PROFILPELAJAR.COM

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Austria, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles about Austria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.AustriaWikipedia:WikiProject AustriaTemplate:WikiProject AustriaAustria

Women's History

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History

Mixes archduchesses with private individuals

As time goes on the number of people whoa re descended from the last Archduke increases, but the Imperial throne becomes a more distant memory. Many of these current generation are not notable, or are notable for something entirely different. A number of editors have identified a problem with this whole business of writing articles as if the dynasties are still royalty, when they are not. The obvious solution is to end this table at the last generation that actually held the titles (so those living in 1918), because that is the end of the royal succession. Any other articles which qualify per WP:GNG can be done through the family infobox. Guy (help!) 16:53, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I removed every single person who does not have an article, I recognised the valid point that was made. The fact some Wikipedia Editors have identified “as a problem” the fact that deposed royals are still referred to by titles is those Wikipedia Editors problem. Academics, historians, journalists etc have been referring to deposed royals by titles for hundreds of years to give French royals as an example. You do not own Wikipedia however, multiple Reliable Sources say the people you want removed are Archduchesses, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg says a member of its ruling is an Archduchess[1], so why are you removing a different, important and widely held alternative view where’s the NPOV? Maybe Larry Sanger has a point, welcome to the new Wikipedia.[2] - dwc lr (talk) 18:29, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Charles I's two youngest daughters are included, but they were born after the monarchy was abolished, so it seems inconsistent.

Yup them and more. - dwc lr (talk) 18:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There may be an argument for removing some entries of altering some names, but removing titles that were never used to then replace them with titles that were never used is not helpful. DrKay (talk) 19:23, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It does not sound like any harm was done if some invented titles were replaced with some other invented titles. Are you referring to this edit? Surtsicna (talk) 20:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That edit implies worse original research than the previous revision by giving the women the titles of rulers of territories rather than courtesy or cadet titles. Elisabeth Amalie isn't the ruler of Liechtenstein, nor does she pretend to be. She may or may not be Princess Aloys of Liechtenstein or Princess Elisabeth Amalie of Liechtenstein. DrKay (talk) 20:31, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand you correctly, you believe that the wording "Elisabeth Amalie, Princess of Liechtenstein" implies that she was the ruler of Liechtenstein. As far as I can tell, it is nothing but a Wikipedia invention to use that format for rulers and consorts and "Princess Elisabeth Amalie of Liechtenstein" for other dynasts. Liechtenstein's ambassador to Austria is "HRH Maria-Pia Kothbauer, Princess of Liechtenstein",[3][4] while "Prince Albert II of Monaco" is also perfectly correct. In any case, it surely would have been much more helpful to restore the names of the husbands than to revert a whole set of edits because of them. Surtsicna (talk) 22:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

People who are not known to use the title or endorse the use of the title in reference to themselves should not be included in this template. It is a matter of WP:BLP and MOS:IDENTITY. Some people, Eleonore von Habsburg for example, could be prosecuted in their home country for using such titles or endorsing their use. There is no central authority that decides who is and who is not archduchess of Austria. It boils down to common usage and self-identity. Surtsicna (talk) 19:55, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eleonore von Habsburg’s father considers he is the central authority who can decide who is an Archduke or Archduchess, he created a load more of them by changing the family rules and giving the title to them when his father did not recognise many of them as such instead giving those who were not Archdukes/Archduchesses the the title Count/Countess von Habsburg in 1990. Her father also signed the family article in Gothaisches Genealogisches Handbuch etc where the entry clearly defines who is an Archduke/Archduchess. His daughter and any noble could be prosecuted for using ‘von’ in Austria let alone anything else, this template is not saying they (whether born in 1800 or 2000) use the title, nor is it saying they don’t use the title, it is merely reflecting Reliable Sources and view and the Head of the Imperial House of Austria that say they hold said title, it also says Austrian Law does not recognise said title since 1919. Yes these are BLP’s and what is being attempted here by showing these people on this template is fully in accordance with that, it’s all properly sourced and above board. I’m sure there are lots of things written on Wikipedia that the subjects don’t endorse being said about them, but that’s not how it works we are guided by reliable sources. These Habsburg’s are public figures whose name has probably had a large role to play in their notability, if they are not public figures or notable the articles should be deleted. - dwc lr (talk) 21:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DWC LR, we don't defer to the delusions of anyone, whoever their grandfather might have been.

You can't be an archduke of a place which not only doesn't have an archduke, but won't let you set foot there until you've admitted it. That is crazy talk. Guy (help!) 22:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We are not deferring to anyone’s delusions, we are deferring to independent third party reliable sources. We are deferring to common practice, common over hundreds of years. - dwc lr (talk) 07:24, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think an adult woman's father or brother gets to decide what she is called. Surtsicna (talk) 23:05, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No she can decide, if she calls herself ‘von Habsburg’ then that’s in contravention of Austrian law, all we can do is reflect third party independent reliable sources. If she has a problem she can contact the editors, authors, historians, journalists that have attributed her a title ask them to issue a correction, or she can even email Wikimedia if there’s a problem here. We don’t only say a politicians views are left wing/right wing if they self identify as such, we reflect the experts in the reliable sources. Same applies here. - dwc lr (talk) 07:24, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not directly related, but should the other templates have those without articles removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:4360:6C:7539:1082:A7B3 (talk) 23:28, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent edits to this template are ill-thought out and bizarre. Editors are arguing that the template should use the names people were known by and the titles they actually held, but then editing the template so that women on the template who definitely do have official real titles such as the princesses of Belgium are denied them but women on the template who have courtesy titles after the abolition of the monarchy such as "Charlotte, Duchess of Mecklenburg" (who is called Charlotte de Bar at her article) are given them. Makes no sense. These blanket changes are not improvements. DrKay (talk) 06:59, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that the princesses of Belgium should be listed with their Belgian titles? I do not think anyone in this discussion would oppose that. I do question whether they should be in the template at all since they do not appear to use the archducal title and are hardly ever called archduchesses in RS. Surtsicna (talk) 09:49, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, remove all entrants born after 1918. Including them is inaccurate and misleading. Smeat75 (talk) 14:28, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why are there so many non-notable people in this navbox?

WP:EXISTING explicitly states "unlinked text should be avoided" in navboxes. So why are over 90% of the people listed from the 16th generation on unlinked? A large number of these people are (presumably) living, but because they have no articles there are no reliable sources supporting their inclusion. This is ridiculous BLP-violating OR and synthesis, not least because none of the living people can even say they are archduchesses of Austria in Austria! Wikipedia is not a genealogical database, there is clearly nothing notable about many of these people, there are no reliable sources for them verifying they even exist, and anyway navboxes are by definition supposed to provide navigation within existing articles. I am therefore announcing here that I will be removing all unlinked entries, which I see has been done before only to be reverted for reasons unrelated to retention of these items. I honestly can't imagine how this could be controversial, but we'll see. JoelleJay (talk) 23:43, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]