Talk:Prince George of Wales/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Time of Birth

Latest comment: 10 years ago8 comments7 people in discussion

Wiki's statement, that the birth was 16:24 BST / 15:24 UTC, seems to be based on speculation. The actual announcement said simply, "4:24 pm", with BST/UTC unspecified. It should be given in exactly that fashion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.15.119.52 (talk) 18:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

One would hardly expect a Royal announcement to use "BST" just for ease of verifiability at Wikipedia. British Summer Time was being used on 22 July, so it is hardly WP:OR to conclude that this is what the 4:24 was referring to. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

At the time of his birth, British Summer Time was the legal time in the whole of the United Kingdom - it is not WP:OR to assume that legalities were being observed. However I have no problem with the time being stated at "16:24" on grounds that the terms "am" and "pm" are hardly used outside the English language. Martinvl (talk) 06:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

It's no stretch whatsoever to assume an announcement of a time is based on local time, unless specified otherwise. We are not quoting anyone, that would be in quotation marks. Helen Online 07:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

If Baby George had been born in one of the UK's few Julian-calendar using localities, what would his birthday be? 80.254.147.68 (talk) 14:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

What localities are these? David (talk) 10:16, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Presumably those still awaiting the arrival of Prince Aloysius. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:20, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The gap between the Julian and Gregorian calendars is currently 13 days. It last changed (from 12 days to 13 days) in February 1900, but did not change in 2000 because that was a leap year in both calendars (in the Gregorian, centenary years are leap years only if they're not divisible by 400: 1700, 1800, 1900, 2100, 2200, 2300, 2500 ...). Hence, Prince George was born on 9 July 2013 (Julian). -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Birth certificate

Latest comment: 10 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion

One of the current contributors is credited as "User" in the File history of the image of the birth certificate, duly sourced. The certificate has been authentically released for the information of the public, and allows there to be added, at the end of the "Announcement and birth" section, for the sake of completeness, certain information shown in the document. Placed there, and immediately above the "Title and style" section, some of the discussion above about the veracity of the contentious bullet line could be abated. This would not, however, settle the still outstanding questions which have been raised about whether the bullet format such as has been inserted at the top of the "Title and style" section is suitable for presenting birth title information in a non-list in this and certain other articles. Qexigator (talk) 21:07, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

What you added to the article seems like excessively detailed (trivial?) information for an article like this. Nothing similar is found on any other individual's bio. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:14, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

By no means trivial in an encyclopedic article, especially when dubious information has been in circulation about names and titles, and the aim should be to make Wikipedia as reliable as possible. If trivia is to be in question, consider: "Before the birth...Welsh composer Paul Mealor, who composed "Ubi Caritas et Amor" for the parents' wedding, composed a lullaby entitled "Sleep On", with lyrics by Irish composer Brendan Graham. A recording was made of it by New Zealand soprano Hayley Westenra as a gift for the baby. Commemorative coins were issued by both the Royal Mint and the Royal Canadian Mint to commemorate the birth..." Qexigator (talk) 21:30, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's trivial, too. By the time this child is 10, this article will already be as long as Elizabeth II, if this keeps up. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:00, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'll take that as an admission that the birth certificate is documentary evidence of a singularly significant biographical fact, unlike the trivia properly so called. Qexigator (talk) 22:09, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what value having an actual image of the birth certificate adds to the article, suggest it could be removed along with the text recently added. MilborneOne (talk) 22:26, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

It does no harm, and if it were removed, then its sourcing would need to be added to the text. But it should be retained for its intrinsic worth as validating information, and, like the other images, it counters some of the undoubted trivia. Such images would also be suitable in the articles of other princes or princesses if available. They show both the ordinariness of these persons (they must inform the registrar like everyone else) and the way in which their names, styles and titles differ, due to the positions they hold by royal birth, which is usually the only reason for their notability. Qexigator (talk) 23:11, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

OK I dont particularly agree with your view, you dont need an image to use the certificate as a reference it always seems a bit pointy when that is done in any article. If it is an acceptable source then we should assume it a face value we dont need a picture of it or to quote random bits of it. As for the other trivia then I have to agree that needs a bit of a cull in time when the attention on the article has died down a bit. MilborneOne (talk) 23:17, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Again, it's a question of how best to present the given information to a range of readers, with varying degrees of interest in varying aspects of the given topic, and with varying ways of taking in or following up the information. We surely aim to cater for a reasonable range, some of whom will prefer seeing what the image of the actual document shows to their minds, rather than what some editor/s happen to have chosen to select and paraphrase. Qexigator (talk) 23:31, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The image of the birth certificate is the subject of a Commons deletion discussion and may well be deleted in a day or two. Is it really worth making an issue of it in that light? Helen Online 07:04, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning that. So long as it is available, let it stay. But in view of possible deletion, let the info. and source go into the text, for reasons given above. Qexigator (talk) 07:27, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Infobox better and sufficient

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

For reasons given above (What "precedent"? and, among others, at end of Name registration (Official full name) per 84.203.38.5 at 22:53, 11 August 2013 (UTC) etc, including Archive) the one line nonlist is counter-textual and counter-informative. The infobox suffices and puts it better, and in accordance with standard practice across similar and other articles. If Infobox needs improvement please edit there. And please note immediately preceding paragraph in article at end of Announcement and birth. Qexigator (talk) 06:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Name registration (Official full name)

Latest comment: 10 years ago68 comments21 people in discussion

Someone is rpeatdly deleteing the refrence of an article that includes a copy of the official birth or registration certification, which states that the (full) name is: "HRH Prince George Alexander Louis of Cambridge" --Midrashah (talk) 18:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that looks to me also like an official legal document. But what terrible handwriting! Martinevans123 (talk) 18:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

:-) --93.172.189.235 (talk) 18:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

References are not necessary in the lead when the material is verified by references in the article body. DrKiernan (talk) 19:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

What a relief. For a moment I thought they might have "Mother's occupation" wrong. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

DrKiernan, do not delete my ---help-- --Midrashah (talk) 19:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

You have received a response and the template is for use on user talk pages not article talk pages. DrKiernan (talk) 19:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the help template as far as I can see no request has actually been made, also note this template is normally for user talk pages. MilborneOne (talk) 19:20, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I will post help on my talk page with a link to here --Midrashah (talk) 19:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Plenty of people watching here, so just ask clearly what you want on this page. MilborneOne (talk) 19:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

@Midrashah: The certificate itself is shown in the article body and the added reference is unnecessary as the material is already cited. For an article on an 11-day-old baby, 47 references is excessive: losing two from the lead (that cover material already cited elsewhere) improves the article. DrKiernan (talk) 19:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Hear hear! Martinvl (talk) 19:51, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The point is not if its cited here or there, the point is the content of the ref (copy of the official birth or registration certification). It states that the (full) name is "HRH Prince George Alexander Louis of Cambridge". --93.172.189.235 (talk) 19:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree --Midrashah (talk) 19:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

So, you agree that the extra references can be removed then? DrKiernan (talk) 20:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Not as an excuse to remove his full official name "(HRH) Prince George Alexander Louis of Cambridge", as stated in the birth/registration certification. otherwize, yes --Midrashah (talk) 20:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Please look at the first line of the articles Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, Prince Harry of Wales, Prince Andrew, Duke of York, Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex, Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh for examples of how the first line of the biography should look. Martinvl (talk) 20:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

"HRH" is a style (manner of address), covered in the Title and style section of the article with sources. His given names are covered in the Announcement and birth section of the article with sources. His style does not need to be included in the lede section as it is only an introduction to the article, and sources do not need to be cited in the lede section if they are cited in the main article. We already have all this information, with sources in the main article. How the lede is written should be based on Wikipedia's manual of style, which I have cited in my edit summaries (not overly specific, with article title ideally subject of first sentence). Helen Online 20:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

When did he take on the name "George Alexander Louis"? At birth? When his name was announced? When his birth was registered? When he was christened? The norm in the Wikipedia section Titles and Styles is to assume that the name applied form birth - see Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, Diana, Princess of Wales and List of titles and honours of Charles, Prince of Wales (and probably most other articles concerning royalty). I have aligned this article with the others. Martinvl (talk) 04:50, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

From birth is my common sense view as stated above, which not everyone agrees with. The birth registration process entails registering the child's birth and name from birth (albeit after the event). I haven't found the principle spelled out explicitly anywhere yet except in this (from Birth certificate):

"The right of every child to a name and nationality, and the responsibility of national governments to achieve this are contained in Articles 7 and 8 in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child: 'The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality...' (CRC Article 7) and 'States Parties undertake to respect the right of the child to preserve his or her identity, including nationality, name and family relations...' (CRC Article 8).[3]"

Regarding the HRH style, the source cited only restricts the right to "all children of the eldest son of The Prince of Wales", which I would say applies from date of birth:

"The QUEEN has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm dated 31 December 2012 to declare that all the children of the eldest son of The Prince of Wales should have and enjoy the style, title and attribute of Royal Highness with the titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their Christian names or with such other titles of honour." Helen Online 07:49, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Not everyone, and not Wikipedia policy. What you have there isn't a source, it's a theory. See WP:SYNTH. What's more, it's an incorrect (as well as non-secondary-sourced) theory: the right is from birth, and the birth registration establishes the date of birth, and the name. That's not the same thing as determining the name at or from birth. The actual sources directly contradict this. (i.e., two days of every media outlet in the world yammering "what will the name be, what will the name be", direct statements from the parents that there was no name yet.) The registration document is itself clearly dated.

The HRH thing isn't really at issue (as far as I can see): it's well-sourced. Though note that secondary sourced, especially ones that apply directly, are preferred over primary ones. It's well-documented that the palace chooses to ignore its own letters patent on occasion (unlikely here since the most recent LP were clearly in anticipation of this very sprog). And if, hypothetically, the palace announced a particular style and everyone else it in the world completely ignored it, that would itself be very poorly verified (if at all). 84.203.39.131 (talk) 18:37, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

What you've done, more precisely, it to remove tags accurately pointing out that the claimed name from the claimed date is not in the source given. Without actually supplying any source for this information (which would admittedly be a difficult ask, as all the sources are very clear on the reverse). This is not constructive or appropriate editing. You should consider whether this "norm" overrides Wikipedia policy of verifiability. (It doesn't.) You should consider whether this "norm" is itself well-grounded in that policy. (It doesn't appear to be.) You should consider whether the massive weight of contradicting sources in this instance argue for particular caution. (They do.) 84.203.39.131 (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

This name from birth stuff has been clearly explained in a large number of forums and is clearly WP:common sense which as that page says Why isn't "use common sense" an official policy? It doesn't need to be; as a fundamental principle, it is above any policy. to keep adding the tag and really not listening is starting to get a bit disruptive. MilborneOne (talk) 20:36, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Just for information I have added a source for the title from the date of birth that clearly show the title is from birth, "He is styled .." perhaps we can move on. MilborneOne (talk) 20:49, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh I see that User:Surtsicna has added the tag again which is clearly disruptive and against common sense, the source clearly says that He is styled His Royal Highness Prince [name] of Cambridge. and it also says The names of the baby will be announced in due course nowhere does it say he has not got a name just that the public will not be told for a few days. The "no name" camp had asked for a contempary source which has been provided, if these users will not accept the obvious then we dont have much hope of explaining common sense to them. MilborneOne (talk)

The title isn't what's at issue. The name is. The "style from birth" is being asserted in a manner that includes both. For two days, the name a) wasn't publicly known, and b) was publically stated not to have been decided. Your additional (and once again primary, incidentally) source does nothing to address this, and as I say, since "he was named George before anyone knew it" is blatantly counterfactual, I imagine that "verifying" it may prove quite a challenge. The tag is entirely appropriate. The disruption here arises from people removing it, counter to policy, citing "common sense". My common sense doesn't include time-travelling names; yours may differ, but Wikipedia policy doesn't allow for either. Source what's claimed, or change what's claimed to what can be sourced, please. 84.203.39.131 (talk) 21:19, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

OK it clear that the blinding obvious and use of common sense is missing in your logic as that appears to be case I think we are finished here, as this article is not unique I presume you will raise the same on the thousands of other articles in wikipedia that strangely accept the blinding obvious and common sense that you reject on this article, enjoy the years of debate, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 21:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. (And while I'm giving out links, see also WP:AGF, WP:NPA, and WP:CIVIL.) You assert your version to be "blindingly obvious". I concur: it's blindingly obviously wrong. And hopefully you are indeed done edit-warring to remove appropriate tags and adding back unsourced -- and by plain face appearances incorrect! -- assertions. 84.203.39.131 (talk) 22:07, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

84.203.39.131, have you got a source saying that the name wasn't decided until after the birth? St Anselm (talk) 21:50, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I have any number of them! I'm somewhat surprised this wasn't already in the article, as pretty much any report on the "hospital steps appearance" covers this. See for example http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23429701, or the Mail and Mirror reports from that day. 84.203.39.131 (talk) 22:07, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. It still doesn't convince me that we can't have "22 July", but I guess the RfC will help with that decision. St Anselm (talk) 01:06, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

When you say it doesn't convince you that you 'can't have "22 July"', does it at least convince you that "22 July" is not factually correct? Because if not, I'm at something of as loss as to what would; and if so, I'm equally at a loss as to why you want to have it, regardless. 84.203.39.131 (talk) 03:48, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I am in agreement with WP:COMMON SENSE, clearly this has been such a lame edit war when in fact, it has been clearly stating the obvious. More often than not Being too wrapped up in rules can cause loss of perspective exactly the case in here. Styling and Name at birth clearly has been rectified by Letters Patent of 31 Dec 2012 and Registry of Birth (the obvious).

As per User:Deb I just looked at this discussion and it sounds fairly straightforward - one user disagreeing with about ten others. I don't think any further opinions are called for Pseud 14 (talk) 02:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

As ironic as it seems to express an opinion that further opinion , it's surely moreso to then report than opinion, second hand. Incidentally, I'm not sure how we arrive at "one user". Are we only counting the logged-in, contrary to Jimmy Wales' much-vaunted "sacred trust"? Also, see WP:!VOTE. If one isn't going to add to the discussion in substantive terms, with due attention to WP's policies and guidelines, then just showing up (in person or in proxy) to make up the numbers really isn't useful.

Frankly, yes, I was discounting the IP address, since this is the only article you've contributed to in the past 5 years. Deb (talk) 08:21, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Please explain to me how it's "common sense" to claim a name at birth, when it's well-documented that the person in question was not named at birth. This is not "being wrapped up in rules", this is "basic logic". 84.203.39.131 (talk) 03:48, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Look, if the parents had made the announcement of his name later on the same day as he was born, this whole discussion would never have begun. But there would still have been a gap of a few hours between his actual birth and the announcement of his name. How come when the gap is a little longer, moving into a day or two, that suddenly people get their knickers in a twist? You're pretending that a gap of some hours is equivalent to zero time, but that a gap of a couple of days is not. Please explain that inconsistency. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 04:19, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

That's a remarkably tortured construction to put on things in laboured attempt to arrive at an "inconsistency". The article does not and would not report a length of time between those things, so the issue of someone "pretending" that it'd be zero would not arise. No "time of styling" is placed in the "bullet point" section. If the name had been announced (or indeed, later reported to have been chosen) at 23:59 that day, then it would have been perfectly correct to report "22 July". Because that would have been correct. It would not then to correct to say "Name and style from 16:21, 22 July 2013, HRH Prince George..." -- but mercifully, no-one is insisting we do that. (Not yet, at least.) Likewise, if we simply said "name and style from 2013", or indeed "name and style from July 2013", it would be perfectly accurate. The "inconsistency" between the treatment of that which is true, and that which is false, is well, that one's true and the other's false. 84.203.35.99 (talk) 05:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh but now you're shifting the goal posts. Up above we were talking about showing George's name "from birth", or not. Now, it's about an announcement at any time on the calendar day of the birth being equivalent to that, but a later announcement not being equivalent. Where do such artificial and OR-based rules come from? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

That's a nonsensical construction on the above. This has always been about the "22 July" text. The "time" issue is a figment of your imagination. To call this "OR-based" is a farcical inversion of the truth. The version that we have at present, which is based in no source is the problematically OR one. How can wanting not to include an unsourced claim possibly be OR? 84.203.34.68 (talk) 21:57, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment: This issue has been posted at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Prince George of Cambridge, Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Is this article an exception to the verifiability policy?, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Was Prince George known as "Prince George" before he became known as "Prince George"? - and the answer at all those places has been essentially the same. St Anselm (talk) 04:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to take exception to the term "forum shopping". Asking for outside opinion is a standard and accepted part of Wikipedia dispute resolution -- and a much-needed one, when the "approach to discussion" taken by one side is "we have the version we like and we'll keep reverting to it, policy be blowed". (And the point isn't to create multiple "forked" discussions, as seems to have ended up happening with the "royal local editors" showing up to spin things their way, but to involve additional parties with a fresh viewpoint.) I think your "essentially the same" summary lacks a great deal in precise, too. But let's see. 84.203.35.99 (talk) 04:57, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I thought carefully about using the phrase "forum shopping" in my edit summary, but it is defined as "Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards", and that is exactly what has happened here. St Anselm (talk) 05:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh well, if you "thought carefully" about it, then I shouldn't worry about it being inaccurate, uncivil, and representing a massive exercise in imputing bad faith, then, obviously. "Forum shopping" implies seeking to a gave a "change of venue". Seeking additional input and directing people back to this page is an entirely different matter. 84.203.35.31 (talk) 03:17, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

*I've read the noticeboards, and it's pretty much the same thing, an IP editor and User:Surtsicna on a repetitive contrast, when everyone else thinks otherwise, need I say more? the RfC is kinda clear. So you can't clearly refer to that as gang-revert when it's in the talk page. And yes, silly how sorts of being over critical refutes WP: COMMON SENSE, I will never grow tired of highlighting that. Pseud 14 (talk) 05:40, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- This article has taught me the meaning of IAR, more than once, so I am grateful for that. For what it's worth, I don't believe the article is saying he was known as XYZ from that date, only that XYZ applies from that date which is common sense and also his right. HelenOnline 08:52, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
  - "Prince NN of Cambridge? LOL WUT?!" -- micro.dot.cotton —Preceding undated comment added 17:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
  - I assume you're referring to ignoring of verifiability. Why ignoring that would constitute "improving the encyclopaedia" is less clear. 84.203.35.31 (talk) 03:17, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
    - I wasn't referring to ignoring a specific rule, rather allowing rigid literal interpretations of rules and other things (such as the Living people category name) to override our common sense. HelenOnline 09:13, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
      - Well, you certainly seem to be literally ignoring WP:V; if you're figuratively ignoring other things, that's the cherry on top. Nor is it clear that any "common sense" whatsoever is being applied here. Seems a lot more like a shorthand for personal preference, groupthink, and extrapolation of shoddy habits elsewhere that have become elevated to the level of "convention". 84.203.35.94 (talk) 17:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

How many times must it be repeated, as it was in Archive 2? In the United Kingdom, Act of Parliament directs that 30 days are given in which to name a child, when the name is given and the Birth Certificate produced (which is a legal document as directed by Act of Parliament) the name of the child is dated from birth and the period where no name was given ceases to exist. This is Statute Law in the United Kingdom. Would contributors please bear this in mind and stop this ridiculous argument that the name of any child only exists when the name is announced. How much more space is going to be wasted on all these ridiculous assertions? The bullet point with the date of 22nd July and names given for this individual are correct within the law of the United Kingdom. Now please, STOP IT!Ds1994 (talk) 17:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- How many times does it have to be repeated that no law whatsoever has the magical power to erase a period of time when this person was not referred to as "Prince George of Cambridge"? How many times does it have to be explained that nobody here is claiming that George was not George from birth, but merely that he was not styled as "HRH Prince George of Cambridge"? Why is that so hard to comprehend? The question is simple: Did anyone (any source) call him "HRH Prince George of Cambridge"? The answer is: No. Does a piece of legislation have the magical power to travel through time and change that historical fact? No, it does not. On a side note and just out of curiosity, I wonder how come no-one has yet cited a single source that confirms these claims about the superpowers of certain acts of Parliament. Surtsicna (talk) 20:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  - Personally, I'd be willing to admit the possibility of said retrospective naming and legislation for same... But I can't help but note that those loudly asserting "IT'S THE LAW, DANGIT!" are unable and unwilling to source this. In contrast, when I was asked to provide a source for the "no name on the 23rd" I provided same, pointed to others, and... no sign of them in the article. Given the very few "notable" things about this subject, is there any particular reason for excluding this material? Or indeed, the newspaper discussion of the "Scottish version" of his title? Those things are reliably sourced, and are excluded. This "George on the 22nd July" isn't, for all those loudly yelling "convention", "consensus", and "legally correct". 84.203.35.31 (talk) 03:02, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Why is this an issue for Prince George of Cambridge, but not for any of the hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions, of other biographical articles we have? Apparently Prince Charles wasn't named for a whole month after he was born (I'm still waiting on confirmation of that media claim), but we don't make this sort of pedantic fuss there. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:50, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion seems to have overlooked the long established fact that in England at least a person's legal name is the name by which he or she is known. It has nothing to do with a birth certificate, Royal License or Act of Parliament. AnthonyCamp (talk) 10:15, 10 August 2013 (UTC).

I don't think the name is in contention, only the date attached to it. Helen Online 11:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I tried to point this out there too, Jack of Oz, but it wasn't going to happen. The reluctance to see anything changed, even if for the better or more accurate, apparently prevailed. No sources, no reasonable arguments; just talks of laws that magically erase a month of time from history. Don't even start wondering about Danish princes and princesses, who are known for their custom of naming children only after 3 to 4 months. Although nobody referred to Princess Athena as "Athena" (a name nobody could have even anticipated) from her birth on 24 January until her christening on 20 May, it appears that the act of christening or whatever erased these four months from history and made it correct to claim that she was styled as Princess Athena immediately from birth. Princess Isabella, the first girl born into the family in six decades, was famously referred to as Lillepigen by both her parents and the media until the christening, but heck with that - we'll lie that she was styled as Princess Isabella all along! The whole thing reeks of absurdity, which naturally isn't the case at Danish Wikipedia. Surtsicna (talk) 11:37, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, HOL, and AC's surmise is mistaken, but though the point had been mentioned it has been gathered by MiszaBot unto the Archives. Qexigator (talk) 11:49, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Not agreed. At least, not about "The reluctance to see anything changed, even if for the better or more accurate, ...". Surtsicna should desist from believing that only his opinions have any merit, and characterising any alternative position as wrong or inaccurate. I fully understand what Surt is saying, and I am not persuaded by it, and I have explained in detail why not, and I have explained why I prefer my interpretation. It's very disrespectful to have that approach just dismissed out of hand in the terms I quoted above. At least show you've tried to understand what I'm saying, and then explain why you disagree with it. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:00, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

This is not a matter of opinion or preferences, or at least it shouldn't be. We are discussing, or at least should be discussing, facts, not "interpretations" of anything. What alternative ways are there to interpret the fact that Athena was not styled "Princess Athena" in January, February, March, April and most of May 2012? I do not believe that only my opinions have any merit, but we should not be discussing opinions here. I may opine that Athena should have been known as Princess Athena of Denmark from birth, but who cares? The fact is that she wasn't, and saying that she was is inaccurate. Calling an inaccuracy inaccurate is perfectly reasonable. In what sense have I failed to show that I've tried to understand what you're saying? You are saying (correct me if I'm wrong) that there is a law capable of erasing a period of time (up to 4 months) from history and making it appropriate to claim that Athena was styled as "Princess Athena" from birth, despite the fact that she was not. Have I misunderstood you, Jack? Surtsicna (talk) 23:10, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you have. You have never shown any analysis of my arguments (not just mine, btw). All you ever do is go on about your case, repeating the same thing. You need to show that you have read alternative points of view and at least understand them intellectually if not agreeing with their conclusions. You have never done that. The only thing that's worthy of any airtime, as far as you're concerned, is your case. Well, guess what? There's always more than one case in a debate, and you have to consider not just the one you hold most dear. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:23, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Haven't I analysed your arguments several times already? I have no idea what you ask me to do here. I have responded to everyone else's "alternative points of view" several times, asking for sources to back them up, asking for explanations of contradictions and fallacies. Would it soothe you if I said that I fully understand what you're saying but disagree with it for all the said reasons? Honestly, I cannot believe I am having this argument with you, the Wikipedian who used to insist on WP:V so much that he scolded me for expressing an opinion on this talk page, an opinion that could not be verified but also one that I did not advocate inserting into the article. Now you are the one opining here and scolding me for not acknowledging your unverifiable opinion. Allow me to quote you: "C'mon, ..., get real. Let's talk about what we can actually verify." Surtsicna (talk) 11:15, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Look, I grew tired of this incredibly lame debate about a century ago. I know exactly what your point is, and you say you know exactly what mine is. Let's leave it at that and agree to disagree. All I know for sure is that, in 20 years' time, the number of people who'll give a tinker's cuss that he wasn't named until Day 3 of his life and that this has important ramifications for his official style at every micro-second of his life, will be zero (0). The number at present is vanishingly close to zero. Like George Bernard Shaw, we should be writing "for the ages". Farewell from this discussion, and thanks for remaining civil. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm at a loss to understand this line of argument/parting shot. It doesn't matter, so it's important we include material that's unsourced and incorrect? I don't see anyone arguing that it's key we try to document the day a style was "assumed" in the way you describe: frankly, that's a straw man. Several people have, in contrast, suggested a "wherefore it is not possible to speak of it, it is better to remain silent" approach -- and they were immediately shouted down and/or reverted by people insisting that the "22 July" statement be included, in that particular and immutable form. If this article were guided by "writing for the ages", frankly, would it even exist? Much less, have existed for a month prenatally? If really any of the present content of the article is still in place in 20 years' time, the subject will have lived a remarkably uneventful and gaffe-free life by royal family standards. I don't think the "right-nowism" is stemming from the "reflect what the sources say" lobby. (It's somewhat telling that following the sources might be seen as a faction in a content discussion, much less an welcome or "disruptive" one.) 84.203.34.68 (talk) 21:51, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

HOL's "...only the date attached to it" I took to mean attached to the announcement, without that being in dispute here. Once given (for which the announcement and registration operate evidentially) the name is generally accepted, for legal and practically all intents and purposes, as running from birth as the name used to identify the person, even in those sad cases where the infant dies before the name is finally given. Surely this simple point, at least, can be taken as having been clarified and settled for the purposes of editing (and rectifying) this article. Note that when the monarch creates a peerage by the longstanding practice of letters patent declaring the name, style and title, the document is not merely evidential but is the instrument by which the grant is made, not the announcement in the Honours List. (The practice of creating an earl by ceremonial belting lapsed long ago, but the ceremony of dubbing for a knighthood persists). Qexigator (talk) 23:09, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I understand the "running from birth" aspect is being disputed (not by me). Helen Online 08:10, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, has that become a running sore? Was a wound inflicted? Will no emollient or balm, or other remedy suffice? Such a pity when we are writing about a newborn (highborn) baby. Let us be correct, but not too severe. Qexigator (talk) 08:30, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

--Also, to bring out the point, compare ceremonies of "investiture", UK[1] [2] [3], NZ[4]. Perhaps some things, facts and events are more important than others to readers of Wikipedia and to members of that uncertain category "ordinary people" (could that include Wikipedia editors, at least most of them most of the time?). Qexigator (talk) 07:31, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Jack, you say "media claims". That would be what we call "verified in reliable sources" in these parts. What sort of "confirmation" are you waiting on? An "official" (i.e. primary) source? A phone call from Martinkp's chum in the palace? Or more precisely, that the name was made public after a month. I have no idea when he was "named", or a name was decided, in some informal or private sense.

You ask why it's an "issue". I thought that would be abundantly clear by now, given the extensive (attempts at) discussion of this. But for convenience of reference...

This doesn't apply to millions of articles, or hundreds of thousands of articles. Most biographies don't have a section of "styles" at all. This is specific to royal/noble articles, with possibly a few others where someone has a convoluted history of academic, military, or clerical titles.
WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. We have to fix one article at a time. Citing what's in other articles is:
1. Not sufficient for something that needs to be sourced;
2. Misleading and potentially, where different considerations apply in different cases, inaccurately "arguing by increments";
3. To introduce a "deadlock" situation, where even if the comparison is entirely apt, and some of them are wrong in policy terms, then none of them may be changed because the others already exist.
This article is unusual in that the subject is a matters of weeks old (and this very discussion has been going on, in a number of forms, since it was a matters of a couple of days), and hasn't actually done anything notable. The article's entirely about the mere fact of his birth, gender, title, and name (and some associated fluff). It's not unreasonable to expect that if those things are the focus of the article, what's said about them is sourced with all due care.
Sources have been provided -- though nothing has been included in the article, still -- that contradict the construction of events that a name existed from time of birth. So this differs from cases an announcement or christening happens later, but it's at least possible that the name has been chosen and used privately from birth.

And as for a "pedantic fuss"... This is an article about a royal infant. In a discussion on a section about ossified pseudo-medieval titles. Is it possible to say how much "pedantry" is appropriate, exactly? If there wasn't a "fuss", we'd have Mr and Mrs Saxe-Coburg-Gothe and their bouncing baby boy, and no article. 84.203.38.5 (talk) 22:53, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

No, we'd have Mr and Mrs Glucksburg. William has nothing to do with the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. Surtsicna (talk) 09:05, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

That'd be a matter of parental choice, and degree of mania for hyphenation. Anything to be said for Saxe-Coburg-Gothe-Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg? 84.203.34.68 (talk) 19:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

What "precedent"?

Latest comment: 10 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion

The nearest relevant "precedent" for Prince George and any future siblings is itself an anomaly. (Note, precedent is not the same as some editors' preferred habits, good or bad.) Some of the contributions to the series of discussions above suggest a willingness to let improving the article be based on reconsidering the supposed "precedent" for the single bullet line format in presenting the birth title information. A possible criterion would be that it is usually better to be prepared to set a precedent for the future than to tag on to obsolescence and anomaly. The birth of Prince George is arguably unprecedented due to the intensity of media coverage and popular interest, the significance for the line of succession, and perhaps especially due to the months of anticipation about the possibility of a girl child becoming the first to have priority over any later boy brother, under the altered rules of succession expected from the completion of the legislative process resulting from the Perth Agreement. But the way in which the news of his name and titles was managed by those acting for the Royal Family (and the Households of Buckingham Palace, Clarence House and Kensington Palace) may be expected to have created a fresh precedent for future newborns, at least those few who will have HRH as a birth title; and one which will be seen as superseding what occurred in the case of the nearest in the line of succession to have been born after the coming of Wikipedia, whose birth title has been, since before his birth, anomalous. This is James, Viscount Severn (b. 2007), now ninth in the list, son of Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex. The anomaly resulted in some discussion on Talk:James, Viscount Severn, from December 2007, much of which seems initially not as well informed as could be wished (looking at it now, but not implying any better information was then readily available to editors). For some time the article included a single-line bullet "17 December 2007-present: Viscount Severn" followed by a sub-bullet "Legally: His Royal Highness Prince James of Wessex". By the end of 2011 the second bullet had been dropped, and the first read "17 December 2007 – present: Viscount Severn (by courtesy)". At the end of 2012, this had again become "17 December 2007 – present: Viscount Severn",[5] and so it is today. Taking that into consideration, Viscount Severn's article ought not to be treated as a precedent for Prince George, and for practical purposes, others, such as the York princesses, may also be seen as not setting a precedent for the newborn prince, or any other children (or grandchildren) of his parents. Qexigator (talk) 15:33, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I lose your thread when you say "Taking that into consideration", etc. What exactly is it that you see as the reason for not treating Viscount Severn, Princess Beatrice, etc, as precedents? Deb (talk) 19:22, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

For that matter, what reason is there for this continual focus on "precedent"? Wikipedia is built on sources. Wikipedia is not a source for itself. Some consistency of presentation between articles may be an aesthetically pleasing thing, but is very much secondary to sourcing (in the happy and occasional event of WP vindicating its own policies, at least). Perhaps if there's a common "moral" to be drawn, it's that if one wishes to apply hindsight to such matters, at least wait until said hindsight can be properly sourced. 84.203.38.5 (talk) 21:17, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Fair question, Deb, due to my brevity. One point (not mentioned above for obviousness) is that Prince George is the first, as well as the nearest in line of succession, to have been born after the passing of the Succession to the Crown Act 2013, which is itself an unprecedented event for the royal family and the public, and generated a special stir of interest world-wide. Let me use a few bullet points as beads for the thread (for ease of composition and reading, omitting the finer pros and cons):

I'm not sure how closely you have been following the discussion, but one of the reasons put or accepted by others for retaining the bullet point for a nonlist in Prince G's article was that existing articles set a "precedent", presumably referring to the comparatively trivial point that this format currently appears in some similar nonlists in certain other articles. Attention was called to James, Viscount Severn and to Princess Beatrice of York and Princess Eugenie of York.
V. Severn's article makes clear that his style and title from birth, or at least "form of address", has been a departure from recent precedent in the royal family, but that very departure may be seen as having set a precedent for later born members of the royal family other than those nearer to the succession, such as Prince G. On its own, and perhaps for the time being, it can be seen as an anomaly, however agreeable or acceptable it is felt to be. We do not know for sure what intentions the Queen and her family may have for the future, perhaps they are keeping open various options, but this is no place to speculate.
Uncertainty about how that anomaly should be presented by way of the single bullet format for his birth title resulted in some chops and changes, as mentioned above, which indicates that the format may be less than ideal for this purpose.
When the case of Prince G. is considered on its own merits, there is nothing to suggest that his birth title should be displayed in the nonlist bullet format. V.Severn's article currently uses that format, but as a precedent his case is doubly anomalous: first and substantively, his actual title/form of address is a deliberate departure from previous practice and is probably setting a new precedent for others than Prince G. and similar; and secondly and relatively more trivially, the nonlist format is a departure from normal Wikipedia editing practice, and it would be better to rectify V.Severn's article than to claim that if it is there and stays there, then it must be done likewise in Prince G.'s.
Similarly, in the cases of the York princesses: if an editing standard for members of the BRF with a birth title HRH, but with nothing more to be listed, is that this information should be presented in a uniform manner, then let them also be rectified by removing the bullet format.
The format of the single bullet for a nonlist in an article is (I believe. admittedly) not so much "unprecedented" as counter to normal Wikipedia preferred style, and by WP criteria it is anomalous or eccentric. Some readers may be unaware of that, but still regard it as a defect of format or layout, and out of keeping with the layout usually found in the better WP articles. I don't think it is an overstatement to say that it certainly appears so to some active editors who have been commenting here.

I've tried to be brief here and put these points in a rational sequence, but if not yet clear enough, please let me know. Qexigator (talk) 22:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

To be equally brief, then - for me, the precedent is any article for a living royal, eg. Anne, Princess Royal. It doesn't trouble me that there might be only one title in the list.Deb (talk) 12:03, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

That's not especially illuminating. What is it about royalty that requires bullets? What possible significance is there to whether they're living or not? How many of these are singleton list instances? That's what seems to be the contentious case. This seems like very weak post hoc and decidedly arbitrary reasoning to me. Why not "people whose name begins with 'G' born when there's not 'r' in the month"? And fundamentally, what's the significance of "precedent"? Furthermore, it's not even true. On the most cursory of searches through the intersection of Category:royalty and Category:living people I found Mohammed VI of Morocco, whose style is presented in a combination of text and infobox. 84.203.34.68 (talk) 19:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Deb's oblique response is a pretty clear signal that no contest is being offered to the case against the singleton, and throwing-toys-out-of-pram time has moved into throwing-in-towel time. Hence, time to dispose of dirty water from the bathtub while retaining the baby clean, refreshed, and fit to show to the public. Happy mixed metaphors and Cheers all round! Qexigator (talk) 21:01, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Check out the meaning of the word "precedent". It doesn't mean that everything conforms to it. It is just a precedent. The reason why living royals should be regarded as exemplifying normal practice is, to me, pretty obvious. It's because they are living royals and this is an article about a living royal and all our guidelines work according to categories of this kind, not categories of the kind you just made up above. The case against the singleton seems to boil down to the fact that you don't like it, which doesn't strike me as a very convincing argument. Deb (talk) 13:38, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

In other words, "precedent" has no standing, no relevance, and is just being thrown in as a smokescreen, in the absence of any actual line of argument. There are no such guidelines. There are no guidelines at all that are aligned to the category system in the way you seem to imply. (With the exception of the BLP policy, which is if anything a reason not to be making stuff up about living people and putting them into the article according to personal preference and shoddy "precedent".) Having a mock-guideline for "royalty" is just as arbitrary as the pseudo-categories I described. Frankly, it's being mooted just to skew the sample towards those articles already crawling with unsourced pedantic royal title cruft, in a way that's not true of every biography in which someone undergoes a change of "style" such as a military promotion or an academic title. (To say nothing of every other article where -- like this one! -- there's been no "change of style" whatsoever.) And as I've demonstrated, your assertion is not merely irrelevant, it's false. The arguments against the type of "singleton" being insisted on here have been very well-rehearsed, and if you think they're accurately summed up as "personal preference", you either haven't read them, or are projecting from essentially arguing from that position yourself. 84.203.32.169 (talk) 02:03, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks (Deb, 14 August) for letting me know what you seem to think pertinent and adequate as a response. It is noted that you and other proponents of the singleton prefer to imagine or assert that the case against the singleton in this article is due to personal preference on my part or that of others. This rather confirms what had become apparent about the position of proponents, in spite of frequent opportunity allowed them to pay more attention to the points under discussion. Qexigator (talk) 14:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

What course is left to be run in that lame RfC?

Latest comment: 10 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

An editor has reverted[6] mistakenly supposing that an RfC had not "run its course". This looks more like stalling as an editwar tactic. Neither that editor nor others have been able to develop a cogent answer to the edit reverted, which has been more than long overdue. The discussion has been running from 29 July. Qexigator (talk) 08:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you quite understand how RfCs work. You are welcome to ask for it to be closed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure, but since there was a !vote as recently as today, I'm not sure that your request will be successful. St Anselm (talk) 10:22, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I see nothing in the RFC process that insists on the sort of "version freeze" that you seem to envisage, and very definitely nothing that overrides verifiability, which is, after all, a matter of policy. They are, after all, called requests for comment, not requests for slow motion insistence on "their version". Especially in the absence of either any logic being advanced in favour of it, or any scope for compromise being admitted. 84.203.35.84 (talk) 18:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Qex, I think what you seem to be having trouble realising is that the tide of consensus in that RfC is against you and you have to accept it either way.' D B D 15:39, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

No, you are mistaken. No reasoned answer has been given to the reasons given for opposing the singleton presentation. Can you produce any? Qexigator (talk) 22:05, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes in "!votes", the "!" is decidedly silent. 84.203.32.169 (talk) 02:07, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, it's been a week since the last !vote in the RfC. I would support a posting at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. St Anselm (talk) 23:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

“... a statement has one correctness and truth because it signifies what it is designed to signify; and it has another correctness and truth because it signifies what it has received the capability of signifying. The first of these correctnesses, or truths, belongs variably to the statement; but the second belongs to it invariably.” Anselm of Canterbury. DeVeritate II. 1080-86." Qexigator (talk) 08:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Bullet point in the "title and style" section

Latest comment: 10 years ago52 comments26 people in discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Well first off, no offense but as many of you have noted this is the epitome of a lame dispute that is not worth fighting about. Why anyone would have very strong feelings about something so utterly trivial is difficult for me to comprehend.

On to the matter of determining what consensus was arrived at here. The determining factor in a discussion where users are more less evenly split like this one is the strength of the arguments presented by each side. Those in favor of the bullet point cite precedent in other articles, but as far as I can see no concrete examples of other articles that use bullet points to list a single item are presented here. Those opposed to the bullet point cite WP:PROSE, a section of the manual of style which does in fact encourage the use of prose over lists in articles. It stands to reason that this advice applies even more strongly when the list is actually not a list at all but a single item. I therefore find that on the matter of the bullet point consensus favors prose over a list format. If there is such a strong precedent for doing it the other way, even with a single item, then those who favor that approach should endeavor to get that advice included in the MOS, or at least provide specific examples the next time they wish to make that point.

As to whether the specific date or merely the year be used, this is a simple matter of sourcing. What day was he actually named on, according to reliable sources? If there is not ( and from this discussion this appears to be the case) a very reliable source which states unequivocally the exact date on which he was named then the year is about all we can say is properly verified and is sufficient.

As with any fairly evenly split discussion, I realize some of you will be unhappy with this closure. That is inevitable, there will always be somebody who doesn't like a decision, but I would ask you to consider if this is really so important that it is worth making a big deal, or even a little deal, about it. If you believe it is I would refer you back to my advice to try and get the MOS changed to reflect that position instead of having case-by-case discussions like this one. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I realise there may be editors who think this is somewhat silly, but there has been considerable discussion that hasn't really gone anywhere, so maybe this is the best way of resolving the dispute. There are two questions to consider:

Should there be a bullet point under "Title and style" listing Prince George's current title (as it is now in the article), or should this be incorporated into a prose sentence?
If there is a bullet point, should it say "22 July 2013 – present" (as it is currently) or should it just say "2013 – present" (since his name wasn't announced until the 24th)?

St Anselm (talk) 07:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Bullet point with 22 July per the practice on many pages - e.g. Princess Beatrice of York, who has only ever had one title, and whose name wasn't announced until two weeks after her birth. St Anselm (talk) 07:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
No bullet points per WP:PROSE - "Prose is preferred in articles as prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context, in a way that a simple list may not. Prose flows, like one person speaking to another, and is best suited to articles, because their purpose is to explain." (By the way, I think User:Surtsicna's tagging is unnecessary and provocative, but that's another matter.) Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
No bullet point for reasons given passim, and per Ghm above, and per rectification here[7] and about "precedent" at What "precedent"?[8] (and here[22] at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British Royalty, and the York princesses likewise). The question at issue about rectifying bullet format should not diverge into a question of date of announcement. Qexigator (talk) 08:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

+Given that the singleton (one line nonlist) is counter-textual and counter-informative, letting the infobox suffice would be better, and in accordance with standard practice across similar and other articles. The discussion has been running from 29 July and proponents for retaining the singleton have been unable to develop a cogent answer to the case against. Qexigator (talk) 14:03, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

No bullet point per WP:PROSE, as cited by Ghmyrtle, and WP:Manual of Style/Lists#Listed items - "The verifiability policy states that material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source. Inclusion of material on a list should be based on what reliable sources say, not on what the editor interprets the source to be saying. In lists that involve living persons, the Biographies of living persons policy applies." The bullet is not the result of any consensus. The prose is a better, more natural and less flashy way to state his title and style. Surtsicna (talk) 10:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Bullet point with 22 July per the standard on other articles; and yes this is worthy of WP:LAME. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:47, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Nobody agreed on that "standard" and it's not even widespread enough to be called a "standard". I do agree, however, that this is a lame discussion. It must be when one party refuses to explain why the bullet point is better than prose and instead keeps invoking a "standard" as if it were a general consensus of editors. The only standards here are WP policies such as WP:Verifiability and WP:Biographies of living persons and guidelines such as WP:PROSE. But let's ignore that and keep everything as it is, because attempting to improve articles is just lame! Surtsicna (talk) 10:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
  - No it's lame when it generates huge amounts of discussion out of all proportion to the content involved, not helped when individual users feel they have to reply to everything. Encyclopedia articles should display information in a reasonably consistent format to be useful when reading multiple articles, not have wildly different standards because someone was able to generate enough noise on an individual one but didn't touch the others. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
    - Let's hope it doesn't take quite as long as this to decide? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:20, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
    - If that's supposed to be an explanation of why the bullet is better than the prose, I have to say it's as unconvincing as one could imagine. A reader would not be able to understand the prose because some other articles use the bullet? Guess what - many others don't use the bullet, or don't use specific dates, or use plain prose! I never expected you to reply to everything. Several users have repeated one single question, asking you why the bullet is better than the prose. There was never any answer, let alone a reasonable one. As IdreamofJeanie put it, But this other page looks stupid too-argument does not make this page look any better. Surtsicna (talk) 11:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
      - and to think I had these editors down as a staunch Royalists! Martinevans123 (talk) 14:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
No bullet point and year is sufficient. And yes. It's silly. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Bullet point with 22 July per the standard on other articles. There is no reason to break what is a perfectly good convention. It is a good pre-emptive measure for when he does receive a new style/title, which he surely will. RGloucester (talk) 14:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- In about thirty (30) years. The "perfectly good convention" requires us to shamelessly violate WP:Verifiability, WP:BLP and a number of other policies and guidelines. If such conventions were perfectly good, this project would have been nothing but a ridiculous mess. Surtsicna (talk) 17:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Bullet point with "22 July 2013 – present" works for me. Easier to see at a glance, and I consider the name to be backdated to date of birth in practice. Helen Online 15:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

And once you're a reliable source we can use for that backdating, that'll work out marvelously! 84.203.34.166 (talk) 15:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

What practice, Helen? Which source, reliable or not, referred to this person as "Prince George of Cambridge" before 24 July? I'm asking because that would be the "practice". We can call him George when discussing events that took place before 24 July, but we cannot lie that sources called him George before 24 July. Surtsicna (talk) 17:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Strongest possible oppose of an unsourced -- and indeed, thus far, positively countersourced beyond a reasonable doubt -- "retrospective" date. Verifiability is a fundamental Wikipedia policy, and the only counterarguments to this are "sloppy precedent elsewhere" and WP:ILIKEIT. Weak oppose of the bullet point, per the presumption in favour of prose text. 84.203.34.166 (talk) 15:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Comment as one who thinks that this stuff about not backdating the title from before the announcement is clearly a failure of common sense I dont see why with one title it needs any dates at all, rather then a bullet point just have His Royal Highness Prince George of Cambridge as a level 3 header:
==Title and style==
===His Royal Highness Prince George of Cambridge===
Under letters patent issued ....

I think this would perfectly well while he only has one name and should meet the needs of both camps. MilborneOne (talk) 19:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Good compromise. I'd support that. Apparently, it will be 30 years before we have to revisit. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Who knows, the monarchy might be abolished in a couple of years, and he'll be Mr. George Wales. I think "finessing" the date is a sensible approach. Where and when a date range becomes necessary, it might be noted as "initial style -- [documented date for new style]". (Or "birth registration", "Christening", or whatever the best shorthand for that assumption of a name and style might be.) 84.203.39.131 (talk) 03:53, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Bullet point with "22 July 2013 – present" The bulletted and straightforward approach is simple and direct, you dont need unemboldened prose when clearly we are just talking how he was styled. The prose/statement can be expounded in the body of the section.

==Title and style==

DOB-present: His Royal Highness Prince George of Cambridge

Under letters patent issued ....

Pseud 14 (talk) 07:46, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Simple, direct, and not merely unsourced, but abundantly sourced as factually incorrectly. I sense people aren't inclined to listen to Wikipedia policy, though, as not only is this style being repeatedly edited back in, the inarguably correct {tl|not in source}} tag has been removed more than once. (I'd go add it back in, but not only is tag-warring poor form, the article's semi-protected again.) 84.203.39.131 (talk) 18:11, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Mild preference for no bullet point (for a "list" with one item), but if there is to be a bullet point, "22 July" is acceptable. Neutron (talk) 18:28, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
No bullet point, prose makes much more sense at present. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 18:46, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Preference on utilizing bullet point (Wikiproject: British Royalty). 22 July is acceptable as discussion states below. 222.127.64.183 (talk) 08:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Comment This RfC shouldn't focus on this article only, since there is (though the RfC question ignores it) an extant standard practice used before for and still used on quite a few articles about other members of Prince George's family. Either the standard should be abandoned for all of the aforementioned articles and any that will be started in future, or an argument has to be made as to why the standard will be left in place while this page is an anomoly. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:41, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Yet again, the only argument to keep the bullet point seems to be we have always done it this way. If we stick to what we have always done then nothing will ever be improved. A logical, reasoned suggestion for improvement has been made, but not answered, and yes, if the consensus is to improve the article then there is no reason why that could not be extended to other royals. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 16:58, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Please read again what I wrote and note that I did not make an argument either way on the one bullet versus two bullet start to the list issue.

A consensus established here cannot necessarily be carried to other articles, since this RfC has not even acknowledged the existence of the other articles this one will either be the same as or different to. A consensus established via a wider framed RfC in a more central location, on the other hand, could be. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Bullet point with 22 July Simple and direct. This whole argument is kind of comical, I have to say. Morhange (talk) 05:19, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, directly incorrect. Laws with alleged magical powers apparently trump verifiability - comical indeed. Surtsicna (talk) 20:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
No bullet And his "title" existed at birth - the "name" does not exist until it is entered at a registry office. As we do not have that specific data, it is safe to use 22 July as that is when the title existed. Collect (talk) 17:32, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
No bullet points. Just say "George's style and title is His Royal Highness Prince George of Cambridge." And there is no precedent for putting into articles that one only receives a name when it is registered. TFD (talk) 18:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Bullet point with 22 July - I agree with User talk:Morhange. Bullet styling which has bee wiki project British Royalty and the retrospective issue on the name/styling is comical and to a point annoying. Can that one user (Surt) just quit sour-graping. It's getting into everybody's nerves (Which is funny at times but ultimately a pain). 180.190.171.172 (talk) 07:48, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- Referring to me as "that one user" over and over again (which is what several users here have done) is obnoxiously disrespectful not only to me but also to all others who are also in favour of no bullet point - and just for the record, those users who are in favour of adhering to WP:Verifiability and having no bullet point appear to be in majority here. Not that it matters who is in the majority (the strength of arguments should always be the deciding factor); I am just sick of being singled out. That is a pathetic strategy of those who have no sensible arguments or responses to questions asked by other users. I should also note that comment above mine is the first and so far only contribution of 180.190.171.172, making me wonder who that actually is. Surtsicna (talk) 15:05, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment: Noted, that Deb and others of Project BRF have not yet replied to Questions about "precedent" ,[9] thus failing to let this be a better informed discussion. And Surt.'s protest above is undoubtedly justified, as can be seen by anyone who impartially scrutinises the series of discussions. Qexigator (talk) 09:47, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Bullet point with 22 July - Consistent with the style of other articles about British royalty. Consistency of style is a strong argument. GoodeOldeboy (talk) 04:21, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment - Please see 'What "precedent"?' below. Qexigator (talk) 07:08, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Bullet point with 22 July - I agree initially it looks odd - but once looking at other articles using this more extensively I can see the logic. --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 01:22, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment - The discussion above and below on this page and in Archives has shown that if there was any logic it is too threadbare to be sustained any longer. Qexigator (talk) 06:24, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps, but you should wait until the RfC is closed before you remove the disputed text. St Anselm (talk) 08:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad you're at least and last conceding there's a basis for a dispute. So you'd have no objection to the {{not in source}} tag being restored, then, on that basis? 84.203.35.84 (talk) 18:11, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

No, I think the only remaining dispute is whether to have a bullet point. St Anselm (talk) 21:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Briefly, the bullet entails the tag, in a way which the infobox would not. Qexigator (talk) 23:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Bullet point with 22 July - Per consistency with related articles and that is the cleanest way to show the title. 22 July is fine as per the arguments above. Rlendog (talk) 18:21, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Could you perhaps expand somewhat on "per the arguments above"? Because with the best will in the world, I'm really not seeing any "arguments above". 84.203.35.84 (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

See Collect's response, for example. Rlendog (talk) 15:53, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

No: being named is not conditional upon the fulfilling of the legal duty to inform the registrar of the birth of a new born, who by then has usually been named, and possibly ritually named by baptism, a ceremony known as "Christening", hence the term "Christian name" as distinct from the surname. In the case of Prince George, the date of registration of the birth is known, and his name was announced some days before that. Information about his baptism has not been published to date (has it?). Qexigator (talk) 16:13, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think information about his baptism are relevant for purpose of what date to assign to his title. That would be relevant to adding information about his baptism. In looking at some others, it seems like we always provide the title dating back to the date of birth, including George's father, who I know wasn't named (or even have a name announced) until some time after. And I think that is the sensible way to do it, since we have a reliable source for the title and for the DOB, unless you have a reliable source stating that such backdating is definitively inappropriate. Rlendog (talk) 18:00, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Had mentioned the point about baptism, as the way in which a "Christian" name is given, only to contrast with registration of the birth (which in some circumstances is documentary evidence of the name that had been given), and not as affecting the question of backdating. But the fact of baptism is a part of a person's biography, and could properly be mentioned in such an article when it has been announced, especially where the person is in the line of succession. It is would certainly be more notable here than some of the more trivial contents. Qexigator (talk) 18:30, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

23rd July, the mysterious non-day

Latest comment: 10 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

On 23 July, the "subject" made his only public appearance. That's the source of the photograph used on his article, which is also used on ma's article. It's when he left hospital. It's also when the "anti-announcement" about him not having a name yet was made. This is all copiously sourceable, and in the universe where anything about this person is notable at all, this would certainly seem to meet that threshold. None of it appears in the article. Any particular reason? 84.203.32.169 (talk) 02:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's relevant? We don't have "the infant prince(ss) left the hospital on X date" for any of our other articles on royal children, why would we need it for George? Morhange (talk) 02:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I keep looking for this "systematically ape whatever other 'royal' articles say" policy that others are so keen on, and confusingly, instead keep coming across stuff about content reflecting "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" according to its "representation in reliable sources". Crazy talk, I know. Nor am I quite sure why you're focusing exclusively on the "leaving hospital" aspect, given the above list. If there's extensive use of media from this event, and it's extensively reported in reliably secondary sources, it seems bizarre to question its notability.

Perhaps someone needs to flesh this "list of royal-topic material that's to be be excluded when reliably sourced, and to be included when not reliably sourced", as there seems to be a remarkable groundswell of opinion for such exceptionalism, and no adequate documentation of it. Might avoid the rest of us feeling we're wasting our time in trying to apply "normal" wikipedia criteria to such. 84.203.32.169 (talk) 05:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I still don't get your argument here. Anything this child does from now until his death will garner extensive media coverage, but the date he left the hospital after his birth is hardly encyclopedic. I guess my question is, what, if anything, does it add? Not to mention there's already a sourced line that mentions his name was official announced on 24 July, the day after he made his first public appearance. What you're proposing is repetitive when there's already information in the article that covers this just fine. Morhange (talk) 08:02, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Surely it's not the "date he left hospital" that's notable, it's the first appearance before the image-hungry baying pack of paparazzi? How long were they all camped out there waiting to get that picture? They seemed to think it was quite significant! Furthernore, events in the life of a one-month-old Royal Prince may have greater significance than in the life of an older prince - even one that's only few years old? The relative significance of the material in any bio article changes as the subject gets older? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:42, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

A rhetorical question, perhaps, tinged with irony, IP (02:47, 19 August)? We do not know how long it will be before the anomalous and lonely singleton becomes the top of a list of more than one. Depending on such happenings as the Queen's pleasure, or a predecease in the patrilineal line, it may be weeks or years from now. For precedents, or at least earlier instances, look at the young Severn, still singleton after 5 years, or the York sisters who are still waiting, after 25 and 23 years. In the meantime, some editors may prefer to let the article be padded with trivia, while resisting edits of a more encyclopedic kind. But the parents are reported to be intending to release a family snapshot, and the baptism will be an event to be properly recorded, with ancillary information about dressware to be added if previous instances are followed. Notability is a function of royalty. Qexigator (talk) 10:24, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

But I guess today is not a mysterious non-day? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Today's mystery is: why the favoured snapshot per source happens to be the one with a dog? I couldn't possibly say due to OR ta-boo, but remain willing to be told. Qexigator (talk) 19:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and not even a corgi. I'm surprised this hasn't been analysed to death already. But the release of the "first official" photograph, dog included, is deemed to be of no relevance to this article? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

First Offical Pics

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Shouldn't we have something about Prince georges first offical pictures that were released by kensington palace. They were also taken by micheal middleton. 96.27.15.131 (talk) 23:44, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

What to do about the picture?

Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

The picture is not so much a photograph of Prince George as it is of his mother. Is it necessary? Should we hold off on having a picture until a clear image of the boy's face has been released? 99.39.105.236 (talk) 01:40, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I would argue that a mediocre picture is better than no picture at all. — Richard BB 07:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

The pic. of this child's first public appearance in his mother's arms is well-suited to the present article. The child's notability and title is due exclusively to being the first born of his mother following (in due time) the celebration of her marriage to her husband, whose notability is largely due to his being second in line to the throne; and the bulk of the article is about the public anticipation of an heir, and later of the birth of a child once the mother's pregnancy had been announced, and the annoucement of the birth and of the child's name, all of which had excited much public attention world-wide. Qexigator (talk) 09:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

If you can provide a better photograph, please do so. In order to insert this one, I had to ask a FlickR user for permission. He was really kind and agreed to change the license. When will he appear in public again? And when will he be photographed by someone willing to allow Wikipedia to use the photograph? Surtsicna (talk) 09:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

The photo is fine for now, if we even need a photo of a newborn at all. What do you want him to do at age 1 or 2 months, sing and dance? Neutron (talk) 00:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Quarters of nobility

Latest comment: 10 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

I am trying to edit the text in Ancestry with: "Although his father, Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, has sixteen quarterings of nobility (16/4), Prince George has two quarterings of nobility (2/4) because her mother, Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, was a previous commoner." but I can't because 1) I just mistaked a pronoun and a gentle moderator deleted it all without simply correcting it, and 2) wikipedia required a source when it is a matter of fact that quarters of nobility can be reckoned easily through the genealogical tree that is just next point to "Ancestry". I don't understand what's wrong with it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.15.112.75 (talk) 16:49, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The reason for deleting was stated in the edit summary: the pronoun made nonsense of it. But it was not corrected because it was not clear what you wanted to say about this. Now you know it needs to be corrected, you can do so and add it to the article. But there may be others who would consider the content incorrect, or not suitable for the article. No comment about that is being made by.... Qexigator (talk) 17:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Frances Work, Colonel Gill and Ruth Littlejohn are not noble, so William does not have 16 "noble" great-great-grandparents. Also, the term commoner is confusing here since Diana, the Queen Mother, Lady Cynthia Hamilton and Ruth Roche were not peeresses before their marriage either. If what you say is correct, which I doubt, it would need reliable sources. DrKiernan (talk) 17:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I have given my reasons for reversion in my edit summary. It doesn't look like an obvious fact to me, I am not even convinced such a concept is applicable to this person and am acutely aware how complicated or arbitrary nobility can be. I am not going to try prove it is "correct" for you. It needs reliable sources. Helen Online 17:59, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I say first I am not English, so I am sorry if I use eufemism that actually really means other things. Precisely, I used the word "commoner" not to say "plebeian". By the way, I am sorry effectively for William quarters which are 4/4 (as you just count the complete nobility of the granparents line), not 16/4. I'd rather change it in: "Although his father, Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, has four quarterings of nobility (4/4), Prince George has two quarterings of nobility (2/4) because her mother, Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, was not noble.". If you retain it not useful, then I'll just leave it. If you do, I am not writing it in the text and I leave you to do it. Best talk 21:59, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the trouble. While this information could be not less suited to the article than some of the present content, we still need to have a source to confirm it. This may not happen. You may know of an American blog which mentions: "Heraldry is more attended to in Germany, and some other countries, than in England..."(Proving Four Quarters)[10]. Qexigator (talk) 20:30, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Fwiw there are various sources about explaining how 16Qs works including [11] or [12]. That William's side of the family have arms (rather than nobility a confusion in posts above)) seems uncontroversial and obvious to a me at least. Kate's fathers grant of arms is a matter of public record. As to if this merits inclusion in the article i'm indifferent but I don't think making claims of quarters (in terms of arms) is an issue. Garlicplanting (talk) 11:13, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Prince George of Cambridge

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Prince George of Cambridge's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "wargs":

From Prince William, Duke of Cambridge: Reitwiesner, William Addams (2006). "The Ethnic ancestry of Prince William". wargs.com. Retrieved 24 December 2012.
From Line of succession to the British throne: William Addams Reitwiesner, "Persons eligible to succeed to the British Throne as of 1 Jan 2001"

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:00, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Royal box?

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Could the "Royal Family" box be relocated to cause less disruption to the two column list of refs? (I realise this is likely to be less of an issue if you're on less than 200% zoom.) Uncle Harry gets it a bit higher up. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:00, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Update profile photo

Latest comment: 10 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

The profile picture is outdated and it doesn't even show his face. It should be updated to one of Prince George's latest photos. --75.32.33.164 (talk) 19:32, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Donate a copyright-free image to Wikimedia Commons and we'd be happy to use it. Helen Online 19:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

How would I know if it's copyright-free? --75.32.33.164 (talk) 22:13, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

They're not exactly flooding in yet over at Commons. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:33, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

If you took it yourself, you would know it's copyright free. The point is, the people who did take these photos are not exactly giving them away and we are not allowed to use non-free images on Wikipedia. Helen Online 04:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I removed a clear case of WP:COPYVIO (agency image in a newspaper) which has also been deleted from Commons. When he is a bit older he will be more accessible to the public and there will be more free images. Helen Online 06:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete this article?

Latest comment: 10 years ago13 comments10 people in discussion

The child has done nothing except was born. Not notable. When he talks and makes a gaffe at age five, maybe.

Also, wikipedia determined that Malia Obama cannot have an article (want to try starting one?) so this baby shouldn't. We shouldn't have discrimination against Black people. Stephanie Bowman (talk) 05:03, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Think this got covered not long after Prince George was born, or even before, and consensus was to keep the article. Feel free to nominate for deletion though if you feel that strongly.--Egghead06 (talk) 05:09, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

So your WP:POV is that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS based on reverse WP:DISCRIMINATION? Or is it just a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT? DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 06:01, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Further evidence of wikipedia racism. See Patrick Bouvier Kennedy, an infant that lived only 2 days. Malia Obama article was deleted because of racism. There should be equality in wp. WP:other crap exist should not be an excuse for racism. Let us fight racism together, not stay silent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephanie Bowman (talk • contribs) 07:17, 1 November 2013‎

Patrick Bouvier Kennedy is dead. The BLP issues raised in the Obama discussion do not apply in his case. To be honest, you have weakened your argument by making accusations of bad faith. I think your allegations have turned people away from your view rather than toward it, because it is clear that your opinion is poorly supported by the evidence and that makes the weakness of your case more obvious and the argument less convincing. There is clear consensus to keep this article and this is not an appropriate venue to discuss a different article. DrKiernan (talk) 08:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Good heavens! You mean the British Royal Family are all white?! Martinevans123 (talk) 07:59, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Not quite (not that I am endorsing the accuracy of the science quoted there). Helen Online 08:11, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

You think the reason we have this article and not one for Malia Obama is because of racism? That's a pretty absurd (not to mention bad-faith) assumption. — Richard BB 08:14, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

At present, the young Prince is third in line to becoming the monarch of 16 realms, that is the notability. As in the case of any hereditary monarchy that could happen sooner than any having allegiance to the reigning monarch would expect or desire, due to a coincidence of circumstances (and like a line of succession in any other family, royal, noble or otherwise, including families with any members over 35 years of age who would be constitutionally eligible for election as POTUS). Qexigator (talk) 14:57, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I must have missed something? According to what constitution will Ms Malia Obama be the head of state of what country? SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:06, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Like any other American who is of age and otherwise eligible may she not be elected POTUS under the laws and customs of that republic? Have I missed something? Anyhow, that is off the article topic and will not improve the article. Qexigator (talk) 16:20, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Of course she can be elected POTUS, but that is not the point. Any John or Jane Doe that fill the requirements can present themselves as candidates for POTUS, but that doesn't mean they need to have a Wiki page as long as they haven't done anything relevant. Malia Obama has done nothing relevant so far and for now she plays no part in the big picture of the world history, so she doesn't need a Wiki page. In Prince George's case, getting born is relevant, because his birth is enough to guarantee he will one day be King. His name will already be written in history books from now on, even if he is still a baby. Therefore, it is logical and normal for him to have a Wikipedia page. 109.100.55.55 (talk) 09:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

IP: 109.100.55.55: Quite so- the point is that (unlike the young Prince) she is no more notable than any other of the millions of citizens of that republic (or of the citizens of UK or of any other realm or republic), and that she (like a large part of the entire human race) is third in line after some person now living in her family (by patrilineal and/or matrilineal descent), while many of the multitude will be second or first, or the present head of a family, or with no living descendants or collaterals, or a person who has no known parentage. Still off topic. Qexigator (talk) 11:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I was commenting not on your entry but on the use of Ms Obama as an argument at the start of all this. SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:29, 25 October 2013 (UTC)