) is the wife of Peter Phillips, himself the only son of The Princess Anne, Princess Royal, and Captain Mark Phillips, and the eldest grandchild of Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. Autumn and Peter Phillips met at the Canadian Grand Prix in 2003, their engagement was announced in July 2007, and they married in St George's Chapel, Windsor Castle, on 17 May 2008. Now residing with her husband in Hong Kong, Phillips is the first Canadian to marry into the extended royal family since George Windsor, Earl of St Andrews, married Sylvana Palma Tomaselli in 1988.

2. The way in which Autumn is addressed is inconsistent with the title of the article. I don't particularly think that Kelly is appropriate, given that her name in the article's title is Phillips; but, this should be resolved above.

3. Significant, and cited, information that pertains specifically to the subject of this article is systematically removed by UpDown, even after its amount was pared down to meet her earlier concerns. As the common characteristic of this information is that it pertains to Canada, barring some other explanation, one is left to wonder if there's some sort of bias at play. --G2bambino (talk) 22:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Well I think the secind one is too short to match with WP:LEAD requirements. Have you read it? Info is meant to be repeated. The word born should always be there, the fact "nee" is there does not mean born shouldn't be. The whole stuff about the Countess of St. Andrews is totally irrelevant - the lead is meant to be a summary of the article. That is just trivia.

Kelly is appriopiate because she was known as that at the time. The MoS clearly says that if a person has peerage, you do not use it to refer to the person before they were given it. I believe this also applies to surnames. The Queen article is titled Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, yet in the article you would say Princess Elizabeth for stuff before 1952.

It is not significant that is your POV (as usual, pro-Canada). Many people, politicians and commentators, said that the wedding brought the Act into discussion. Highlighting one person is simple POV. The fact they are both from Canada is immaterial. --UpDown (talk) 22:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• Could you please explain how my lead is too short to meet WP:LEAD requirements? As I understand it, the length of the lead is determined by the length of the article. Besides, my proposal actually has three words more than yours, so...

• The lead is meant to be a summary of the article. Your version is not. The reference to Lady St. Andrews (granted its verifiable), its not needed for the lead, its trivial. I'm sure the Canadian press made a lot of it, if Kelly had come from say Blackpool, then a lot of the Blackpool local press would make a lot of that - doesn't mean it would qualify for lead. It might warrant a quick mention in article, but not lead.--UpDown (talk) 15:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• Your initial point was about length. You still have not addressed my question relating to that. --G2bambino (talk) 16:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• On length, there may not be that much difference. But as I said your summary does not summarise the article, mine does. It has a small opening paragraph saying why she is on Wikipedia, and a small second paragraph summarising her life so far (that can be expanded as time goes on).--UpDown (talk) 16:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, but summary does not necessarily mean direct repetition of minor facts. There are ways of creating a summary other than copying sentences out of the article and pasting them in the lead. --G2bambino (talk) 17:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• A summary of her life. Totally ignoring her life before marriage is not a proper summary. It has not been copy and pasted, and there are no minor points.--UpDown (talk) 17:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• Fair enough r.e. her pre-marriage life. The cut-and-paste comment still stands, though. --G2bambino (talk) 17:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• Personally I don't see it as copy and pasted (and as the person who originally wrote it, it wasn't copy and pasted). How would you like to reword?--UpDown (talk) 17:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• Do you realise that née is French for born? Your opening, thus, says: (born Kelly; born 3 May 1978), and then goes on to talk, yet again, at the start of the next micro-paragraph, about Autumn's being born.

• The MOS on dates and names requires born to be next to the date. It gets a bit tricky with living females. I have found one FA Diane Keaton which uses the equivalent form to Autumn Phillips (born Autumn Kelly on 3 May 1978) is... This eliminates any grammatical vagaries, reads well and conforms to all guidelines.–MDCollins (talk) 23:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• Personally prefer my version, I don't think putting nee then born is bad repition at all. But I would accept what MDCollins suggests.--UpDown (talk) 15:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• What MDCollins suggests is fine with me; it just replaces nee from my version with born, which, as they are interchangable, is perfectly acceptable. --G2bambino (talk) 16:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• The name issue is being discussed separately above.
• I have not idea what it is not significant that is your POV (as usual, pro-Canada) is supposed to mean; it doesn't use proper English grammar. Regardless, the point of Autumn's being the first Canadian since Sylvana Tomaselli to marry into the extended royal family is a verifiable fact, relevant to the subject, and, though it may not register as important in your narrow view of the world, it is notable in the wider scope of the subject. It was certainly notable enough for the media in Canada.

• See my comments re lead above. I will insert this in article proper, not the lead. --UpDown (talk) 15:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• If you wish, but it was you who said the lead was too short. --G2bambino (talk) 16:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• If others have commented on the Act of Settlement issue in relation to Autumn's Catholic faith and marriage, then their words can be used as added sources for the article; please bring them forward and we can add it in. As it stands, however, the source meets WP:V, and is relevant to the topic, so there's no reason to censor it. --G2bambino (talk) 23:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• Your usual pro-Canada POV, it can be seen everywhere, even the date issues. But I think the Canadian PM's comments should only be with the comments of others at a decent paragraph on Act of Settlement page. Baring in mind, Kelly converted thus the Act of Settlement soon did not become a problem, I feel its not necessary here.--UpDown (talk) 15:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• The Canadian PM didn't make any comments, and this article doesn't pretend he did. Have you actually read the text of this page? --G2bambino (talk) 16:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• Re read what it says. People called on him to change things. People also called on Gordon Brown I believe. Perhaps a more neutral "this lead to calls from commentators and politicians to change the law" (or similar phrasing).--UpDown (talk) 16:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• Re-reading your words, I still see "the Canadian PM's comments [emphasis mine] should only be with the comments of others at a decent paragraph on Act of Settlement page." That assumes that someone tried to insert "the Canadian PM's comments" into this article, which never happened. What the article did mention was calls to the Canadian PM to address the issue of the Act of Settlement when Autumn's Roman Catholic faith came up. If there were calls to the British PM as well, let's mention that too. What you suggest is a good base to work from; I'd think something like This scenario drew attention to the Act of Settlement's bar on Catholics ascending to the throne, and prompted calls in both Canada and the United Kingdom for the respective prime ministers to address the issue. --G2bambino (talk) 17:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• I would be happy with your version of the words, as it avoids POV and is well worded.--UpDown (talk) 17:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• Great. Do you, off hand, have a source relevant to the claim r.e. the British PM? I can certainly search, but if you know where there's one already, it would save some time. --G2bambino (talk) 17:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• I've found these [1], http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23481513-details/Peter+Phillips's+fiancee+renounces+her+Catholic+faith+so+he+can+keep+his+place+in+the+Royal+succession/article.do] and [2]. All list prominent people calling for the law to be changed.--UpDown (talk) 17:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• I've added the sentence. However, the link you added originally for Canada does not work, and a quick internet search took me to the website, but wouldn't allow me to view the article unless I registered - something that I believe we are meant to avoid in refs. Are you able to find it?--UpDown (talk) 07:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• I've found it.--UpDown (talk) 07:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• Also, are you happy for the tags to go now?--UpDown (talk) 07:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• I've just noticed you have been blocked for two days, and have gone and removed the tags (as they are incredibly unsightly in my opinion). Please let me know if you have any problems.--UpDown (talk) 07:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sorry; as you noted, I was busy elsewhere with other issues. I've no problem with the tags being removed now, as it seems we've settled all matters save for the lead. You last asked how I would like it worded. I don't have any singular preference, just something that sums up the article's content in a consise fashion, and I don't believe it's necessary to force a paragraph break where none is needed. I would say something along the lines of:

Autumn Patricia Phillips (born Autumn Patricia Kelly on 3 May 1978) is the wife of Peter Phillips, himself the only son of The Princess Anne, Princess Royal, and Captain Mark Phillips, and the eldest grandchild of Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. Raised in Montreal, Quebec, she met Peter Phillips there in 2003, their engagement was announced in July 2007, and they married in St George's Chapel, Windsor Castle, on 17 May 2008. Sometimes participating in royal events, she now resides with her husband in Hong Kong.

Thanks, also, for finding some added sources. --G2bambino (talk) 00:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I have issues with many of your edits;

• I have fixed the links, it looked tidier to have Sir Michael Parkinson, and I see no reason for you to change this.
• A link to British Royal Family is far better than where you linked it. The point of the link is to show people the family we are talking about, the actual people, not some small section to tell them the precise legal aspect of a shared royal family. It is frankly confusing.
• Please do not link the Act of Settlement to show "Act of Settlement, 1701" - the comma is never used in UK Acts of Parliament (hence the article name), it may be used for Canadian Acts, but not British ones. It is POV pushing to try and install a Canadian way on British Acts.
• You changed one date from "9 April" to "April 9". Please don't.
• You changed the refs for the calls for change to 1701 Act of just links. Please use proper ref templates.
• You seem to alternate between Peter and Phillips. One or other, and as he's not an HRH it should be Phillips. There will be no confusion as in circumstances it is most clear who it is refering to.
• I still believe is logical to refer to someone how they were at that time, as the guide says we should with titled people for example. To refer to as Phillips during childhood or Kelly after marriage is unnecessarily misleading either way.
• I believe your lead above is to short. If you wish the current two current paragraphs merged, fine, but I think yours is too concise.

--UpDown (talk) 07:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

What if I'm not referencing the UK Act of Settlement, but the Canadian one instead? You curtly throw about all sorts of accusations of bais, yet, you're guilty of the exact same thing. Why is your "POV pushing" the acceptable kind?

The name issue is being discussed above, please keep things coherent by continuing that debate rather than starting a new one here.

I disagree with your judgement of my proposed lead; the number of words is not how the quality of composition is judged. I will add one more sentence to my proposed lead, but, as that would make mine address every single point that yours does, I can't fathom what real opposition you could have to it:

Autumn Patricia Phillips (born Autumn Patricia Kelly on 3 May 1978) is the wife of Peter Phillips, himself the only son of The Princess Anne, Princess Royal, and Captain Mark Phillips, and the eldest grandchild of Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. Raised in Montreal, Quebec, educated in East Asian Studies at McGill University, she met Peter Phillips there in 2003, their engagement was announced in July 2007, and they married in St George's Chapel, Windsor Castle, on 17 May 2008. Sometimes participating in royal events, she now resides with her husband in Hong Kong.

Everything else was just errors on my part. Thank you for pointing them out and correting them. That is, after all, how Wikipedia works. --G2bambino (talk) 15:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

How could it be a Canadian Act in 1701! And why use the Canadian one? It should be the English Act of Settlement 1701, the most known and most relevant and NPOV, and this would be without a comma. With regards to the name thing, I'm going to start a discussion at the MoS about this - after all its a wider issues and there should be widespread consensus about this - so better to take to MoS. Your lead in fairness does not address "every single point" (if it did why change mine?), it misses out the birth info for one; and I don't see the need for "participating in royal events" as she doesn't that many, and I can't see the need for that in lead. I really don't see you issues with mine.--UpDown (talk) 18:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you ask that question; it isn't the act in 1701 that matters, it's the act now, and its a separate (though identical) law in Canada. I don't really care about the comma, really. I was merely pointing out a little bit of hypocricy in your accusations.

As for the lead, mine does indeed address every point in yours, save for her birth place; in order to avoid repeating "born" twice in the lead, as you have done (along with, for some odd reason, her birth year), I changed it to "raised." Really, if you want it so, my proposal can be altered to:

Autumn Patricia Phillips (née Autumn Patricia Kelly on 3 May 1978) is the wife of Peter Phillips, himself the only son of The Princess Anne, Princess Royal, and Captain Mark Phillips, and the eldest grandchild of Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. After graduating from McGill University in 2002, Kelly met Peter Phillips in her birthplace and hometown of Montreal, Quebec; their engagement was announced in July 2007, and they married in St George's Chapel, Windsor Castle, on 17 May 2008. She now resides with her husband in Hong Kong.

The only thing I've dropped from yours is mention of her job as a management consultant. Reading through the article, it becomes clear she had many more past jobs than that; why, then, single that particular one out? --G2bambino (talk) 22:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair point about the management consultant, and I agree that should be removed. However, I think a decent summary of her life is best starting with "Born in...", and I would also expect it to end "died in..". I think having two paragraphs works better; the first says why she is notable, the second a summary of her life. I don't see why that really needs changing? [I will remove job bit now].

I'm starting that MoS discussion now.--UpDown (talk) 07:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Why do we need to specifically use the words "born in"? There are other ways to say the same thing. I'll concede on the paragraph thing; I think it's poor syntax, but it's not the end of the world. --G2bambino (talk) 16:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Small Error in Citations

My mistake--the official name of her daughter was not verified via the official Twitter, but rather via several independent royal sources, such as royalty.nu's Twitter, Netty's Royal Blog, the Royal Forums, etc. These sources state that "blessings were offered at Sandringham for Savannah Phillips, the newborn daughter of Peter and Autumn Phillips." If this is found to be an error, please correct it. Thank you!

Le fantome de l'opera (talk) 19:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

We need to wait for official source, at the moments its blogs, forums and some newspapers but not Buckingham Palace, or more reliable sources like BBC.UpDown (talk) 16:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Autumn Phillips. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081201092433/http://www.brandrepublic.asia:80/Media/Newsarticle/2008_08/Phillips-to-lead-RBS-regional-sponsorship/32264 to http://www.brandrepublic.asia/Media/Newsarticle/2008_08/Phillips-to-lead-RBS-regional-sponsorship/32264

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Autumn Phillips. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101230215844/http://www.royal.gov.uk/LatestNewsandDiary/Pressreleases/2010/MrsPeterPhilipshasgivenbirthtoababygirl30December2.aspx to http://www.royal.gov.uk/LatestNewsandDiary/Pressreleases/2010/MrsPeterPhilipshasgivenbirthtoababygirl30December2.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Autumn Phillips. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110101004952/http://www.ctv.ca:80/CTVNews/World/20101230/queen-gets-first-great-grandchild-101230/ to http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/World/20101230/queen-gets-first-great-grandchild-101230/

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 03:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Autumn Phillips. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716005756/http://www.sassiholford.com/event.asp?id=42 to http://www.sassiholford.com/event.asp?id=42
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/World/20101230/queen-gets-first-great-grandchild-101230/

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 10:18, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Misleading first sentence

"Autumn Patricia Phillips (née Kelly, 3 May 1978) was the wife of Peter Phillips, the son of Princess Anne, and the oldest grandchild of Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip."

This sentence suggests Autumn, and not Peter, is the grandchild of Elizabeth and Philip. Grondilu (talk) 13:05, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Page name

Sources from the article refer to the subject as "Autumn Phillips" and "Autumn Kelly". while the full statement itself reads"Mr Peter Phillips and Mrs Autumn Phillips are pleased to be able to report that the financial aspects of their divorce ..." Is this move warranted when there's no evidence of her reverting to her maiden name?--Bettydaisies (talk) 02:26, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

@Bettydaisies: Agreed. The move was undiscussed, and thus it should be reverted. If any technical difficulties arise, the issue can be taken to the technical requests section of Wikipedia:Requested moves where admins or page movers can restore the previous title. It is noteworthy that she used the name Autumn Phillips in her divorce statement, and there have been many women who still go by their ex-husband’s surname after divorce. An example in the royal family was Camilla, known as Camilla Parker Bowles even after her 1995 divorce. Keivan.f^Talk 07:40, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

References

Who got custody?

We would need to know who got custody of the children. Valetude (talk) 23:20, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

House of Windsor category

I don't think she or her brother should be in this category - the family tree is pretty clear, and there are plenty of others like David Armstrong-Jones, 2nd Earl of Snowdon and Lady Sarah Chatto who aren't included on this basis. Maybe this discussion should happen on the Category talk page? Unbh (talk) 06:05, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Diamond Jubilee medal

Forgive me if there’s a precedent for this that I’m unaware of but wouldn’t Autumn have got the QE2 Diamond Jubilee medal? Mike, Kate, Tim and Sophie all have it listed on their articles, and Edo & Jack have the Platinum Jubilee medal listed. Shouldn’t Autumn have the Diamond Jubilee one? 2.24.250.51 (talk) 19:19, 8 May 2023 (UTC)