Template talk:Hanoverian princes

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject iconGermany Template‑class
WikiProject iconThis template is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
TemplateThis template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
WikiProject iconLower Saxony NA‑class (inactive)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Lower Saxony, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Lower SaxonyWikipedia:WikiProject Lower SaxonyTemplate:WikiProject Lower SaxonyLower Saxony articles
NAThis article has been rated as NA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Disambiguation

Prince George William of Hanover and Prince Christian of Hanover are disambiguation pages. Which Prince George William, and which Prince Christian did you intend to list? Or did you mean to list all five: Prince George William of Hanover (1880–1912), Prince George William of Hanover (1915–2006), Prince Christian of Hanover (1885–1901), Prince Christian Oscar of Hanover, and Prince Christian of Hanover (b. 1985)? Art LaPella (talk) 01:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved
 – Art LaPella (talk) 17:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Red links

Why are non-notable members being added back to the template? Several of these people were recently determined by consensus to not be notable enough for their own pages; therefore they should not have red links (which suggest that they would or could likely meet GNG criteria) and the WP:EXISTING exception cited in the edit summary to support re-addition cannot apply. The cited article also specifically says Unlinked text should be avoided, with the only potential exception being In navigation boxes about musical ensembles, it may be appropriate to list all of the members of the ensemble, to avoid the perception that the ensemble is a solo act, provided that at least one member of the ensemble is notable. A dynamic genealogical list clearly doesn't meet that criterion, and the presence of the Hanoverian princes list makes it even more unnecessary to include unlinked entries in the navigation template.

Additionally, even if everyone currently could be notable enough to be red linked, and while the members are complete right now, this template still wouldn't match the exception examples given in EXISTING. Listing all the subdivisions of a geographic area makes sense because a) all the locations have the potential to become (more) notable over time; b) there are RS that have the same list in the same context; c) one can reasonably expect any future changes in the subdivisions to be reliably covered and sources updated accordingly. Likewise, the filmography of a particular notable director is temporally limited, any non-notable films they direct will still be sourceable because they were made by a notable person, and the films themselves have the potential to become notable even after the director's death. For the descendants of a defunct royal house, there can be no assumption that each past and future member has/will have sufficient coverage or any coverage at all. This leads to a situation where the number of entries increases indefinitely but also becomes more incomplete and less notable (see prior versions of the Austrian archduchesses navbox, where something like 85% of the entries were unlinked); such a format is clearly incompatible with the purpose of a navbox. JoelleJay (talk) 21:14, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The examples listed at EXISTING are examples, not an exhaustive list. Until recently the unlinked entries had articles for many years, indicating that they were once notable enough for an article and may be so again. DrKay (talk) 06:25, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They are examples with fairly distinctive properties that permit red link inclusion; Hanoverian princes and all the other royalty templates clearly do not have the same properties. Regardless, per the red link guidelines, Red links should not be made to deleted articles unless the reason for the deletion of the article was not due to a lack of notability or the topic not being encyclopedic in another way. The deleted articles were all decidedly non-notable and therefore the EXISTING exception for red links does not apply. The other unlinked entries are and always have been inappropriate to include in navboxes. JoelleJay (talk) 21:55, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think they meet the criteria outlined. DrKay (talk) 22:45, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What about the unlinked entries?
Given that the articles were deleted, it seems unlikely that they will be recreated soon.
For what it's worth, those individuals with recently delated articles are linked, albeit not through red links, on Template:British princes. Is this valid? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.110.217.186 (talk) 00:29, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever is decided, I believe it should be consistent amongst all templates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.110.217.186 (talk) 17:44, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are also red linked entries on Template:Hanoverian princesses by marriage.

Princes without Kingdom

Since Prussia anexed Hanover in 1866, there is no Kingdom of Hanover anymore. Without a Kingdom of Hanover, how can there be Princes of the Kingdom of Hanover?

I am aware, that an WP:bold removal of all born after 1866 will cause some discussion. Therfore I want to give notice that I intend to remove them, in hope of reaching consensus before the edit. -- Theoreticalmawi (talk) 20:26, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well for a start, Brunswick was a monarchy until 1918. Secondly, it's not up to us to decide. We go by reliable sources, and reliable sources still list the later generations among Hanoverian princes. DrKay (talk) 21:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Brunswick was never "hanoverian" in any way. The Duchy of Brunswick was rooted in the Principality of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, a junior branch devision of this Prinipalty later became the kingdom of Hanover.
For the second point: Can you list such sources? I am not aware of any, the template has of course no sources and the corresponding main article is completly unsourced since it creation. When such sources are added to the article, there is no need for a removal. -- Theoreticalmawi (talk) 21:40, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of whether they are to be kept or removed, I think we should keep it consistent with other templates for princes of monarchies that are now abolished (i.e Template:Bavarian princes, Template:Princes of Parma, Template:Russian princes, etc.) 98.228.137.44 (talk) 02:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the moment, I will cite Lines of Succession (20021999) by Michael Maclagan and Jiří Louda, pp. 195–198 for all generations and Burke's Royal Families of the World (1977) volume I, pp. 162–170 and 200–201, and L'Allemagne Dynastique (1981), volume III, for generations 1-6. DrKay (talk) 07:23, 28 April 2024 (UTC) Amended 14:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would ask you to be more careful with your sources. Regarding Lines of Succession, I assume you mean either the 1999 edition, pp. 195-198, or the 2002 edition, pp. 165-168. The 2002 edition pp. 195-198 does not cover any claim in this table. Also, Lines of Sucession (both editions) only lists Ernest Augustus, Duke of Brunswick and Prince Ernest Augustus of Hanover (born 1914) as "Prince of Hanover" for those from generation 4+.
Would you like to revise your sources before I do? Please don't claim that a source verifies information when it doesn't. I hope you agree that disproving WP:HOAXES that you deliberately create is a waste of time. --Theoreticalmawi (talk) 13:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Assumptions of bad faith are uncivil. I'm content with these sources for now. There are of course dozens for each, as shown at the talk pages of those articles and simple web searches. DrKay (talk) 14:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise if I gave you the impression that I was implying bad faith. This was not my intention. However, I note that you still claim that Lines of Sucession verifies all generations, while it still only verifies those two individuals. I have the other two books not readily available, but I hope you understand, that I am highly sceptical whether those really verify the claimed titles after the experience with this first source.
There is also a difference between being called "Prince X of Z" and being a "Prince of Z". We wouldn't include Prince into a hypothetical List of Princes just because he is named Prince. And we wouldn't include Earl Barrett in a list of english Earls even though he is obvoiusly an english Earl. The burden of proof that one individual is in fact a prince is clearly higher than the simple proof that a individual is called a prince.
EDIT: An even better example is Marcus Prinz von Anhalt not beeing in the Category:Princes of Anhalt. --Theoreticalmawi (talk) 15:25, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DrKay I have now checked Burke's Royal Families of the World (1977) and I have to note:
1.) From reading the introduction it is clear that this source is heavily WP:BIASED towards the monarchist cause.
2.) pp. 200-201 are about the Ducal House of Brunswick. I have already explained that the House of Hanover is a branch of the House of Brunswick, not the other way round. None of these people are in the template!
3.) Again, the only individuals from this template who are labelled as Prince of Hanover in generations 4+ are Ernest Augustus, Duke of Brunswick and Prince Ernest Augustus of Hanover (born 1914).
So if we count it as a reliable source on behalf of European royal/noble titles, it still only verifies 2 out of 8.
This leads me to the conclusion that at least 6 out of 8 lack WP:VERIFIABILITY. --Theoreticalmawi (talk) 14:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a reliable source and it supports Ernst August born 1954 as a prince of Hanover. I note on the other hand, you've provided no sources saying he's not. DrKay (talk) 14:50, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is reliable in the matter of genealogy, but I question its reliability on behalf of European royal/noble titles. To cite WP:VERIFIABILITY: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material". The list of hanoverian princes would be very long, if we add any individual where no reliable source states "He is not a prince of Hanover". I assume that would make you and me hanoverian princes.
However, there is at least one source claiming Ernst August is no prince: Welt: So wurde der Adel in Deutschland abgeschafft (Translation, deepl: How the nobility was abolished in Germany) stating in the first paragraph:
Die Titel und Namen klingen einfach gut. Prinz William, Prinzessin Victoria, Fürstin Gloria oder Prinz Ernst August. In der Reihe gibt es aber zwei Fehler. Während William und Victoria in ihren Ländern Großbritannien und Schweden tatsächlich Prinz und Prinzessin sind und dem Hochadel angehören, gilt das für Gloria von Thurn und Taxis und Ernst August von Hannover keineswegs. Weder sind sie eine echte Fürstin beziehungsweise ein echter Prinz. Noch sind sie im strengen Sinn überhaupt Adlige.
Translation, deepl: The titles and names just sound good. Prince William, Princess Victoria, Princess Gloria or Prince Ernst August. But there are two mistakes in the series. While William and Victoria are indeed Prince and Princess in their countries of Great Britain and Sweden and belong to the high nobility, this is by no means the case for Gloria von Thurn und Taxis and Ernst August von Hannover. They are neither a real princess nor a real prince. Nor are they aristocrats in the strict sense of the word.
Additional sources for example: Article 109, Weimarer Reichsverfassung(1919); Gesetz über die Aufhebung der Standesvorrechte des Adels und die Auflösung der Hausvermögen (1920); Vom König zum Führer(2003) p. 202. --Theoreticalmawi (talk) 15:43, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are no sources saying you're a prince of Hanover, so we can't claim on wikipedia that you are one. You appear to have misunderstood NPOV. You can add a footnote to this template, as is done on other such templates, to mark titles of pretense. But you cannot remove entries when those entries are held valid by other reputable sources. If sources say they are princes, then they are included on the template and in the category. The detail of the debate can be explained, but when sources disagree we don't select one over the other, unless one view is by far the majority view. DrKay (talk) 16:31, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, to conclude:
For Generation 1-3: valid sources, no change.
For Generation 4+:
6 out of 8: No valid source to verify the claim they are princes of Hanover. Therfore they should be removed.
2 out of 8: Valid sources that claim they are Princes of Hanover and valid sources that claim they aren't. Therefore presenting both sides proportionatly.
Thank you for your valuable input to this debate, I will implement this later. Based on consistency this should also be applied to other templates as mentioned by the unregistered user above. --Theoreticalmawi (talk) 17:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is not the conclusion. Do not disrupt wikipedia to make a point or right great wrongs. DrKay (talk) 18:41, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Template_talk:Hanoverian_princes"