Misplaced Pages

talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 14:37, 26 September 2011 editPamD (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers206,210 edits →Baron of Canalotti: new section← Previous edit Latest revision as of 04:17, 4 January 2025 edit undoUsernamekiran (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers34,852 edits Notifying of requested move using rmCloser 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talkheader}}
{{Archive box|auto=yes}}
{{Shortcut|WT:ROY|WT:ROYAL|WT:ROYALTY}} {{Shortcut|WT:ROY|WT:ROYAL|WT:ROYALTY}}
{{talk header}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|1=
{{WikiProject Biography|royalty-work-group=yes}}
{{WikiProject Council}}
}}
{{Archives |auto=long |search=yes |title=] (]) |bot=ClueBot III |age=6 |units=months |style=margin-top:2px; }}<!-- The length of time in age= and units= parameters in the "Archives" template (above) should match the length of time (in hours) in the "age=" parameter within the CluBot III config (below).-->
<!--4380/24 = 182 ½ days (half of 365)-->
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
|archiveprefix=Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility/Archive
|format= %%i
|age=4380
|maxarchsize=150000
|numberstart=7
|archivebox=no
}}__TOC__{{clear}}


== ] ==
== ] & ] ==


Was ] this article and couldn't really verify much in this outside of references to books that I cannot access. One of the family, ], has written a book on the family history, but that might not be independent. Was wondering if the WikiProject Royalty and Nobility had any view on it? thanks. ] (]) 13:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
We should be avoiding 're-directs' & 'pipe-links' that promote the gaelic version of ] & ], as those linked articles are currently in 'english' version. ] (]) 18:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
:See ]. In other words don't pipe links that aren't piped if they change nothing visually on the page as is the case in these ones you were edit warring over. -] (]) 18:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
::Those linked articles are in 'english', we should use 'pipe-links' that respect this. We should have'em shown as & . This is done for the surrounding Scottish monarch articles. ] (]) 19:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
:::No, that is completely counter to the point of what redirects are for. Personally I don't care how they are listed on the page. I am just pointing out there are guidelines that actually say not to do what you did. -] (]) 19:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
::::Baloney, I did nothing wrong. PS: When did you become so interested in Scottish monarch articles? ] (]) 19:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
:::::I linked you to the guideline above, if you want to keep ignoring guidelines that is your choice. I have little interest in the content of the articles. But I do have interest in editors that are causing disruption just for the sake of disruption. -] (]) 19:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
::::::Then you go and seek such editors, 'cuz I'm not one of'em. ] (]) 19:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
::::::<s>This is a complete misinterpretation of the guideline in question. The guideline you are pointing to just says not to change links for the purpose of avoiding redirects. That is not what GoodDay was doing. He was changing links because he thinks the article in question should say "Malcolm III" instead of "Mael Coluim III". The link is incidental.</s> Hmm, no, actually, that's not what GoodDay is doing. GoodDay is specifically violating the rule you point to. Personally, it seems pretty obvious to me that the articles in question should refer to "Malcolm III" and "Malcolm IV" in the text itself, whatever the links pipe to or don't. ] (]) 01:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
:::::::Thanks, John K. ] (]) 01:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
::::::::See above, I modified my position. I agree that we should not be using the Scottish names, but I'm not sure why you're focusing on the piping, when the real problem is that we are calling them "Mael Coluim" in the article text. ] (]) 01:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::I'm a tad confused. I was attempting to make this kinda edit & at that articles 'content' & 'infobox'. That's the names of the 2 linked-articles. ] (]) 01:24, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


:I see that @] has ]. thanks. ] (]) 15:24, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
== ] ==


== Requested move at ] ==
Hi, I'm trying to find reliable sources to verify the contents of the article ] and am coming up blank. Can anyone here help? Thanks <font face="Century Gothic">](])</font> 22:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] (]) 18:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
:You might try the ''Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels''. ] (]) 20:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


== Requested move at ] ==
== Anyone willing to help out a new user who's interested in notability in Sicily? ==
] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. '''<span style="background:#FFBE98;border:1px solid #FFF8E7;border-radius:18px;padding:4px">] • </span>]]</span>''' 22:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


== Requested move at ] ==
I ] for this new editor a couple weeks ago. The user has made some improvements to it, but I know nothing about the topic and am unable to determine if it's suitable for the mainspace (it does still need some work with citations). If anyone has interest in this topic, please take a look at the article ]. Thanks! ] <sup>]</sup> 22:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] 16:16, 2 August 2024 (UTC)


== Mentions of descendants born after the article subject's death in lede ==
==Abolished nobility==
Per ], all title of nobility in Austria were abolished in 1919. Most people who used "von" as part of their name dropped it. We still refer to "]" because he presumably re-added the "von" after he left Austria in 1934 and it's how he's commonly known. He had also inherited the title ]. What's the appropriate way of using the title in the biography? Should we use it as if the title had not been abolished? Or say he was a "former Edler"? It is a not a common part of his name. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 01:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


On ], I removed the note that he was the great-grandfather of ] on the grounds that he died several years before she was born, citing the from the lede of the article of ] that he was the paternal grandfather of ], arguing that they never met, and thus had no impact on each other's lives. It was suggested that consensus be gained for this. I posted here instead of article talk page in hopes of getting more discussion. ] (]) 15:38, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
== "Styles" infobox ==
:I agree that unless the connection has a special significance (such as an inheritance that went direct from person to great-grandson in the case of ]), such remote connections are not important enough to feature in the lead. ] (]) 15:49, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
::Agreed (and I think this is obvious). --] (]) 19:05, 17 August 2024 (UTC)


== Requested move at ] ==
Could anyone tell me how your project generally deals with translations in a "Royal styles" infobox like the one at ]? Do you list "Senhora" or "Ma'am" or both or neither? - Dank (]) 19:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span><sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 05:47, 19 August 2024 (UTC)


== Old/new calendar ==
== Three royalty articles up for deletion ==


I noticed there are some discrepancies with using old/new calendar for the Russian royalty/nobility (example ], where the birth/death date in the infobox were mixed: birth date > OLD calendar and death date > NEW calendar, it's now correct). What is the standard for this? I've been looking for a while but couldn't find any rule, if anyone could be nice to redirect me, I'd be happy to re-edit. Thanks ] (]) 00:01, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
], ] and ]. - ] (]) 23:56, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


== Requested move at ] ==
A new nominated article ]. - ] (]) 12:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] (]) 21:59, 23 August 2024 (UTC)


== Original research dispute at ] ==
] - ] (]) 19:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


] Someone is trying to prevent the removal of ] and ] materials in ] and ] without addressing the main concerns. They are trying to use sources that do not even mention the article subjects in question to make original conclusions about them. Editors are invited to contribute to the discussion at ]. ] (]) 19:24, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
] - ] (]) 21:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


:Indeed it would be excellent to have more voices in this discussion about the best way to avoid ] content concerning people who are not royalty (despite being descendants of people who were), while also respecting other core policies. --] (]) 19:26, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
== Consort list articles ==


== Category:Unassessed biography (royalty) articles ==
A discussion at ] has prompted me to open ] for these types of articles, most of which are the work of ]. Contributions would be welcome. ] (]) 13:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


Would it be posible to rename this category to include (royalty and nobility) seeing as it belongs to this WikiProject? As it is, the names of these articles only include british peers and royalty. ] (]) 08:35, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
== Moving ] to ] ==


== Any Holy Roman / Frederick Barbarossa fans around? ==
There is a discussion in progress at ] about moving ] to ] for those who wish to comment. ] (]) 14:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


I've tagged a bunch of statements in ]'s lead as either not being supported in/contradicting the body, not being verified in the body, or being absolutely ridiculous (one sentence says he was "almost superhuman" .......). Does anyone have the resources to be able to address the article's issues? See also ]. ]&nbsp;<sup>]]&nbsp;]]</sup> 06:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
== A bit of help, perhaps, with Prince ] ==


== Requested move at ] ==
Having trouble getting this article from unsourced to having at least one reliable source. Any assistance greatly appreciated. --]] 23:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] 07:47, 4 September 2024 (UTC)


== Requested move at ] ==
== Non reigning royals title or no title? ==
] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] (]) 00:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)


== COIN discussion about royalty source being added ==
A discussion which could have wide ranging repercussions for how non reigning royals are titled is taking place at ]. The relevant naming guidelines for this article are ] - ] (]) 21:43, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


There is a COIN discussion that I just opened for a source that's being added to royalty and nobility articles. You can view the discussion ]. Perspectives appreciated. ] (]) 16:43, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Guidelines need revamping. Those who weren't born royal, shouldn't have royal titles in their article name. ] (]) 21:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
:And that would create all sorts of problems as one would have to find reliable sources proving what peoples legal names are, that is likely almost impossible. What would you call ]? For German royals you can assume that their legal names are their titles in their native form, but without proof that is original research which is not allowed. - ] (]) 22:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
::In any case we cannot have a naming guideline that imposes a revolutionary bias. In Misplaced Pages, a republic is a republic, not something that should really be a monarchy. ] ] 22:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
:::A republic is a republic, naming conventions acknowledge this, that is why we don’t have articles called King Leka of the Albanians (]), or Emperor Karl II of Austria, King Louis XX of France (]) and so on. - ] (]) 22:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
::::Republics don't have Archdukes. ] have Archdukes. Use of fictional titles is an indication of an anachronistic, pre-republican mindset. ] ] 22:39, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
::::::The French Republic has dukes and counts and the like, whose titles are all regulated by French law. ] (]) 20:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::Monarchies are all dependent on nations for their existence. If a nation decides not to be a monarchy anymore, from the moment that decision becomes legal in that nation the sitting royal family consists of Ex-King, Ex-Queen, Ex-Prince, Ex-Princess etc. Their descendants, born after that monarchy was abolished, are just regular citizens, with first names and a surname, like everybody else. Anything else is nice as a courtesy but has no bearing on reality. ] (]) 00:43, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


== Requested move at ] ==
{{od|5}} How many articles' subjects are notable only for being dynasts or nobles of ex-monarchies? To title such articles by their "plain" names would be like using ]. —] (]) 17:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] 08:02, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
:There are about a dozen men called "Archduke Karl of Austria" but for some reason the most recent pretender to that title is at that name despite the clear and unambiguous fact that it is not primary usage. It is more like placing ] at ] because he's the most recent person who's been called that, or ] at "Charles II", because he is sometimes called that, even though there are plenty of other men called Charles II with a better claim to primary usage. ] (]) 18:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
::Is it hard to add at the end (b 1961). - ] (]) 20:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
:::Is it hard to move it to "Karl Habsburg-Lothringen"? ] (]) 20:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
::::At any rate Karl Habsburg-Lothringen could refer to his grandfather. - ] (]) 20:16, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
:::::Is it hard to add at the end (b 1961)? ] (]) 20:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
::::::Too late now I guess so yes, RM is well underway. - ] (]) 20:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


== Requested move at ] ==
== The use of the term 'pretender' ==
] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] 11:19, 14 September 2024 (UTC)


== Requested move at ] ==
In a I put forward an argument that we should try to avoid the term 'pretender' as being misleading for general audiences. It is a term of art for those who study royalty, but can be seen as a BLP violation for living people, and as simply confusing if applied to lots of long-since dead people. The term 'pretender' is easily replaced by more precise terms to cover different kinds of cases.
] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] 01:21, 23 September 2024 (UTC)


== Legendary rulers of Wales comments ==
Advice at the BLP noticeboard on the particular cases they are worried about will surely be appreciated, as will discussion here.--] (]) 11:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion about a draft which will be published under ]. This is similar to lists to the fellow Celtic nations of ], ], ], and similar to the listing of the ], again similar to other legendary king lists from other nations. Could we get some consensus on the matter, or if anyone has experience on the topic, could you please join the talk ? ] (]) 21:00, 07 November 2024 (UTC)


== Are these Americans "princes" or "princesses"? ==
:I kind of agree. I mean we apply claims to these people who probably just wanted to live out their life in peace without any care of their descents from royalty.--] (]) 23:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
:"Pretender" is a descriptive term and is not a term with any negative connotation, so I don't see how it could be a BLP violation. Which is not to say that we should refer to people as pretenders who are not actually pretenders. ] (]) 20:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


I would appreciate input from more editors into these edits concerning various Americans with the surname Radziwill:
== ] vs. ] ==
* , ,
* , ,
* , ,
The question of whether any of these people wrote their name with the ł instead of a standard English l is also maybe interesting. (It is not necessary to point out that my edit summaries are not entirely civil, nor that I have now reverted twice; I'm not planning on directly engaging further.) Pinging {{u|Unfriendnow}} (the other involved editor). Thanks. ] (]) 21:08, 9 November 2024 (UTC)


:The ], to quote their article arę "a ] of ] origin", though I'm not sure what the current legal status of their title is, as Poland is a republic. ] (]) 03:12, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
There is a bizarre battle going on along the following lines:
::That article is almost entirely concerned with people and events of the 16th through 18th centuries (maybe a bit earlier). Our article ] (one of the ones Unfriendnow has been trying to pipe to add the word “Prince” instead of linking the article directly) says this: {{tq| According to Debrett's, although known as Prince Radziwiłł in Britain, on becoming a British subject and in keeping with standard practice, Radziwiłł strictly needed permission from Queen Elizabeth II to use his princely title. The Radziwiłł family held the title Prince of the Holy Roman Empire since the early 16th century. However, noble titles were abolished in Poland and Austria.}} The other people are the American woman he was married to from 1959 to 1974, their son (b Switzerland 1959), and his wife (b USA 1963, m 1994). ] (]) 11:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
;{{user|Contebragheonte}}/{{user|A curious reader}}:The Libro d'Oro is just an inoffical and incomplete list. On the other hand, the Annuario della Nobiltà Italiana provides a list of 48,000 families. Ersormarchese is a fake duke who hates the Annuario because he is not listed there.
:::Would really appreciate additional input on the appropriateness of the edits in my OP. ] (]) 12:30, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
;{{user|Ersormarchese}}/{{user|Larastabata}}:The Libro d'Oro inofficially continues the Italian nobility register. The Annuario della Nobiltà Italiana was discontinued in 1905. An unrelated new publication has adopted the name and lists 20,000 families. Contebragheonte is a fake baron who hates the Libro because he is not listed there.
Maybe someone with a lot of patience and with the necessary background knowledge want to sort this out and make the necessary ] reports against both sides? ] ] 12:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
::It looks like there are quite a few socks on the scene. . I'm not sure quite what to make of any of it, but it needs sorting. ] ] 12:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


== AfD pending on ], Queen of Wessex? == == Requested move at ] ==
] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] (]) 14:05, 11 November 2024 (UTC)


== Requested move at ] ==
The ] article states she was Queen of Wessex, as wife of ]. ] states "No verifiable evidence that Wulfrida existed." I assume users from this project may wish to comment one way or another on this deletion. ] (]) 07:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —usernamekiran ] 21:30, 13 November 2024 (UTC)


{{GARMessage|Angevin kings of England|GARpage=1}} ] (]) 02:33, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
== Family of surname of royal/imperial origins ==


== Mashiding Lomandong ==
I'm pleased to inform you that I've created some "stub" on royal/imperial houses which are not present on en.wikipedia, neither in other wikipedia languages, only in it.wikipedia, are the following: ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ]. Unfortunaly i'm unable to traslate it. Many thanks.] (]) 13:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


Could someone from this WikiProject take a look at ] and assess it per ]? Most of the sources cited in the article are to Facebook posts, and the creator might have a ]. If, however, the subject is notable, those things could possibly be cleaned up or better sources could be found. I'm not sure whether this article would fall within the scope of this project, but the article claims this person is a "sultan" so perhaps it might. -- ] (]) 07:49, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
== ] ==


== Requested move at ] ==
There are some concerns regarding that. Only two people have been significantly involved in the discussion. I believe your opinion will be very helpful to ], ] and ]. Naming convention seems to be the primary conflict. ] (]) 01:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] (]) 02:59, 9 December 2024 (UTC)


== ] ==
== Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil is now a featured article nominee ==


] is now a featured article nominee. Anyone willing to ]. --] (]) 12:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC) I'm not sure if this person was actually a count, and if so, that he was notable. Please find sources. Ping me if you need any help. ] (]) 02:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
:Or their oppose. Per ], such notifications should be phrased neutrally, not skewed towards an outcome. ] (]) 12:30, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
::First comment amended 22:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


== Requested move at ] ==
== Should the names of royals from the Western civilization have their names angliziced? ==
] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] (]) 20:49, 14 December 2024 (UTC)


== Prince Gharios El Chemor of Ghassan Al-Numan VIII ==
A Request for Comment has been made in ]. See ]. Any help is appreciated. Thanks, --] (]) 22:06, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
: See my answer on that talk page. ] (]) 08:20, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


I opened a discussion on the BLP noticeboard ] regarding Prince Gharios El Chemor of Ghassan Al-Numan VIII. In July he had a BLP ]. That was actually the second creation of the article (at least), but because the original editor of the latest article used a different title, it looked like it was the first. The ] has been blanked as a courtesy. I've opened the discusssion to see if those article titles can be salted. Just an FYI if you want to participate. --19:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC) ] (]) 19:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
== Naming discussion regarding Eveline Hanska/Ewelina Hańska ==


==Postnominal letters and infoboxes==
Readers of this page may be interested in contributing to the discussion at ]. Cheers. -]<sup>(])</sup> 00:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
See ] for discussion. -- ] (]) 15:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)


== Requested move at ] ==
== FYI ==
] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] (]) 00:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC)


== Requested move at ] ==
I guess we forgot to notify you guys here pls see ].] (]) 00:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] (]) 03:20, 23 December 2024 (UTC)


== Have we got lists of reliable and unreliable websites for genealogical research? ==
== Svein, King of Norway ==


Asking because I'm looking at several articles about noble families, which often have poor sourcing, such as ] blogs or ] websites which reject all responsibility for accuracy of information, while other websites appear to be quite reliable and useful for us. It probably won't be worth it to take every single case to ], because writing about noble families is usually limited to this WikiProject. So, have we got a list of reliable and unreliable websites for genealogical research? If so, where can I see it? If not, should we make one? It makes checking the quality of sources for a large set of articles a lot easier. ] (]) 19:26, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
There is a dicussion of this man's status as King and his article title at ]. If interested please join in the discussion.--] (]) 04:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


:I guess I'm gonna start building up these lists until I get a response, or find lists if there are any. I'll go through both the archives of and the for the term "genealogical websites" and variations thereof. Once we have lists of reliable and unreliable websites, we no longer need to reinvent the wheel by assessing whether source A is reliable for article B, but whether source A can be used on enwiki at all, and if so, to be used in multiple other articles that could use some improvements, or if not, require a purge. This may start off as mostly a note-to-self, but this is relevant for everyone working in this content area, and some previous decisions and assessments already apply right now, and have already been implemented over the years, particularly those of ]. ] (]) 10:42, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
== Move request regarding Spanish noble, claimant to the throne of France ==


=== Genealogical websites listed at ] ===
Readers of this page may be interested in contributing to the discussion at ]. Cheers. -]<sup>(])</sup> 21:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
{{legend|#FFBBBB|2=] ''']'''}}
* Peerage websites (self-published)


{{legend|#FFDDDD|] ''']'''}}
== Titling discussoin for list of Saxon dukes/kings ==
* ] (complicated; considered semi-reliable for ] sources, unreliable for ]. ).
* ]
* ] (. However, ] is used in approximately 26,000 pages; the template says using it as an external link is fine, but usually not as a reliable source).
* ]
* ]. (excluding some false positives).


{{legend|#DDFFDD|] '''] in its ]'''}}
Readers here may be interested in contributing to the discussion at ]. Cheers. -]<sup>(])</sup> 23:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
* ]
* ]


: ] (]) 11:00, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
== Daughters of ] ==


=== Genealogical websites discussed in ===
Could anyone shed some light on the question I raised on ]? It concerns the daughters and who they married. Thanks. --] (]) 03:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
* ] {{tq|After over a week's debate, consensus is that these self-published ancestry sources should not be used as sources in biographies of living people. Closing per request at WP:AN/I. – Quadell (talk) 20:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)}} See ] (biographies of living people - self-published sources). Examples mentioned were:
** http://www.uq.net.au/~zzhsoszy/ "Genealogical Gleanings"
** http://www.royalark.net "Royal Ark"
** http://www.genealogics.org/index.php
** http://thepeerage.com/index.htm ] (]) 11:14, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
* ] (June 2020) has an in-depth discussion of lots of questionable genealogical websites.
* ] (Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley) was deprecated 1.5 year ago upon my inquiry. It was used in 500+ articles, where we purged it from. This might merit a follow-up for other unreliable genealogical websites which are still currently used as sources in noble families articles. In some cases, removing these unreliable websites will show that the rest of the articles is not really based on anything reliable, and may not pass ] either. See also ] for a current example of this. In other cases, we can probably improve articles up to current standards by using reliable websites for multiple articles. So having lists of reliable and unreliable genealogical websites can work well both ways. ] (]) 19:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:: , 172 of which are Talk: pages (including 37 User talk: pages), 125 are User: pages (excluding User talk: pages), 54 are Misplaced Pages: pages (Articles for creation, Articles for deletion, RSN, Reference desk, WikiProjects, Featured article candidates, Good article reassessment, Redirects for discussion), 1 Draft: page, 1 MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/May 2019, 2 Portals, and apparently only 5 mainspace article links: ] (once) and ] (4 times). Except for those last 5, there doesn't seem to be a big issue with the '''http''' URL of MedLands. However, the , 66 of which are Talk: pages (including 6 User talk: pages), 12 are User: pages (excluding User talk: pages), 4 Misplaced Pages: pages (excluding 1 Misplaced Pages talk: page), and..... the other 29 pages appear to be URLs in mainspace articles, most of them probably recently added by User:Vittoriobr (who has already been notified below). ] (]) 05:09, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
* ] familytreedna.com. ] September 2021. {{xt|Like the others its a hard no, they are basically completely useless for encyclopedic purposes.}} {{xt|No definitely not. A lot of this is just a mish mash of theoreticals even if they did reveal their data sources and linking. As it is for these services, for all we know it's just a random number generator looking up data.}} ]. .
* '']'' / ''Russia Beyond the Headlines'' / ], part of Russian state-owned ] (''Russia Today'', which has been deprecated per ]).
{{cot|Reliability of ''Russia Beyond (the Headlines)''}}
''Russia Beyond'' has been discussed on relatively few occasions at RSN so far, but in each case it has been rated negatively in various degrees:
** ] (February 2011): reports security issues.
** ] (August 2015): {{xt|That article simply has an unattributed statement of "reportedly used".}}
** ] (November 2020): {{xt|For starters, China Watch and Russia Beyond are probably not the model of accuracy.}}
** ] (December 2021): {{xt|''Russia Beyond'' is a pro-Kremlin publication.}}
:: It is somewhat surprising it has not been evaluated more often and more critically, as it . I have mostly seen ''Russia Beyond'' used as a source in history articles, where it pushes a Russian nationalist narrative,, e.g. about how this or that battle was "". For genealogical issues, it usually engages in the favourite pastime of claiming that this or that person or family was definitely and unmistakably . That may impress the average reader, but serious genealogists and historians know that this is usually nonsense, or at least a fatuous assertion, which pretty much every Russian aristocrat has made since the 16th century. They have so little editorial review that readers had to correct them that one of the people the author highlighted as a "Rurikid" wasn't actually one: {{xt|Our readers pointed out our mistake: Feodor Koshka wasn't a Rurikid at all.}} It's just a little example of how ''Russia Beyond'' is just as unreliable as its operator, ''Russia Today''. It's not just a pro-Kremlin publication, it is a Kremlin-owned publication, that publishes narratives as a form of entertainment (rather than reliable information) in order to make Russia look good in the eyes of foreigners. The original title, ''Russia Beyond the Headlines'', shows this original goal: because Russia often featured negatively in news headlines, they sought to paint a more positive picture of Russia that supposedly went "beyond the headlines". The resulting output should not be surprising: ] states: {{xt|In 2007 and 2014, former Slate journalist Jack Shafer and ''The Guardian'' commentator Roy Greenslade respectively accused ''Russia Beyond'' of being propaganda.{{sup|}}}}
{{cob}}
: Just like its state-owned parent ''Russia Today'', we should probably deprecate ''Russia Beyond''. ] (]) 02:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)


==== genealogy.eu ====
== I don't understand articles like this ==
has been discussed many times before:
:* ] (August 2012):
:: {{xt|I have also been through the articles that use "Marek, Miroslav. "A listing of the House of Orléans". Genealogy.EU. <nowiki>{{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)</nowiki>" as a cited source marking them in a similar way. The problem with that source is that Marek does not cite his sources.}} PBS (talk) 09:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
:* ] (August 2014):
:: {{xt|...1,132 pages link to genealogy.euweb.cz The first page returned is List of princes of Austria-Hungary 21 out of 28 citations (and another page or which I ran AWB), in this case I don't think Miroslav Marek cites any sources. You see the problem is lots of people like to create ancestry trees and articles about nobility the content of which is mainly about who married whom (dynastic pedigree was and probably is still important and if often helps to explain otherwise odd political behaviour, both at the local as well as the national level -- so it can't be dismissed as totally trivial), and it is easy to do if you use this sort of site. Deleting them is impractical at a Misplaced Pages political level (apart from anything else if one try it one will be accused of being anti-feminist as in prior centuries European female aristocracy are only notable by who they married and as baby machines, so deleting information in Misplaced Pages articles from these sites affects articles on females more than males)....}} PBS (talk) 22:54, 13 August 2014 (UTC) (I gotta say that I partially agree with PBS; we do need better representation of women and women's history; I'm a ] member myself. On the other hand, "no information is better than false information"; that's a rule somewhere as well, right? ] (]) 20:33, 28 December 2024 (UTC))
:* ] (August 2016):
:: {{xt|I do not think http://genealogy.euweb.cz/ is a reliable source. Does anyone think that it is and if so how does it meet the requirements of ]?}} PBS (talk) 19:05, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
:* ] (December 2016):
:: {{xt|There are far too many of these genealogical websites being using in articles. It seems that biographies historical minor nobles of European Continental countries are particularly susceptible to having citations linked to these types of sites.}} PBS (talk) 21:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
:* ] (May 2019):
:: {{xt|there is a far larger problem with the use of sites that do not cite their sources -- neither of you addressed my question about insource:/Rayment/ (used in 11,273 articles) -- there are others, most of them are used as citations to support little known (to English readers) continental European nobility eg insource:/roglo.eu/ (88); insource:/genealogy.euweb.cz/ (1,196); insource:/genealogics.org/ (460) and for UK and Irish biographies insource:/www.tudorplace.com.ar/ (381). I would suggest that if you want to help the project cleaning up citations to any of these sites that do not cite any sources would be time better spent than worrying about Lundy where he cites reliable sources.}} -- PBS (talk) 12:01, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
:* ] (5 June 2020):
:: {{xt|These seem very dodgy: (...) genealogy.euweb.cz - pretty confident this was rejected ages ago as user-generated, I will search in a minute...}} Guy 18:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
:: {{xt|genealogy.euweb.cz is self published unreliable (..)}} Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
:* ] (19 June 2020):
:: (once again PBS pointing out that genealogy.euweb.cz is not reliable, and suggesting a way to "first tag them and then bag them".)
:I think it is evidently ] and should be deprecated. ] (]) 11:00, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
: – holy *peep*! Deprecating and replacing genealogy.eu should be a priority for us. ] (]) 02:00, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
::All this time for the past 12 years, PBS has been pointing out it is an unreliable source, and it seems that others have started to agree since June 2020. But it has still not been deprecated or discouraged. Instead, the number of enwiki articles which use genealogy.eu has only grown from 1,132 to 1,206 in 10 years. I think that, just like with Cawley's MedLands, we need to finally make a decision to remove Miroslav's genealogy.eu as an unreliable source that should not be used anymore, anywhere, anywhen. Because this problem will not go away if we continue to ignore it for another 12 years. ] (]) 20:49, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Hey @], thanks for your advice below! Do you think this summary here above would suffice to make a case for deprecation at an RSN RfC? If so, would you support it? ] (]) 22:08, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Maybe a discussion to deprecate these and similar sources. MedLands isn't deprecated and just keep getting added back, as does geni.com and the self-published peerage sites. Maybe all the genealogy sources that are already known to be unreliable, but keep getting used could be done in a single RFC. There's precedent for adding an unreliable source to the deprecation list because of persistent usage, see ] for instance. Mass RFC's can be unwelcome sometimes, but the other option (holding different RFCs for the same reason for each source) is worse. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 22:51, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Maybe finish working here, and then take a completed case of unreliable sources that keep getting reused to RSN for deprecation. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 22:52, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Thank you, I appreciate that advice very much! If you or anyone else has more input or could help me assess the sources I have been listing here, that would be wonderful. I haven't got much experience with RfCs, but I do want to address all these unreliable genealogical websites properly for once (if not for all), and you have been a great help so far, just like when we tackled MedLands last time. The precedent certainly helps as well. ] (]) 23:37, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::@] How about....
:::::::The following genealogy sources are currently considered ] at ] (A to E), or in repeated inquiries at ] (F and G):
:::::::* A: Ancestry.com
:::::::* B: FamilySearch
:::::::* C: Find a Grave
:::::::* D: Findmypast
:::::::* E: Geni.com
:::::::* F: fmg.ac Foundation for Medieval Genealogy a.k.a. Medieval Lands / MedLands by Charles Cawley
:::::::* G: genealogy.eu / genealogy.euweb.cz
:::::::Long after being listed / labelled generally unreliable, these unreliable sources are still being (re-)added to hundreds to tens of thousands of articles.
:::::::They should be:
:::::::* '''Option 1: listed as ]''' (status quo, change nothing except adding F and G at ] as such)
:::::::* '''Option 2: ]''' (list them as such at ])
:::::::* '''Option 3: ]''' (not mutually exclusive with 2 or 4)
:::::::* '''Option 4: ]''' (not mutually exclusive with 2 or 3)
:::::::(Voting format: + , e.g.
:::::::{{xt|Option 2: Deprecate ALL}}; or
:::::::{{xt|Option 2: Deprecate A, B, C, D, E; Option 1: list F, G as Generally unreliable}}.)
:::::::----
:::::::Would something like this work, or am I making it too complicated? Not even sure if we can make Purging a voting option, but it is what we did last time with MedLands. I would appreciate your advice. ] (]) 18:11, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::PS: I'm restricting the proposal to these 7 sources for now, as they seem to be statistically the most problematic, and have also been most widely discussed. We can assess the rest later. ] (]) 18:12, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::I would suggest removing Ancestry.com, and maybe all of the first four. I know Ancestry.com holds primary documents, which are considered semi-reliable even if most of the site isn't. I think (maybe) that the other three are in a similar situation. That could muddy the issue, and derail the RFC.<br>Drop {{tq|fmg.ac Foundation for Medieval Genealogy a.k.a.}} from 'f'. The Foundation for Medieval Genealogy is a possibly reliable source that ''hosts'' MedLands, they're not the same thing. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 22:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:{{outdent|:::::::}}
{{cot|RfC concept text}}
:The following genealogy sources are currently considered ] at ] (A), or in repeated inquiries at ] (B and C):
* A: Geni.com
* B: Medieval Lands / MedLands by Charles Cawley
* C: genealogy.eu / genealogy.euweb.cz by Marek Miroslav
:Long after being listed / labelled generally unreliable, these unreliable sources are still being (re-)added to hundreds to tens of thousands of articles.
:They should be:
* '''Option 1: listed as ]''' (change nothing to A; add B and C at ] as such)
* '''Option 2: ]''' (list them as such at ])
* '''Option 3: ]''' (not mutually exclusive with 2 <s>or 4</s>)
* <s>'''Option 4: ]''' (not mutually exclusive with 2 or 3)</s>
:(Voting format: + , for example
:{{xt|Option 2: Deprecate ALL}}; or
:{{xt|Option 2: Deprecate A; Option 1: list B and C as Generally unreliable}}.)
{{cob}}
-----
:@] Okay, would this work as an RfC? ] (]) 03:41, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::I would drop all mention of fmg, "MedLands by Charles Cawley" is clear enough. Otherwise I think it looks OK. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 17:07, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:PS: I may be misunderstanding what "purging" means. What we did in May 2023 was deleting a template that used MedLands as a standardised reference in 576 articles: ]. I thought we had tasked a bot to remove the remaining 123 URLs, but I can't find back where I requested that. ] (]) 04:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::I run the search and remove them every few weeks. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 17:05, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:::@] Best wishes for 2025! Okay, I've removed mention of 'fmg'. I suppose Option 4 is not necessary for the RfC? At least ] is about refreshing any page to update it to reflect more complex recent changes; it does not describe the process of removing URLs from ] (what I've been calling "purging"; at ], it means removing a group of articles and subcategories from a category where they don't belong, but that's yet another process). ] states: {{tq|Deprecation is not a blanket retroactive "ban" on using the source in absolutely every situation (...) Citations to deprecated sources should not be removed indiscriminately, and each case should be reviewed separately.}} Even if we vote to ] a source, that only means new URLs to it cannot be added, but does not mean old ones will automatically be removed. So I guess removing deprecated sources should be some sort of follow-up discussion and process if the RfC to deprecate these sources is successful. I shouldn't rush that step, so Option 4 should not be up for a vote at this stage. Agreed? ] (]) 09:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Removing or replacing unreliable references is commonly overlooked. Nothing about any RFC magically removes anything, editors need to go through the articles and do the work. Blacklisting in particular shouldn't happen until links have been removed, see point 3 of 'Instructions for admins' in ]. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 19:21, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::That's good to know. Then I think I'm ready to launch the RfC. ] (]) 23:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Filed: ]. Participation welcomed and encouraged. ] (]) 23:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)


=== Genealogical websites discussed in ===
] - I don't understand articles like this. I fear that they are absurd original research which then branches out to poison other articles with their absurdity. "He is recognised by those French monarchists who consider Philip V of Spain's renunciation of his rights of succession to the throne of France both on his succession and as part of the provisions of the Treaty of Utrecht as null and void." Who? Who are these French monarchists? If they are not serious people, i.e. a handful of crackpots, then the entire article should be deleted.
*...


: ] (]) 11:00, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
There are virtually no sources for the article, and one has to wonder if there is any legitimacy at all to the huge list of people allegedly in line to succeed to the French throne.--] (]) 01:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


=== Genealogical websites not yet assessed ===
:I can't argue that the sources are on the page and I've no idea where the list comes from, but the Legitimist claim is a well-established one based on legal principles. Perhaps it's just the wording that needs amending, to describe it not as a group of people but rather as a perspective. Louis Alphonse is definitely the claimant, as seen for example. Although, seriously theorising about the line of succession to a centuries-dead monarchy certainly qualifies as "crack-pot" to me. '''<span style="font-variant:small-caps">]</span>''' 06:33, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Examples (I'm currently mostly working on Russia noble families, but it could be about anywhere, so this list is not representative):
::I'm not sure that I agree that Louise Alphonse is a claimant. I think that's a heck of a thing for Opfell to say about a guy, that he claims to be the King of France. It strikes me as highly unlikely to be true. What we might say is that in an alternative history in which lots of things happened differently, he would be the person most likely to be the present King of France (], haha). My concern is that we talk about "legitimists" as if they actually exist, people who actually say that he's the King of France, and are (presumably) campaigning for this to be recognized in the law or whatever. As far as I can tell, that isn't true, and it is bordering on a BLP violation that we so often wrongly accuse people of being claimants to things they are claimings, or pretenders to thinks they aren't pretending to.--] (]) 15:33, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
:::He styles himself ''duc d'Anjou'', asserting his senior descent from ], and has assigned his twin sons the titles ''duc de Bourgogne'' and ''duc de Berry'', recalling the sons of ]. I would have thought this shows he at least considers himself the rightful King of France, regardless of how many "legitimists" agree with him. ] (]) 22:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
::::Exactly. None of these "pretenders" call themselves "kings". Rather, they usually claim that they are the rightful heir to a legacy which at max includes sovereignty, often includes the right to "regulate" ] marriages in their family, and always includes, at a minimum, public repudiation of the claims of rival pretenders. The fact is that where there are monarchists, there are factions within monarchist movements that include philosophies, followers, traditions, events and blogs. Exceptions may be to the many German ex-monarchies, except Bavaria, Prussia, and Saxony, who definitely assert claims as heirs to their "tradition". ] (]) 02:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::There are crackpots in all walks of life. If they are notable, then sure we discuss them in our articles. But ] is an example of how we don't do it:
:::::* "The Legitimist heir to the French throne is Louis Alphonse, Duke of Anjou, the senior member of the House of Bourbon." This is the first sentence of the article, and it does not set up the context in a way that makes it recognisable as fringe. Louis Alphonse "is" "he Legitimist heir". This sounds as if it was an official function, moored in the French constitution. One needs to have knowledge about French culture and history that most Europeans have, but the average reader from Asia may not have, to understand from this sentence that the article is about the alternate universe of a tiny number of people who reject today's political system of France.
:::::* There is excessive detail. If some religious sect believes that the world will end on 5 August next year and 100 people who they identify by their names will play an important role in that, then this sect would have to be ''extremely'' notable for us to list them all. What's different about Legitimist French monarchists that justifies going into excruciating detail about the details of their beliefs? ] ] 11:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::::I would expect that Misplaced Pages considers it improperly ] to label political factions "fringe", ''per se''. NPOV requires that ''within'' an article on a movement, fringe views not receive disproportionate coverage relative to more mainstream ones, but I'm unware of a rule that restricts the length of an article on a fringe movement relative to the length of articles on mainstream ones: on Misplaced Pages, such length has usually been a function of the interest of contributors in devoting time to the topic and, since ], lots of long articles on fringe groups & movements are to be found here. It hasn't been that long since many of these same articles were being labelled "]" with the injunction to expand. In response to other points made above:
:::::::*The excerpted first line of the article cited above omits the link to "]" actually included in the article, which is where usage of that term for a fringe movement is clarified. However, I can see how more clarity would be helpful, although not much more should be included in the lede, IMO.
:::::::*As for the use in that sentence of the term "Legitimist" to describe the '']'' as if that were an objective and prevalent usage rather than as freighted and obscure, again I'm inclined to agree with you. But see for documentation to the contrary.
:::::::*I also agree that listing the entire French legitimist ] is excessive -- although I would disagree with Jimbo that the members of that list are not legitimately in that line or that the line is original research: unlike the much-disputed ], eligibility for the French legitimist "crown" is defined in a much simpler way that makes it easier to verify.
:::::::*The rationale for listing Legitimist dynasts differs from that for explaining their beliefs. What distinguishes Legitimists from Orleanists from Bonapartists is a mixture of philosophy, politics and history. It is therefore complex. Why today's ] support either ] or his uncle, ] as rightful king of Spain rather than ], the actual king, is downright bewildering (see the ]), yet I would argue that ] is notable and that encyclopedic accuracy justifies disentangling its issues to the extent there are WP contributors willing to objectively document its adherents' key differences. ] (]) 03:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


==== Seems ] ====
::::::Mr Adler's speech was followed by prolonged, sustained applause from the assembled multitude. Or me anyway. ] ] 00:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
* '']'' seems RS
* '']'' seems RS
* ] / ].se: seems RS
* ] / ritarihuone.fi / riddarhuset.fi: seems RS
* '']'' at riksarkivet.se seems RS
* ] ''Visuotinė lietuvių enciklopedija'' "Universal Lithuanian Encyclopedia" seems RS
* ihst.ru S.I. Vavilov Institute for the History of Natural Science and Technology of the Russian Academy of Sciences seems RS
* '']'' seems RS
* dic.academic.ru. ] states it is a {{xt|database of dictionaries, encyclopedias, bookstores and films}}; it suggests it is reliable, but does not always respect copyright. Seems fine, although preference should be given to citing the source which the academic.ru search result comes up with rather than the search result itself. Discussed once in March 2024, positively: ]. (excluding unrelated "DIC" abbreviations)
* rulex.ru ''Russian Biographical Lexicon'', seems generally reliable; it is merely a digitisation of two encyclopaedic dictionaries from 1907 and 1916 that we use already, although ]. <s>, but I've also seen it in many not found in this search result.</s> .
{{cot|}}
{{tq|Настоящая биографическая или тематическая статья является электронной, адаптированной к современному русскому языку версией статьи, из 86-томного Энциклопедического Словаря Брокгауза и Ефрона (1890—1907 гг.) или Нового Энциклопедического Словаря (1910—1916 гг.). Тексты всех статей оставлены неизменными.}}
{{xt|This biographical or thematic article is an electronic version of an article from the 86-volume ''Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary'' (1890-1907) or the ''New Encyclopedic Dictionary'' (1910-1916), adapted to the modern Russian language. The texts of all articles are left unchanged.}}
{{cob}}
* gerbovnik.ru '']'' seems RS, but from 1917, so ]. .


==== Seems ], ] or having other issues ====
== Renaming discussion regarding article ] ==
* adelsvapen.com: ] wiki which works very much like Misplaced Pages, risking ] if they repeat each other's claims.
{{cot|}}
{{tq|I en Wiki får alla vara med och bidra med sina kunskaper och det är både lätt och roligt. Vår förhoppning är att många ska skriva information från sin egen släktforskning så att vi tillsammans kan komplettera traditionella källor. (...) Till varje sida finns det en diskussionssida där man kan skriva om man finner tveksamma uppgifter i en artikel och kanske inte vill ändra i direkt artikeln.}}
<br />
{{xt| In a Wiki, everyone gets to join in and contribute their knowledge, and it's both easy and fun. Our hope is that many people will write information from their own genealogy so that together we can supplement traditional sources. (...) For each page, there is a discussion page where you can write if you find questionable information in an article and perhaps do not want to change the article directly. There you can also write questions and thoughts about the article.}}}
{{cob}}
* vgd.ru All-Russian Genealogical Tree. ] <s></s> (excluding articles where the abbreviation "VGD" stands for something else, usually ])
{{cot|.}}
{{tq|Внимание! Базу составляют информация из открытой печати и сведения, сообщенные нам посетителями. База не может служить юридическим доказательством родственных связей, но является основой для дальнейших исследований, вспомогательным материалом. Именно поэтому здесь часто не указаны источники информации - в настоящем генеалогическом исследовании каждое слово подтверждается архивными справками, вам все равно придется обращаться в архивы или к профессиональным генеалогам. Если хотите добавить известную Вам информацию, пообщаться на форуме, отправляйтесь в соответствующую часть сайта, чтобы сообщить об обнаруженных ошибках или убрать сведения о себе, пишите на странице обратной связи или напишите ведущей сайта}}
<br />
{{xt|Attention! The database consists of information from the open press and information provided to us by visitors. The database cannot serve as legal evidence of family ties, but is the basis for further research, auxiliary material. This is why sources of information are often not indicated here - in a real genealogical study, every word is confirmed by archival certificates, you will still have to contact the archives or professional genealogists. If you want to add information you know, communicate on the forum, go to the appropriate part of the site to report errors or remove information about yourself, write on the feedback page or write to the site host}}
{{cob}}
* freeart.com/terms-of-use-and-sale/ previously abcgallery.com ]
* russianartdealer.com selfpub .
* funeral-spb.narod.ru/ selfpub.
* sergekot.com/services-we-offer/ selfpub
* https://www.m-a-k.net/ probably selfpub
* heraldry.at.ua. . Only used by ]. (not to be confused by heraldry.com.ua).
* imperialgerold.ru suspicious website according to WOT. .
* geneal.ru ]
* translate.googleusercontent.com ]
* rgfond.ru/about evidently ]. .
* hrono.ru / hrono.info / hronos.km.ru (]). ; ; . Discussed once in Feb–March 2021 with an inconclusive RfC: ]. Current status seems "no consensus / case-by-case basis" (]). It seems that hrono.ru was originally hronos.km.ru, a former subdomain of km.ru, run by the ] "Cyril and Methodius" company ("KM"), whose primary publication was a digitised version of the ] ''Great Encyclopedia of Cyril and Methodius''. Archived URLs such as https://web.archive.org/web/20090319003748/http://www.hronos.km.ru/biograf/krestinski.html mirror those of currently-live hrono.ru: https://www.hrono.ru/biograf/bio_k/krestinski_nn.php . These days, however, "hronos.km.ru" no longer works, and redirects to km.ru, which is now a website about everything and anything to do with media, entertainment and "news" (its features mostly pro-Kremlin opinion pieces about how awesome Russia is and how bad Ukraine is). We might task a bot to run a script updating these 34-ish URLs if we think it's worth the effort separating hrono.ru / hrono.info as it is now from km.ru after the hronos.km.ru was split off from it. ] (]) 16:30, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
* genealogia.ru ? calls it "the most extensive Internet resource on the Russian segment of the web, devoted to genealogy issues." The description suggests it is ]:
{{cot|2005 Researchgate.net review of genealogia.ru}}
{{xt|The basic view in the application under consideration is a tabular representation of one generation (family) with the possibility to move to older generations (parents) and younger generations (children). On the base view you can enter, change and delete any information about persons, events in their life, some properties. To build some diagrams (genealogical trees) you need to use special functions hidden in the main menu of the application. The diagrams themselves can be both viewed and printed. In general, the programme is a functional minimum for those who are just starting to conduct their genealogical research. In the future, when moving to more advanced genealogical applications, you can use the function of exporting the database to the unified genealogical GEDCOM format, which is understood by all major programmes on the genealogy market. Together with the programme itself a small help file is distributed, in which you can get initial information about the functionality of the programme, its features and conditions of use. The Genealogy programme is conditionally free. The free version has a limitation - you can store no more than 30 persons in the database. If you buy a licence, this limitation is removed. The cost of the licence is 599 p. The terms and procedure of payment are given on the developer's site.}}
{{cob}}
::In a , S.D. Kotelnikov wrote: {{tq|Сайт Генеалогия.ру (http://www.genealogia.ru) Хороший был в свое время проект Константина Погорелого, но зачах.}} {{xt|The site Genealogy.ru (http://www.genealogia.ru) Konstantin Pogorely's project was good in its time, but it has languished.}} He goes on to lament the commercialisation of genealogy websites, but not necessarily their reliability. ] (]) 21:20, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
* svenskadel.nu deadlink. https://www.svenskadel.se/ appears to be a ] site dedicated to document all Swedish noble families, including those not registered at the Riddarhuset. {{xt|This register covers all genera or, more correctly, has the ambition to present all genera.}} It does not cite any sources at all. <s>I don't know how often it is used (), but I saw it at least once for a Russian noble family article. ] (]) 21:29, 28 December 2024 (UTC)</s> Correction: . ] (]) 00:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
* Feb-web.ru ? {{xt|The Fundamental Electronic Library “Russian Literature and Folklore” (FEB) is a network multifunctional information system that accumulates information of various types (text, sound, visual, etc.) in the field of Russian literature of the 11th-20th centuries and Russian folklore, as well as the history of Russian philology and folklore studies.}} It is a project of the Russian Academy of Sciences. seems to stipulate quite high standards of scientific and scholarly quality, accuracy, correct reproduction of original texts, completeness, and "Compliance with the modern scientific level". On the other hand, it has , and seems to be set up as a ] wiki. I don't know. It might be similar to Adelsvapen or Nupedia in the sense that it requires authors to be or behave like experts and use only highly reliable sources, but it is still usergenerated. . I think this might be case-by-case ]. ] (]) 21:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)


==== Unassessed ====
The proposed renaming being discussed at ] may be of interest to members of WikiProject Royalty and Nobility. ] (]) 22:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
* russianfamily.ru expired domain name, .
* russiannobility.org Russian Nobility Association in America. ]?
* russiarevisited.com expired domain name. (only in ]).
* oldkiev.info expired domain name. but I've also seen it in a Russian noble family page.
* vybor.gorod.dn.ua deadlink (only in ])
* liveuamap.com useful for military OSINT, but probably not very useful for genealogical research
* peoples.ru/about Although content is apparently submitted by project users (Проект Люди является общедоступным, и наполняемым пользователями проекта), it does have some editorial review / control. Might be reliable case-by-case.
* ...
] (]) 19:26, 26 December 2024 (UTC)


:I'll comment on the ones from Sweden:
== New AFD's ==
:*] is an old general dictionary. Generally OK, but can be outdated.
:*] is the Swedish house of nobility. I would consider it acceptable, especially on genealogy.
:*] generally an excellent source for Swedish biographies, but some of the oldest material might not have quite the same standard, and it is imcomplete.
:*adelsvapenwiki. A wiki where a lot of content comes from an import of the older ] by ]. That is a reliable source, available digitally on Projekt Runeberg: .
:There is also the older ''Svenska adelns ättartaflor'', by Gabriel Anrep, which should be avoided, as it contains family traditions of dubious value.
:] (]) 21:33, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::@] Thanks for this contribution! So I suppose that Adelsvapen wiki is based on ''Den introducerade svenska adelns ättartavlor'', but users are allowed to add their own genealogy and other contents in a collaborate manner just like Misplaced Pages? I guess that would mean we still shouldn't use Adelsvapen wiki as a source, but go straight to the original text of Elgenstierna (if we can find it), as that can be relied on? The usergenerated expanded online version of it just cannot be trusted as much. It seems much like the ] situation; a digitised version of a printed original that has been updated and expanded, but editorial control over this new online version may not be as rigorous. ] (]) 21:48, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::One that still gets used in MedLands, discussedany times and isn't reliable. Commonly used for offspring and spouses, as MedLands has a very bad habit of linking anything with the same name. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 00:22, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
:::@] Hey, didn't you and I and some others deprecate MedLands 1.5 years ago at ]? I do see that most access-dates in your search result are between {{xt|2024-09-30}} and {{xt|2024-10-22}}, so these are probably recent re-introductions of MedLands into enwiki, apparently all by the same new ] who joined enwiki in late 2023, so a few months after we removed all those refs to MedLands in May 2023. For the record Vittoriobr: we appreciate your contributions, but fmg.ac (Foundation for Medieval Genealogy), alias Medieval Lands (MedLands) by Charles Cawley, is not a reliable source. We should not be using it anymore, but seek to replace it with a better source. As a relatively new user, you might not have known that, so we're explaining that to you now. :) ] (]) 01:47, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I don't know how exactly adelsvapenwiki works, but my impression is that they usually don't change the text of Elgenstierna more than some editorial modernisations. I would suggest replacing with Elgenstierna when possible, but deprecating it should probably not be the first priority. I've certainly seen far worse.
::::] (]) 08:34, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::I agree. Currently I am thinking that Adelsvapen doesn't have to be ] (it can't be, this is the first time it is discussed and it is not ''that'' unreliable), but should be considered ], as ActivelyDisinterested also said at ]. It is recommended to be replaced by a better source, but in non-BLP articles, that would have no urgency. Although I could also see a case-by-case ] classification, I think this would put it in the ] group.
:::::I think the question whether genealogy.eu / genealogy.euweb.cz should be deprecated is far more relevant right now. Not sure if I should make that a separate section here or at ]? We should probably keep discussion centralised, but I don't know which place is best. @] where can we best discuss genealogy.eu / genealogy.euweb.cz? ] (]) 20:04, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Both genealogy.eu and genealogy.euweb.cz have been discussed on RSN before, I don't think either were considered reliable. If you wanted them to be formally ], as in having them added to the edit filter etc, then that will require a discussion on RSN and probably an RFC. If you just want to list them here as "Should never be used", then I don't see why you couldn't have the discussion here. Deprecation is a formal procedure, but in most cases there's no need to do it.
::::::Projects can maintain source lists (and I would encourage them to do so), but they can't do so against the general consensus of the community (basically the advice from ]). So as long as your list takes into account prior discussions you don't need RSN, if you disagree with prior discussions or want some additional input RSN is always available. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 21:37, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Thanks very much! I've made an elaborate summary above at ], I'll tag you there. ] (]) 22:06, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Oh, I indeed didn't know about that. I thought it was a reliable source, since it had its own references for the informations it gave. What's the best course of action now? ] (]) 11:51, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::It's okay, we are going to find a solution. Probably removing them all after establishing consensus. ] (]) 17:34, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:Regarding the Finnish sources:
:* The website https://www.ritarihuone.fi contains only a little information about the families, but I would expect it to be reliable, since they also publish research on the families. The are probably more useful than the website.
:* Kansallisbiografia is generally reliable. The articles are usually written by historians specializing on the period in question. At worst, the articles are directly based on ''Svenskt Biografiskt Lexikon'', adding nothing to them, but even this is quite rare. The site is behind the paywall, but the bios can be accessed for free through https://www.biografiasampo.fi
:] (]) 08:57, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
::Thanks for the advice! ] (]) 19:51, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
:For those interested, I've got a running list of non-RS genealogy/royalty refs ] that includes links to current use/my removal efforts on Misplaced Pages. Anything that doesn't have a strikethrough has citations that still need to be deleted/replaced. ] (]) 00:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::That seems quite helpful! I'll have a more in-depth look tomorrow. ] (]) 00:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:::PS: What does the {{xt|insource: }} part do exactly when you make a search query within enwiki? I notice I can find 2 results for {{xt|insource: svenskadel.nu}}, but 0 results for just {{xt|svenskadel.nu}}, so it definitely does something useful. Edit: Usually {{xt|insource:}} seems to work a bit better than without, as it yields more results, but in a few cases it seems better not to use {{xt|insource:}}. I don't know why. ] (]) 00:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::::"insource" searches through the source text (what you see when editing a page if you don't use the Visual Editor), so it catches items in, e.g., templates or URLs that would normally be invisible on the rendered page. ] (]) 02:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Thanks! By the way, how do I look for articles containing {{xt|ancestry.com}}? I'm getting a lot of false positives, such as ] and ], which do not contain this phrase, even though I'm using {{xt|insource: ancestry.com}} and {{xt|Exactly this text: ancestry.com}}: . Am I doing something wrong? ] (]) 03:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Never mind, I found that I could use External link search here: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:LinkSearch&limit=5000&offset=10000&target=http%3A%2F%2Fancestry.com This shows it is currently used in 14,509 pages, but that includes talk pages, user pages etc. and not just the mainspace. In fact, the majority of results appears to be from the Talk, User talk, or User spaces. So it's not as bad as 20,000 mainspace articles as I initially thought. Plus, ActivelyDisinterested indicated that Ancestry.com may be semi-reliable when it is using primary sources. ] (]) 04:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::The search is reading the period as greyspace, i.e. a space; everything in quotes should fix that. ] (]) 21:16, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Ah, thanks! ] (]) 01:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)


=== New Articles for Deletion discussions ===
For a number of members of the Ottoman Imperial Family all listed under one proposal ]. And also Greek Royals ], her brother ] and his wife ]. - ] (]) 01:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Update: as expected, ] resulted in a '''delete''' of ]. I had already prepared 6 follow-ups, which I have now filed:
:On a related matter, I just signed this project up for ]. New requests (including AFDs) on articles in ] will shortly be added to ], which we can transclude here. '''<span style="font-variant:small-caps">]</span>''' 07:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
These are all so similar that I used pretty much the same rationale for all (in some cases they were not wholly unsourced, but just very badly sourced):
{{xt|Follow-up to ] (recently unanimously deleted). ] ], fails ]. Rule of thumb: if a Russian noble family claims descent from Rurik without a source, that's a red flag. (No objection to keeping family]]</nowiki> for now; this "article" just adds nothing of value).
Sorting: Biographical; Lists of people, Royalty and nobility, Russia.}}


You are all welcome to participate in these AfDs if you're interested. I'll hasten to add that these articles are the worst of the worst; all other articles I have examined so far in ] have somewhat better sourcing and seem salvageable. Some of them (], ], ], ], and ]) clearly pass ], but do require a cleanup. But it may be that more articles will later end up at AfD if they do not meet some basic standards, and if sources they are currently based on turn out to be unreliable. I would say that ] is the best article I have found so far, that could serve as an example to be followed by all others in this category. Establishing which kind of genealogical sources are reliable for royalty and nobility in general, and Russia and adjacent (former and current) states in particular, which we have been doing above, will hopefully greatly help in this process. Best wishes for 2025 everyone! ] (]) 11:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
==RSN: Self-published royalty websites==
Members of this project may have an interest in this thread: ]. The two websites are used as sources for many project articles. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 00:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


== Requested move at ] ==
== Renaming discussion regarding article ] ==
] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] (]) 04:26, 27 December 2024 (UTC)


== Requested move at ] ==
The proposed renaming being discussed at ] may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] (]) 09:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] (]) 10:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC)


== Modern images of early medieval rulers in infobox or article ==
== ] ==


Please see the discussion at ]. ] (]) 16:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Can you guys give a look please? I rewrote it, since I had found some factual errors (anachronism of details mainly), but I feel some details would be better to go to other articles (several people were involved, as usual). Also I'd love to hear your opinion, if Princess Ikami and/or Prince Osabe (his empress later expelled and his first crown prince, see the article please) deserve their own articles, beyond notes on this article? --] (]) 01:24, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


== Requested move at ] ==
== ] ==
] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —usernamekiran ] 04:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

There's an orphan article here which I've just PRODded. Anyone interested in Italian nobility might like to rescue it. At present it doesn't make much sense. ]] 14:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 04:17, 4 January 2025

Shortcuts
This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Royalty and Nobility and anything related to its purposes and tasks.
Archives: Index, Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12Auto-archiving period: 6 months 
This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconBiography: Royalty and Nobility
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility.
WikiProject iconCouncil
WikiProject iconThis page relates to the WikiProject Council, a collaborative effort regarding WikiProjects in general. If you would like to participate, please visit the project discussion page.CouncilWikipedia:WikiProject CouncilTemplate:WikiProject CouncilCouncil
Archiving icon
Archives (index)
Index
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6
Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12

This page has archives. Sections older than 182.5 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III.

De'Anyers family

Was patrolling this article and couldn't really verify much in this outside of references to books that I cannot access. One of the family, Peter Daniell, has written a book on the family history, but that might not be independent. Was wondering if the WikiProject Royalty and Nobility had any view on it? thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 13:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I see that @AirshipJungleman29 has nominated it for deletion. thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 15:24, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Umberto I of Italy#Requested move 9 July 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Umberto I of Italy#Requested move 9 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Векочел (talk) 18:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Francis, Duke of Guise#Requested move 14 July 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Francis, Duke of Guise#Requested move 14 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 • 22:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Rose Hanbury#Requested move 15 July 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Rose Hanbury#Requested move 15 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 16:16, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Mentions of descendants born after the article subject's death in lede

On James Hamilton, 3rd Duke of Abercorn, I removed the note that he was the great-grandfather of Diana, Princess of Wales on the grounds that he died several years before she was born, citing the various removals from the lede of the article of Prince Andrew of Greece and Denmark that he was the paternal grandfather of Charles III, arguing that they never met, and thus had no impact on each other's lives. It was suggested that consensus be gained for this. I posted here instead of article talk page in hopes of getting more discussion. 2601:249:9301:D570:F1A2:5799:7476:D3A3 (talk) 15:38, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree that unless the connection has a special significance (such as an inheritance that went direct from person to great-grandson in the case of Louis XIV), such remote connections are not important enough to feature in the lead. DrKay (talk) 15:49, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Agreed (and I think this is obvious). --JBL (talk) 19:05, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Family tree of Chinese monarchs (ancient)#Requested move 3 August 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Family tree of Chinese monarchs (ancient)#Requested move 3 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari Scribe 05:47, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Old/new calendar

I noticed there are some discrepancies with using old/new calendar for the Russian royalty/nobility (example Grand Duke Konstantin Pavlovich of Russia, where the birth/death date in the infobox were mixed: birth date > OLD calendar and death date > NEW calendar, it's now correct). What is the standard for this? I've been looking for a while but couldn't find any rule, if anyone could be nice to redirect me, I'd be happy to re-edit. Thanks Daphoenyx (talk) 00:01, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Pandukabhaya of Anuradhapura#Requested move 22 August 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Pandukabhaya of Anuradhapura#Requested move 22 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Векочел (talk) 21:59, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Original research dispute at Talk:Greek royal family#Original research

Someone is trying to prevent the removal of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH materials in Greek royal family and Prince Christian of Hanover without addressing the main concerns. They are trying to use sources that do not even mention the article subjects in question to make original conclusions about them. Editors are invited to contribute to the discussion at Talk:Greek royal family#Original research. StellarHalo (talk) 19:24, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Indeed it would be excellent to have more voices in this discussion about the best way to avoid WP:FRINGE content concerning people who are not royalty (despite being descendants of people who were), while also respecting other core policies. --JBL (talk) 19:26, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Category:Unassessed biography (royalty) articles

Would it be posible to rename this category to include (royalty and nobility) seeing as it belongs to this WikiProject? As it is, the names of these articles only include british peers and royalty. EmilySarah99 (talk) 08:35, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Any Holy Roman / Frederick Barbarossa fans around?

I've tagged a bunch of statements in Frederick Barbarossa's lead as either not being supported in/contradicting the body, not being verified in the body, or being absolutely ridiculous (one sentence says he was "almost superhuman" .......). Does anyone have the resources to be able to address the article's issues? See also Talk:Frederick Barbarossa#Problems with the lead. Ed  06:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Haakon Magnusson of Norway#Requested move 26 August 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Haakon Magnusson of Norway#Requested move 26 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Reading Beans 07:47, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Franz Joseph I of Austria#Requested move 29 August 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Franz Joseph I of Austria#Requested move 29 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Векочел (talk) 00:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

COIN discussion about royalty source being added

There is a COIN discussion that I just opened for a source that's being added to royalty and nobility articles. You can view the discussion here. Perspectives appreciated. CPR certified and forgetting it all (talk) 16:43, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Beatrice of Bavaria#Requested move 1 September 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Beatrice of Bavaria#Requested move 1 September 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Reading Beans 08:02, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Eric XI of Sweden#Requested move 31 August 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Eric XI of Sweden#Requested move 31 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Reading Beans 11:19, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson#Requested move 5 September 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson#Requested move 5 September 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. reading beans 01:21, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Legendary rulers of Wales comments

There is an ongoing discussion about a draft which will be published under Draft talk:List of legendary rulers of Wales. This is similar to lists to the fellow Celtic nations of Ireland, Scotland, Cornwall, and similar to the listing of the Kings of Britain, again similar to other legendary king lists from other nations. Could we get some consensus on the matter, or if anyone has experience on the topic, could you please join the talk ? Cltjames (talk) 21:00, 07 November 2024 (UTC)

Are these Americans "princes" or "princesses"?

I would appreciate input from more editors into these edits concerning various Americans with the surname Radziwill:

  • , ,
  • , ,
  • , ,

The question of whether any of these people wrote their name with the ł instead of a standard English l is also maybe interesting. (It is not necessary to point out that my edit summaries are not entirely civil, nor that I have now reverted twice; I'm not planning on directly engaging further.) Pinging Unfriendnow (the other involved editor). Thanks. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 21:08, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

The Radziwiłs, to quote their article arę "a Polish princely family of Lithuanian origin", though I'm not sure what the current legal status of their title is, as Poland is a republic. 98.228.137.44 (talk) 03:12, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
That article is almost entirely concerned with people and events of the 16th through 18th centuries (maybe a bit earlier). Our article Stanisław_Albrecht_Radziwiłł#Title (one of the ones Unfriendnow has been trying to pipe to add the word “Prince” instead of linking the article directly) says this: According to Debrett's, although known as Prince Radziwiłł in Britain, on becoming a British subject and in keeping with standard practice, Radziwiłł strictly needed permission from Queen Elizabeth II to use his princely title. The Radziwiłł family held the title Prince of the Holy Roman Empire since the early 16th century. However, noble titles were abolished in Poland and Austria. The other people are the American woman he was married to from 1959 to 1974, their son (b Switzerland 1959), and his wife (b USA 1963, m 1994). 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Would really appreciate additional input on the appropriateness of the edits in my OP. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:30, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Constance, Queen of Sicily#Requested move 1 November 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Constance, Queen of Sicily#Requested move 1 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Векочел (talk) 14:05, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Constance of Aragon#Requested move 5 November 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Constance of Aragon#Requested move 5 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:30, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Angevin kings of England

Angevin kings of England has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Borsoka (talk) 02:33, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Mashiding Lomandong

Could someone from this WikiProject take a look at Mashiding Lomandong and assess it per WP:BIO? Most of the sources cited in the article are to Facebook posts, and the creator might have a WP:COI. If, however, the subject is notable, those things could possibly be cleaned up or better sources could be found. I'm not sure whether this article would fall within the scope of this project, but the article claims this person is a "sultan" so perhaps it might. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:49, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Unknown Archon#Requested move 22 November 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Unknown Archon#Requested move 22 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Feeglgeef (talk) 02:59, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Eugenio Consolini

I'm not sure if this person was actually a count, and if so, that he was notable. Please find sources. Ping me if you need any help. Bearian (talk) 02:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Sweyn II of Denmark#Requested move 14 December 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Sweyn II of Denmark#Requested move 14 December 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Векочел (talk) 20:49, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Prince Gharios El Chemor of Ghassan Al-Numan VIII

I opened a discussion on the BLP noticeboard here regarding Prince Gharios El Chemor of Ghassan Al-Numan VIII. In July he had a BLP that was deleted. That was actually the second creation of the article (at least), but because the original editor of the latest article used a different title, it looked like it was the first. The first AfD has been blanked as a courtesy. I've opened the discusssion to see if those article titles can be salted. Just an FYI if you want to participate. --19:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC) Gym Samba (talk) 19:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Postnominal letters and infoboxes

See Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Biography#MOS:POSTNOM for discussion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Eystein I of Norway#Requested move 17 December 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Eystein I of Norway#Requested move 17 December 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Векочел (talk) 00:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Richard of Shrewsbury, Duke of York#Requested move 23 December 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Richard of Shrewsbury, Duke of York#Requested move 23 December 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Векочел (talk) 03:20, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Have we got lists of reliable and unreliable websites for genealogical research?

Asking because I'm looking at several articles about noble families, which often have poor sourcing, such as WP:SELFPUB blogs or WP:USERGENERATED websites which reject all responsibility for accuracy of information, while other websites appear to be quite reliable and useful for us. It probably won't be worth it to take every single case to WP:RSP, because writing about noble families is usually limited to this WikiProject. So, have we got a list of reliable and unreliable websites for genealogical research? If so, where can I see it? If not, should we make one? It makes checking the quality of sources for a large set of articles a lot easier. NLeeuw (talk) 19:26, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I guess I'm gonna start building up these lists until I get a response, or find lists if there are any. I'll go through both the archives of the Reliable Source Noticeboard and the WikiProject Royalty and Nobility for the term "genealogical websites" and variations thereof. Once we have lists of reliable and unreliable websites, we no longer need to reinvent the wheel by assessing whether source A is reliable for article B, but whether source A can be used on enwiki at all, and if so, to be used in multiple other articles that could use some improvements, or if not, require a purge. This may start off as mostly a note-to-self, but this is relevant for everyone working in this content area, and some previous decisions and assessments already apply right now, and have already been implemented over the years, particularly those of WP:RSP. NLeeuw (talk) 10:42, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Genealogical websites listed at WP:RSP

  Deprecated Deprecated
  • Peerage websites (self-published)
  Generally unreliable Generally unreliable   Generally reliable Generally reliable in its areas of expertise
NLeeuw (talk) 11:00, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Genealogical websites discussed in the Reliable Sources Noticeboard archives

http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/ is currently used in 360 times in enwiki pages, 172 of which are Talk: pages (including 37 User talk: pages), 125 are User: pages (excluding User talk: pages), 54 are Misplaced Pages: pages (Articles for creation, Articles for deletion, RSN, Reference desk, WikiProjects, Featured article candidates, Good article reassessment, Redirects for discussion), 1 Draft: page, 1 MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/May 2019, 2 Portals, and apparently only 5 mainspace article links: Boniface I, Margrave of Tuscany (once) and House of Astarac (4 times). Except for those last 5, there doesn't seem to be a big issue with the http URL of MedLands. However, the https://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/ URL of MedLands is currently used 111 times in enwiki pages, 66 of which are Talk: pages (including 6 User talk: pages), 12 are User: pages (excluding User talk: pages), 4 Misplaced Pages: pages (excluding 1 Misplaced Pages talk: page), and..... the other 29 pages appear to be URLs in mainspace articles, most of them probably recently added by User:Vittoriobr (who has already been notified below). NLeeuw (talk) 05:09, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Reliability of Russia Beyond (the Headlines)

Russia Beyond has been discussed on relatively few occasions at RSN so far, but in each case it has been rated negatively in various degrees:

It is somewhat surprising it has not been evaluated more often and more critically, as it is currently used in 1,535 enwiki articles. I have mostly seen Russia Beyond used as a source in history articles, where it pushes a Russian nationalist narrative,, e.g. about how this or that battle was "the day the Russian nation was born". For genealogical issues, it usually engages in the favourite pastime of claiming that this or that person or family was definitely and unmistakably descended from Rurik himself. That may impress the average reader, but serious genealogists and historians know that this is usually nonsense, or at least a fatuous assertion, which pretty much every Russian aristocrat has made since the 16th century. They have so little editorial review that readers had to correct them that one of the people the author highlighted as a "Rurikid" wasn't actually one: Our readers pointed out our mistake: Feodor Koshka wasn't a Rurikid at all. It's just a little example of how Russia Beyond is just as unreliable as its operator, Russia Today. It's not just a pro-Kremlin publication, it is a Kremlin-owned publication, that publishes narratives as a form of entertainment (rather than reliable information) in order to make Russia look good in the eyes of foreigners. The original title, Russia Beyond the Headlines, shows this original goal: because Russia often featured negatively in news headlines, they sought to paint a more positive picture of Russia that supposedly went "beyond the headlines". The resulting output should not be surprising: Russia Beyond#Reception states: In 2007 and 2014, former Slate journalist Jack Shafer and The Guardian commentator Roy Greenslade respectively accused Russia Beyond of being propaganda.
Just like its state-owned parent Russia Today, we should probably deprecate Russia Beyond. NLeeuw (talk) 02:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

genealogy.eu

genealogy.eu / genealogy.euweb.cz has been discussed many times before:

I have also been through the articles that use "Marek, Miroslav. "A listing of the House of Orléans". Genealogy.EU. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)" as a cited source marking them in a similar way. The problem with that source is that Marek does not cite his sources. PBS (talk) 09:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
...1,132 pages link to genealogy.euweb.cz The first page returned is List of princes of Austria-Hungary 21 out of 28 citations (and another page or which I ran AWB), in this case I don't think Miroslav Marek cites any sources. You see the problem is lots of people like to create ancestry trees and articles about nobility the content of which is mainly about who married whom (dynastic pedigree was and probably is still important and if often helps to explain otherwise odd political behaviour, both at the local as well as the national level -- so it can't be dismissed as totally trivial), and it is easy to do if you use this sort of site. Deleting them is impractical at a Misplaced Pages political level (apart from anything else if one try it one will be accused of being anti-feminist as in prior centuries European female aristocracy are only notable by who they married and as baby machines, so deleting information in Misplaced Pages articles from these sites affects articles on females more than males).... PBS (talk) 22:54, 13 August 2014 (UTC) (I gotta say that I partially agree with PBS; we do need better representation of women and women's history; I'm a Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Women in Red member myself. On the other hand, "no information is better than false information"; that's a rule somewhere as well, right? NLeeuw (talk) 20:33, 28 December 2024 (UTC))
I do not think http://genealogy.euweb.cz/ is a reliable source. Does anyone think that it is and if so how does it meet the requirements of WP:V? PBS (talk) 19:05, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
There are far too many of these genealogical websites being using in articles. It seems that biographies historical minor nobles of European Continental countries are particularly susceptible to having citations linked to these types of sites. PBS (talk) 21:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
there is a far larger problem with the use of sites that do not cite their sources -- neither of you addressed my question about insource:/Rayment/ (used in 11,273 articles) -- there are others, most of them are used as citations to support little known (to English readers) continental European nobility eg insource:/roglo.eu/ (88); insource:/genealogy.euweb.cz/ (1,196); insource:/genealogics.org/ (460) and for UK and Irish biographies insource:/www.tudorplace.com.ar/ (381). I would suggest that if you want to help the project cleaning up citations to any of these sites that do not cite any sources would be time better spent than worrying about Lundy where he cites reliable sources. -- PBS (talk) 12:01, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
These seem very dodgy: (...) genealogy.euweb.cz - pretty confident this was rejected ages ago as user-generated, I will search in a minute... Guy 18:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
genealogy.euweb.cz is self published unreliable (..) Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
(once again PBS pointing out that genealogy.euweb.cz is not reliable, and suggesting a way to "first tag them and then bag them".)
I think it is evidently WP:SELFPUB and should be deprecated. NLeeuw (talk) 11:00, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
It is currently used in 1,206 (!) enwiki articles – holy *peep*! Deprecating and replacing genealogy.eu should be a priority for us. NLeeuw (talk) 02:00, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
All this time for the past 12 years, PBS has been pointing out it is an unreliable source, and it seems that others have started to agree since June 2020. But it has still not been deprecated or discouraged. Instead, the number of enwiki articles which use genealogy.eu has only grown from 1,132 to 1,206 in 10 years. I think that, just like with Cawley's MedLands, we need to finally make a decision to remove Miroslav's genealogy.eu as an unreliable source that should not be used anymore, anywhere, anywhen. Because this problem will not go away if we continue to ignore it for another 12 years. NLeeuw (talk) 20:49, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Hey @ActivelyDisinterested, thanks for your advice below! Do you think this summary here above would suffice to make a case for deprecation at an RSN RfC? If so, would you support it? NLeeuw (talk) 22:08, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Maybe a discussion to deprecate these and similar sources. MedLands isn't deprecated and just keep getting added back, as does geni.com and the self-published peerage sites. Maybe all the genealogy sources that are already known to be unreliable, but keep getting used could be done in a single RFC. There's precedent for adding an unreliable source to the deprecation list because of persistent usage, see WP: Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 453#RfC: Universe Guide for instance. Mass RFC's can be unwelcome sometimes, but the other option (holding different RFCs for the same reason for each source) is worse. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:51, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Maybe finish working here, and then take a completed case of unreliable sources that keep getting reused to RSN for deprecation. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:52, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, I appreciate that advice very much! If you or anyone else has more input or could help me assess the sources I have been listing here, that would be wonderful. I haven't got much experience with RfCs, but I do want to address all these unreliable genealogical websites properly for once (if not for all), and you have been a great help so far, just like when we tackled MedLands last time. The precedent certainly helps as well. NLeeuw (talk) 23:37, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
@ActivelyDisinterested How about....
The following genealogy sources are currently considered Generally unreliable at WP:RSP (A to E), or in repeated inquiries at WP:RSN (F and G):
  • A: Ancestry.com
  • B: FamilySearch
  • C: Find a Grave
  • D: Findmypast
  • E: Geni.com
  • F: fmg.ac Foundation for Medieval Genealogy a.k.a. Medieval Lands / MedLands by Charles Cawley
  • G: genealogy.eu / genealogy.euweb.cz
Long after being listed / labelled generally unreliable, these unreliable sources are still being (re-)added to hundreds to tens of thousands of articles.
They should be:
(Voting format: + , e.g.
Option 2: Deprecate ALL; or
Option 2: Deprecate A, B, C, D, E; Option 1: list F, G as Generally unreliable.)
----
Would something like this work, or am I making it too complicated? Not even sure if we can make Purging a voting option, but it is what we did last time with MedLands. I would appreciate your advice. NLeeuw (talk) 18:11, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
PS: I'm restricting the proposal to these 7 sources for now, as they seem to be statistically the most problematic, and have also been most widely discussed. We can assess the rest later. NLeeuw (talk) 18:12, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
I would suggest removing Ancestry.com, and maybe all of the first four. I know Ancestry.com holds primary documents, which are considered semi-reliable even if most of the site isn't. I think (maybe) that the other three are in a similar situation. That could muddy the issue, and derail the RFC.
Drop fmg.ac Foundation for Medieval Genealogy a.k.a. from 'f'. The Foundation for Medieval Genealogy is a possibly reliable source that hosts MedLands, they're not the same thing. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
RfC concept text
The following genealogy sources are currently considered Generally unreliable at WP:RSP (A), or in repeated inquiries at WP:RSN (B and C):
  • A: Geni.com
  • B: Medieval Lands / MedLands by Charles Cawley
  • C: genealogy.eu / genealogy.euweb.cz by Marek Miroslav
Long after being listed / labelled generally unreliable, these unreliable sources are still being (re-)added to hundreds to tens of thousands of articles.
They should be:
(Voting format: + , for example
Option 2: Deprecate ALL; or
Option 2: Deprecate A; Option 1: list B and C as Generally unreliable.)
@ActivelyDisinterested Okay, would this work as an RfC? NLeeuw (talk) 03:41, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
I would drop all mention of fmg, "MedLands by Charles Cawley" is clear enough. Otherwise I think it looks OK. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:07, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
PS: I may be misunderstanding what "purging" means. What we did in May 2023 was deleting a template that used MedLands as a standardised reference in 576 articles: Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 May 25#Template:Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley. I thought we had tasked a bot to remove the remaining 123 URLs, but I can't find back where I requested that. NLeeuw (talk) 04:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
I run the search and remove them every few weeks. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:05, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
@ActivelyDisinterested Best wishes for 2025! Okay, I've removed mention of 'fmg'. I suppose Option 4 is not necessary for the RfC? At least WP:PURGE is about refreshing any page to update it to reflect more complex recent changes; it does not describe the process of removing URLs from Misplaced Pages:Deprecated sources (what I've been calling "purging"; at WP:CFD, it means removing a group of articles and subcategories from a category where they don't belong, but that's yet another process). Misplaced Pages:Deprecated sources#Acceptable uses of deprecated sources states: Deprecation is not a blanket retroactive "ban" on using the source in absolutely every situation (...) Citations to deprecated sources should not be removed indiscriminately, and each case should be reviewed separately. Even if we vote to WP:BLACKLIST a source, that only means new URLs to it cannot be added, but does not mean old ones will automatically be removed. So I guess removing deprecated sources should be some sort of follow-up discussion and process if the RfC to deprecate these sources is successful. I shouldn't rush that step, so Option 4 should not be up for a vote at this stage. Agreed? NLeeuw (talk) 09:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Removing or replacing unreliable references is commonly overlooked. Nothing about any RFC magically removes anything, editors need to go through the articles and do the work. Blacklisting in particular shouldn't happen until links have been removed, see point 3 of 'Instructions for admins' in MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:21, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
That's good to know. Then I think I'm ready to launch the RfC. NLeeuw (talk) 23:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Filed: Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Geni.com, MedLands, genealogy.eu. Participation welcomed and encouraged. NLeeuw (talk) 23:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Genealogical websites discussed in the WikiProject Royalty and Nobility talk archives

  • ...
NLeeuw (talk) 11:00, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Genealogical websites not yet assessed

Examples (I'm currently mostly working on Russia noble families, but it could be about anywhere, so this list is not representative):

Seems WP:RS

About Rulex

Настоящая биографическая или тематическая статья является электронной, адаптированной к современному русскому языку версией статьи, из 86-томного Энциклопедического Словаря Брокгауза и Ефрона (1890—1907 гг.) или Нового Энциклопедического Словаря (1910—1916 гг.). Тексты всех статей оставлены неизменными. This biographical or thematic article is an electronic version of an article from the 86-volume Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary (1890-1907) or the New Encyclopedic Dictionary (1910-1916), adapted to the modern Russian language. The texts of all articles are left unchanged.

Seems WP:SELFPUB, WP:USERGENERATED or having other issues

Adelsvapens genealogi Wiki

I en Wiki får alla vara med och bidra med sina kunskaper och det är både lätt och roligt. Vår förhoppning är att många ska skriva information från sin egen släktforskning så att vi tillsammans kan komplettera traditionella källor. (...) Till varje sida finns det en diskussionssida där man kan skriva om man finner tveksamma uppgifter i en artikel och kanske inte vill ändra i direkt artikeln.
In a Wiki, everyone gets to join in and contribute their knowledge, and it's both easy and fun. Our hope is that many people will write information from their own genealogy so that together we can supplement traditional sources. (...) For each page, there is a discussion page where you can write if you find questionable information in an article and perhaps do not want to change the article directly. There you can also write questions and thoughts about the article.}

About vgd.ru.

Внимание! Базу составляют информация из открытой печати и сведения, сообщенные нам посетителями. База не может служить юридическим доказательством родственных связей, но является основой для дальнейших исследований, вспомогательным материалом. Именно поэтому здесь часто не указаны источники информации - в настоящем генеалогическом исследовании каждое слово подтверждается архивными справками, вам все равно придется обращаться в архивы или к профессиональным генеалогам. Если хотите добавить известную Вам информацию, пообщаться на форуме, отправляйтесь в соответствующую часть сайта, чтобы сообщить об обнаруженных ошибках или убрать сведения о себе, пишите на странице обратной связи или напишите ведущей сайта
Attention! The database consists of information from the open press and information provided to us by visitors. The database cannot serve as legal evidence of family ties, but is the basis for further research, auxiliary material. This is why sources of information are often not indicated here - in a real genealogical study, every word is confirmed by archival certificates, you will still have to contact the archives or professional genealogists. If you want to add information you know, communicate on the forum, go to the appropriate part of the site to report errors or remove information about yourself, write on the feedback page or write to the site host

2005 Researchgate.net review of genealogia.ru

The basic view in the application under consideration is a tabular representation of one generation (family) with the possibility to move to older generations (parents) and younger generations (children). On the base view you can enter, change and delete any information about persons, events in their life, some properties. To build some diagrams (genealogical trees) you need to use special functions hidden in the main menu of the application. The diagrams themselves can be both viewed and printed. In general, the programme is a functional minimum for those who are just starting to conduct their genealogical research. In the future, when moving to more advanced genealogical applications, you can use the function of exporting the database to the unified genealogical GEDCOM format, which is understood by all major programmes on the genealogy market. Together with the programme itself a small help file is distributed, in which you can get initial information about the functionality of the programme, its features and conditions of use. The Genealogy programme is conditionally free. The free version has a limitation - you can store no more than 30 persons in the database. If you buy a licence, this limitation is removed. The cost of the licence is 599 p. The terms and procedure of payment are given on the developer's site.

In a 23 March 2015 review, S.D. Kotelnikov wrote: Сайт Генеалогия.ру (http://www.genealogia.ru) Хороший был в свое время проект Константина Погорелого, но зачах. The site Genealogy.ru (http://www.genealogia.ru) Konstantin Pogorely's project was good in its time, but it has languished. He goes on to lament the commercialisation of genealogy websites, but not necessarily their reliability. NLeeuw (talk) 21:20, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
  • svenskadel.nu deadlink. https://www.svenskadel.se/ appears to be a WP:SELFPUB site dedicated to document all Swedish noble families, including those not registered at the Riddarhuset. This register covers all genera or, more correctly, has the ambition to present all genera. It does not cite any sources at all. I don't know how often it is used (search can't find anything), but I saw it at least once for a Russian noble family article. NLeeuw (talk) 21:29, 28 December 2024 (UTC) Correction: Used in 2 enwiki articles atm. NLeeuw (talk) 00:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Feb-web.ru ? The Fundamental Electronic Library “Russian Literature and Folklore” (FEB) is a network multifunctional information system that accumulates information of various types (text, sound, visual, etc.) in the field of Russian literature of the 11th-20th centuries and Russian folklore, as well as the history of Russian philology and folklore studies. It is a project of the Russian Academy of Sciences. The About page seems to stipulate quite high standards of scientific and scholarly quality, accuracy, correct reproduction of original texts, completeness, and "Compliance with the modern scientific level". On the other hand, it has hundreds of authors, and seems to be set up as a WP:USERGENERATED wiki. I don't know. It might be similar to Adelsvapen or Nupedia in the sense that it requires authors to be or behave like experts and use only highly reliable sources, but it is still usergenerated. Feb-web.ru is currently used in about 70 enwiki articles. I think this might be case-by-case WP:MREL. NLeeuw (talk) 21:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Unassessed

  • russianfamily.ru expired domain name, used in 5 enwiki articles.
  • russiannobility.org Russian Nobility Association in America. WP:USERGENERATED? used in 27 enwiki articles
  • russiarevisited.com expired domain name. (only in Anrep (noble family)).
  • oldkiev.info expired domain name. used in at least 4 enwiki articles but I've also seen it in a Russian noble family page.
  • vybor.gorod.dn.ua deadlink (only in Tereshchenko family)
  • liveuamap.com useful for military OSINT, but probably not very useful for genealogical research
  • peoples.ru/about Although content is apparently submitted by project users (Проект Люди является общедоступным, и наполняемым пользователями проекта), it does have some editorial review / control. Might be reliable case-by-case.
  • ...

NLeeuw (talk) 19:26, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I'll comment on the ones from Sweden:
There is also the older Svenska adelns ättartaflor, by Gabriel Anrep, which should be avoided, as it contains family traditions of dubious value.
Andejons (talk) 21:33, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
@Andejons Thanks for this contribution! So I suppose that Adelsvapen wiki is based on Den introducerade svenska adelns ättartavlor, but users are allowed to add their own genealogy and other contents in a collaborate manner just like Misplaced Pages? I guess that would mean we still shouldn't use Adelsvapen wiki as a source, but go straight to the original text of Elgenstierna (if we can find it), as that can be relied on? The usergenerated expanded online version of it just cannot be trusted as much. It seems much like the WP:BRITANNICA situation; a digitised version of a printed original that has been updated and expanded, but editorial control over this new online version may not be as rigorous. NLeeuw (talk) 21:48, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
One that still gets used in MedLands, discussedany times and isn't reliable. Commonly used for offspring and spouses, as MedLands has a very bad habit of linking anything with the same name. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:22, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
@ActivelyDisinterested Hey, didn't you and I and some others deprecate MedLands 1.5 years ago at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 405#fmg.ac (Foundation for Medieval Genealogy)? I do see that most access-dates in your search result are between 2024-09-30 and 2024-10-22, so these are probably recent re-introductions of MedLands into enwiki, apparently all by the same new User:Vittoriobr who joined enwiki in late 2023, so a few months after we removed all those refs to MedLands in May 2023. For the record Vittoriobr: we appreciate your contributions, but fmg.ac (Foundation for Medieval Genealogy), alias Medieval Lands (MedLands) by Charles Cawley, is not a reliable source. We should not be using it anymore, but seek to replace it with a better source. As a relatively new user, you might not have known that, so we're explaining that to you now. :) NLeeuw (talk) 01:47, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
I don't know how exactly adelsvapenwiki works, but my impression is that they usually don't change the text of Elgenstierna more than some editorial modernisations. I would suggest replacing with Elgenstierna when possible, but deprecating it should probably not be the first priority. I've certainly seen far worse.
Andejons (talk) 08:34, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
I agree. Currently I am thinking that Adelsvapen doesn't have to be WP:DEPRECATED (it can't be, this is the first time it is discussed and it is not that unreliable), but should be considered WP:UGC, as ActivelyDisinterested also said at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Adelsvapen.com. It is recommended to be replaced by a better source, but in non-BLP articles, that would have no urgency. Although I could also see a case-by-case WP:MREL classification, I think this would put it in the WP:GUNREL group.
I think the question whether genealogy.eu / genealogy.euweb.cz should be deprecated is far more relevant right now. Not sure if I should make that a separate section here or at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Adelsvapen.com? We should probably keep discussion centralised, but I don't know which place is best. @ActivelyDisinterested where can we best discuss genealogy.eu / genealogy.euweb.cz? NLeeuw (talk) 20:04, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Both genealogy.eu and genealogy.euweb.cz have been discussed on RSN before, I don't think either were considered reliable. If you wanted them to be formally WP:DEPRECATED, as in having them added to the edit filter etc, then that will require a discussion on RSN and probably an RFC. If you just want to list them here as "Should never be used", then I don't see why you couldn't have the discussion here. Deprecation is a formal procedure, but in most cases there's no need to do it.
Projects can maintain source lists (and I would encourage them to do so), but they can't do so against the general consensus of the community (basically the advice from WP:LOCALCONSENSUS). So as long as your list takes into account prior discussions you don't need RSN, if you disagree with prior discussions or want some additional input RSN is always available. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:37, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks very much! I've made an elaborate summary above at #genealogy.eu, I'll tag you there. NLeeuw (talk) 22:06, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Oh, I indeed didn't know about that. I thought it was a reliable source, since it had its own references for the informations it gave. What's the best course of action now? Vittoriobr (talk) 11:51, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
It's okay, we are going to find a solution. Probably removing them all after establishing consensus. NLeeuw (talk) 17:34, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Regarding the Finnish sources:
  • The website https://www.ritarihuone.fi contains only a little information about the families, but I would expect it to be reliable, since they also publish research on the families. The publications are probably more useful than the website.
  • Kansallisbiografia is generally reliable. The articles are usually written by historians specializing on the period in question. At worst, the articles are directly based on Svenskt Biografiskt Lexikon, adding nothing to them, but even this is quite rare. The site is behind the paywall, but the bios can be accessed for free through https://www.biografiasampo.fi
Jähmefyysikko (talk) 08:57, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice! NLeeuw (talk) 19:51, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
For those interested, I've got a running list of non-RS genealogy/royalty refs here that includes links to current use/my removal efforts on Misplaced Pages. Anything that doesn't have a strikethrough has citations that still need to be deleted/replaced. JoelleJay (talk) 00:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
That seems quite helpful! I'll have a more in-depth look tomorrow. NLeeuw (talk) 00:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
PS: What does the insource: part do exactly when you make a search query within enwiki? I notice I can find 2 results for insource: svenskadel.nu, but 0 results for just svenskadel.nu, so it definitely does something useful. Edit: Usually insource: seems to work a bit better than without, as it yields more results, but in a few cases it seems better not to use insource:. I don't know why. NLeeuw (talk) 00:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
"insource" searches through the source text (what you see when editing a page if you don't use the Visual Editor), so it catches items in, e.g., templates or URLs that would normally be invisible on the rendered page. JoelleJay (talk) 02:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks! By the way, how do I look for articles containing ancestry.com? I'm getting a lot of false positives, such as Andy's Ancestry and Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry, which do not contain this phrase, even though I'm using insource: ancestry.com and Exactly this text: ancestry.com: query. Am I doing something wrong? NLeeuw (talk) 03:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Never mind, I found that I could use External link search here: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:LinkSearch&limit=5000&offset=10000&target=http%3A%2F%2Fancestry.com This shows it is currently used in 14,509 pages, but that includes talk pages, user pages etc. and not just the mainspace. In fact, the majority of results appears to be from the Talk, User talk, or User spaces. So it's not as bad as 20,000 mainspace articles as I initially thought. Plus, ActivelyDisinterested indicated that Ancestry.com may be semi-reliable when it is using primary sources. NLeeuw (talk) 04:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
The search is reading the period as greyspace, i.e. a space; enclosing everything in quotes should fix that. JoelleJay (talk) 21:16, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Ah, thanks! NLeeuw (talk) 01:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

New Articles for Deletion discussions

Update: as expected, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Khilkov resulted in a delete of Khilkov. I had already prepared 6 follow-ups, which I have now filed:

  1. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/House of Lobanov-Rostovsky
  2. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Obolensky
  3. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Romodanovsky family
  4. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Shuvalov
  5. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Van der Bellen family
  6. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Vorontsov

These are all so similar that I used pretty much the same rationale for all (in some cases they were not wholly unsourced, but just very badly sourced): Follow-up to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Khilkov (recently unanimously deleted). WP:UNSOURCED WP:OR, fails WP:GNG. Rule of thumb: if a Russian noble family claims descent from Rurik without a source, that's a red flag. (No objection to keeping family]] for now; this "article" just adds nothing of value). Sorting: Biographical; Lists of people, Royalty and nobility, Russia.

You are all welcome to participate in these AfDs if you're interested. I'll hasten to add that these articles are the worst of the worst; all other articles I have examined so far in Category:Russian noble families have somewhat better sourcing and seem salvageable. Some of them (House of Golitsyn, Koskull family, Razumovsky, Shuysky, and Stroganov family) clearly pass WP:GNG, but do require a cleanup. But it may be that more articles will later end up at AfD if they do not meet some basic standards, and if sources they are currently based on turn out to be unreliable. I would say that House of Suvorov is the best article I have found so far, that could serve as an example to be followed by all others in this category. Establishing which kind of genealogical sources are reliable for royalty and nobility in general, and Russia and adjacent (former and current) states in particular, which we have been doing above, will hopefully greatly help in this process. Best wishes for 2025 everyone! NLeeuw (talk) 11:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Eric XIV of Sweden#Requested move 18 December 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Eric XIV of Sweden#Requested move 18 December 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Векочел (talk) 04:26, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Eric I, Duke of Mecklenburg#Requested move 3 January 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Eric I, Duke of Mecklenburg#Requested move 3 January 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 10:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Modern images of early medieval rulers in infobox or article

Please see the discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Modern images of early medieval rulers in infobox or article. Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Françoise-Athénaïs de Rochechouart, Marquise de Montespan#Requested move 27 December 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Françoise-Athénaïs de Rochechouart, Marquise de Montespan#Requested move 27 December 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —usernamekiran (talk) 04:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Categories: