Talk:Favourite

Politics Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

History Mid‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History 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.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Russia: History Mid‑importance

	Russia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the history of Russia task force.

A fact from Favourite appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 27 November 2007. The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that royal favourites were often compared to mushrooms, as they sprang up overnight, and grew in excrement?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2007/November.

Wikipedia

Nice article[edit]

Very nice article here. Hopefully it can be linked a lot from other articles, though the current links probably need tidying up to remove dictionary definition entries. Or maybe not. The 'what links here' list looks OK. Carcharoth (talk) 16:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I just added lots of links (with the "u" & think they are ok (now I have delinked Maggie and the Ferocious Beast - well it might have been relevant). I've done a bit on the US spelling. "Favorite" + of/and etc is a good search term if you're ever looking for several hundred completely useless articles to prod, I discover. Johnbod (talk) 16:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mistresses[edit]

I added some significant mistresses - are you going specifically for those with political power? Should we add some of Charles II's many mistresses? (Will be here here all week doing so?) - PKM (talk) 23:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One or two with real power - preferably not French, would be useful. But really mistresses for "favourites" is a euphemism, so I don't think we need loads. The list at royal mistress could do with expansion though. Johnbod (talk) 02:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added Margaret Erskine to royal mistress. Feel free to remove anything I added here that doesn't fit.

Weren't some of James V of Scotland's lesser favourites hanged from a bridge after Solway Moss, or am I cross-connecting him with some other Scottish king named James and some other messy defeat? It's not in either of the first two references I checked. - PKM (talk) 02:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If they were, that would just be the English being beastly as usual, I suppose, but I think you may be thinking of the mass hanging centred (literally) on Robert Cochrane, done by the usual revolting nobles - J4 I think. Have you seen the duel of Les Mignons also? The Scots kings do seem extraordinarily favourite prone, whereas the German Habsburgs for example managed to get along with few if any. Johnbod (talk) 14:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was thinking of JIII and Cochrane et al., where the Scots nobles hanged the King's favourites from Lauder bridge. This time it was the lowlanders being beastly as usual. - PKM (talk) 18:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Briticist[edit]

This article is Briticist. Why should "Favorite," the American and better spelling, redirect to here? We should at least have our own page or the only page. After all, Britain is all but obsolete. Also this article makes no sense that's not what favorite means. 70.110.143.45 (talk) 23:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See favorite, dude. Johnbod (talk) 19:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that it was the British who invented the language, and many others also use the word "Favourite", it isnt being racist to have this as the main title. Esc luver (talk) 19:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Us Canadians use "Favourite". I'm quite sure the whole rest of the world uses "Favourite" in English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.107.128 (talk) 05:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Silly thing to complain about, as an educated American I am completely familiar with both spellings of the word and use the interchangeably. I also spell humour and theatre as such while spelling center and meter as such, there's nothing wrong with using both kinds of spelling, both are equally valid and using both shows that one is well read. And creating a second page for every single article that uses either American English or British English would be absurd and confusing. Lastly, claiming that the American spelling is "better" just makes it clear that this comment was motivated solely by regional bias. Walterego (talk) 20:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I as a European prefer the American spelling. It makes more sense to me and it's closer to the German word as well. I don't see why we would use a minority spelling on this site. 83.187.175.181 (talk) 11:33, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Little Puzzled[edit]

I typed in favorite, thinking it would come up a list of favorite animals, shows, movies, or something like that. Instead, I found something about a British soldier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmart5 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is puzzling. Who was the British soldier? Johnbod (talk) 20:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I tried to add a context- "In a monarchy..." but it was reverted. This is a very specific meaning of "favorite" and like most wikipedia pages needs some kind of context. I will try again and hope to discuss here.Volunteer1234 (talk) 13:52, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit was JUST WRONG! The first sentence as it stands is clear enough. It wouldn't have helped people looking for "a list of favorite animals, shows, movies, or something like that" anyway. Johnbod (talk) 14:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is normal to have a MOS:CONTEXTLINK when a common English word being used in a specific context.Volunteer1234 (talk) 18:44, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are misreading the policy. The word is not being used in a specific context here; this covers one of the specific meanings it has (like many English words, there are several). As it happens, this is the primary meaning of the word, if probably no longer the most commom. Today that is surely "favourite" as an adjective ("favorite animals, shows, movies...."), but we rarely write articles about adjectives, nor could we in this case. Johnbod (talk) 18:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cliché in history[edit]

I feel most unhappy to have the work of an afternoon practically reverted, although it was excellently sourced. As it stands, this article has a fundamental problem with obsolete cliché as regards the government of Elizabeth I. It is true that William Cecil was a sort of chief minister, but not in the sense that the situation with her "court favourites" was a "different matter". If that ever was historical thinking than it is hopelessly out of date. Even the concept of "faction" at the Elizabethan court before the 1590's, which was very popular with Conyers Read and J.N. Neale in the earlier 20th century, has been shown to be practically rubbish. Cecil and Leicester worked most successfully together, as a kind of tandem (Christopher Hatton, another favourite, also was a most important privy councillor). These men do not deserve only to be mentioned in a curious list, while Cecil (who was certainly not the typical favourite) is the main focus in the text proper.

There is a lot of newer scholarship on these things. May I quote from Simon Adams (my italics):

But Cecil is not the only key figure:...The traditional picture of Leicester as a courtier-adventurer who rose to great heights through the Queen's misguided affection is based on a fundamental misconception. From the earliest years of the reign he was the inheritor of his father's following, and it was this that gave significance to his position as intimate and potential consort. Throughout the first three decades of the reign (until Leicester's death in 1588) the relationship between Cecil, Leicester and the Queen remained more or less unchanged. In the mid 1570s Sir Francis Walsingham and Sir Christopher Hatton...became part of this inner ring, although Cecil and Leicester remained the most important councillors (Adams pp. 17–20)

The most famous scholarship on these topics is:

Guy, John (ed.): The Reign of Elizabeth I: Court and Culture in the Last Decade Cambridge UP 1995
Guy, John (ed.): The Tudor Monarchy Hodder Education 1997 ISBN 0340652187
Adams, Simon: Leicester and the Court: Essays in Elizabethan Politics Manchester UP 2002 ISBN 0719053250
Hammer, P.E.J.: The Polarisation of Elizabethan Politics: The Political Career of Robert Devereux, 2nd Earl of Essex, 1585–1597 Cambridge UP 1999 ISBN 0521019419

Buchraeumer (talk) 17:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was not reverted, but moved down to where these figures were already discussed. The text is a overview of the whole of (mainly) European favouritism, and the amount of detail provided inappropriate there - there was already rather too much emphasis on England. The whole point of introducing Cecil here, as you will see if you read the preceding sentences, is that he was "certainly not the typical favourite". You introduced "factions" here, and Leicester & Essex to the main text. I still maintain Cecil's position was different; he was very much the Queen's man, and did different sorts of work from Leicester let alone Essex. But by all means suggest an improved version, without adding too much detail to the top section. PS more German favourites welcome - the Habsburgs must have had some? Johnbod (talk) 18:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]