This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited tojoin the project andcontribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to thedocumentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of theUnited Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofGreece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreece
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Denmark, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofDenmark on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.DenmarkWikipedia:WikiProject DenmarkTemplate:WikiProject DenmarkDenmark
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Cricket, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofcricket articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit theproject page, where you can join thediscussion.CricketWikipedia:WikiProject CricketTemplate:WikiProject Cricketcricket
There is a toolserver basedWikiProject Cricket cleanup list that automatically updates weekly to show all articles covered by this project which are marked with cleanup tags. (also available inone big list and inCSV format)
This article is within the scope of theMilitary history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see alist of open tasks. To use this banner, please see thefull instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
This article is part ofWikiProject Freemasonry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofFreemasonry articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to join us in our labors, pleasejoin the discussion and add your name to thelist of participants. The "Top of the Trestleboard" section below can offer some ideas on where to start and what to do.FreemasonryWikipedia:WikiProject FreemasonryTemplate:WikiProject FreemasonryFreemasonry
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below.Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such asthis nomination's talk page,the article's talk page orWikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page.No further edits should be made to this page.
Article qualifies via recently achieving Good Article status. SFNs don't work on this page, but I was able to confirm the hook through the cite in the article itself. Obviously, as a GA about a major figure, it is long enough, well-sourced, and quite presentable. No QPQ is needed—you did this before getting 5 DYKs? Well done. Hook itself is pretty interesting; only suggestion I would give before confirming is specifyingBritish royal family, as many readers would think of other royal families upon seeing the phrase.Generalissima (talk) (it/she)17:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The hook is represented on Page 259 of the source. It is essentiallyWP:ABOUTSELF since someone is asking him if he was first and he answers "yes". I do not think it is controversial. We have another problem however, the article has recently appeared as a bold linkin the news. Unfortunately we may have to reject this nomination because of that.Bruxton (talk)21:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Was he not much better known, and for much longer, as the Duke of Edinburgh? The description "of Greece and Denmark" suggests no connection with the United Kingdom?Martinevans123 (talk)13:04, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They are hideously clunky, tabloidese and alien. See current edition ofFowler, p. 810. Fine forThe Sun but not for encyclopaedia articles written in the King's English.Tim riley talk07:33, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it doesn't work in my region. "The US Defense Secretary Peter Hegseth" is fine because there is (thankfully) only one of him but "the English constitutional expert Edward Iwi" sounds as if there is only one English constitutional expert. It also can be read as labeling him as an Englishman, when he was a Welsh Jew.DrKay (talk) 07:44, 7 June 2025 (UTC) Withdrawn.DrKay (talk)10:16, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how just "English constitutional expertEdward Iwi" would be any better. Also not sure now his Jewishness affects anything. I guess you would prefer "Edward Iwi, a commentator on English constitutional matters"?Martinevans123 (talk)08:06, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The English constitutional expert Edward Iwi" does not imply there is only one English constitutional expert, in the same way "The children's fantasy novelThe Hobbit" does not imply there is only one children's fantasy novel.
Of the two users who removed it either recently[1][2] or originally[3], the recent one self-identifies as British and the original one prefers British spelling and syntax in his talk page posts and so is presumably not American. The person who added it originally[4] self-identifies as Australian and the person who added it recently[5] self-identifies as British. The bad-tempered insult thrown at Americans in the edit summary[6] was unjust and should be withdrawn. This is not a battle between nations or an issue relating to varieties of English.DrKay (talk)10:16, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And it is undeniable that the superstition about compulsory commas after dates is an Americanism. See the current edition ofPlain Words, p. 249, for helpful guidance on this point.Tim riley talk10:33, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am able to read. I have only commented on and am only interested in the issue of false titles (and the insult/nationalist attack).DrKay (talk)16:18, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Article qualifies via recently achieving Good Article status. SFNs don't work on this page, but I was able to confirm the hook through the cite in the article itself. Obviously, as a GA about a major figure, it is long enough, well-sourced, and quite presentable. No QPQ is needed—you did this before getting 5 DYKs? Well done. Hook itself is pretty interesting; only suggestion I would give before confirming is specifyingBritish royal family, as many readers would think of other royal families upon seeing the phrase.Generalissima (talk) (it/she)17:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There we go! Good to go.Generalissima (talk) (it/she)17:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
