Talk:Charles Edward, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha

King in lead

I do not agree with this reversal. His position as grandfather of a legitimate king certainly must be a fact essential enough for the lead? I will reinstate it unless someone can give us a good reason here not to. SergeWoodzing (talk) 03:40, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

SergeWoodzing and AndrewPeterT, I don't really mind either way but you two might want to discuss it. Llewee (talk) 16:41, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Llewee, thank you for the mention. For context, I made that revision as part of a series of related edits I made across royalty-related Wikipedia articles.

@SergeWoodzing:, I removed the information about Carl XVI Gustaf being Charles Edward's grandson because I fail to see how that specific genealogical fact is important enough to be mentioned in what should be a summary section and does not contravene WP:UNDUE. More specifically:

1. I am not an expert on the last Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. However, I would expect a Wikipedia article on him to briefly describe what someone like Charles Edward accomplished on their own merits in the lede, in the spirit of what MOS:LEADNO describes. That Carl Gustaf is the Duke's grandson is an "accident of birth" not related to anything the Duke did in his "professional" capacity.

I do not agree. The fact that this former British and Gerrman prince, who was very controversial, was the maternal grandfather of King Carl Gustaf is essential to telling the story of his life. That's what a biography is. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:19, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

2. When I conducted the Google search charles edward of saxe-coburg and gotha carl xvi gustaf's grandfather, I noticed that most of the results that mention the genealogical connection came from either blogs or sites that pull information directly from Wikipedia. This brings up the issue of WP:RELIABLE. If few "trustworthy" sources are describing this relationship, why should Wikipedia?

Flabbergasting that anyone would question such a readily available fact in many scolarly works, as if the identity of the grandparents of the king of Sweden is questionable. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:19, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

3. The details of Carl XVI Gustaf's biography on the Swedish Royal Court's website also convince me to not mention the connection in question. Charles Edward is only mentioned once in the King of Sweden's biography. Even then, the Duke is acknowledged as the King's godfather, not grandfather. I am cautious that saying something beyond what the Swedish Royal Court says would be WP:OR.

"Godfather" should prove that he wasn't his grandfather? While visiting the royal website, one could also read this to see who his mother's father was. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:19, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

4. Finally, at the expense of violating WP:OSE, I would also like to mention how the lede of the article on Queen Victoria (which is of FA status) is written. Nowhere in that top section does it mention that Victoria was the grandmother of the legitimate Wilhelm II, German Emperor, even though the tensions between Wilhelm and Victoria and her eldest daughter (the Emperor's mother) were arguably a cause of World War I.

Victoria's article is irrelevant. She had so many relatives in palaces all over that is would be tedious to mentuon them all at the top. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:19, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I hope this reply sufficiently detailed my reasoning. Please let me know if you have any further questions or comments. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 18:21, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I see no viable reason not to reinstate this. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:19, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I do appreciate your detailed counterarguments. As I would prefer my objections (over just one sentence in a long article) not derail the ongoing peer review, I will agree to disagree and reinstate my removal. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 21:38, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Suspense build-up?

Under Personal life we now have this wording "In 1932 his daughter Sibylla married Prince Gustaf Adolf, Duke of Västerbotten, the eldest son of the Crown Prince of Sweden and second-in-line to the Swedish throne. The marriage meant that Sibylla would, in the normal course, become Queen of Sweden." - and that's it! Is this meant to build up some sort of suspense - did she or didn't she!?!? background music - or why is it left open and only followed-up on by something one might be able to hide-and-seek for much later in the article? Very strange, in my opinion. SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:44, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

That section is about the 1920s and early 1930s. What happened later is mentioned when it happened. I think this is quite a trivial issue to have a argument about.--Llewee (talk) 21:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

The mention later is not enough to inform the reader clearly. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

SergeWoodzing, In response to the rather unpleasant comments you left on my talk page, I'm editing this article a lot at the moment because I am trying to get it ready for Featured status. I'm in no way claiming ownership over it. Other editors have made changes to it during the period I've been working on it and I've taken advice in the informal and formal peer reviews.

On the specific issue in question, "personal life" is a subsection of "Far-right advocate", the section of the article about his life between 1918 and 1933. The expectation when the wedding happened in 1932 was that she would become Queen of Sweden. Including comments about what happened later mixes up chronological order and repeats information unnecessarily. Ultimately this is not her biography and detail about her life that isn't specifically related to Charles Edward should be kept to a minimum.--Llewee (talk) 21:13, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

We normally do not bring article-irrelevant personal arguments from our user talk pages over into article talk.

I see no rational motive not to mention for clarity, not even in parentheses, the fact that Sibylla's chance to become a queen did not materialize, right where that is mentioned as part of her farther's aspirations. What's the importance of not mentioning it right there? Why should the reader be left hanging like that? This is not a magazine article, it's an encyclopedic biography where clarity, rather that creative-dramatic build-up, is the best course. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Nothing useful will be gained from the two of us discussing this further. I will notify editors that have recently been involved in this article and try to reach a consensus.

Surtsicna Gerda Arendt Matarisvan Therealscorp1an AndrewPeterT Векочел If you could add your views on this matter that would be helpful. Thanks, Llewee (talk) 23:52, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I think it would be better to say something along the lines of Sibylla was expected to become the queen of Sweden. To me, it seems a bit vague to indicate that she would become queen 'in the normal course'. Векочел (talk) 00:13, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Llewee, thank you once again for your ping.

With respect to the issue at hand, I agree with SergeWoodzing (and Векочел). The sentence This marriage meant that Sibylla ... become Queen of Sweden, as written, begs the question of whether Sibylla actually did become Sweden's royal consort.

For clarity, it should be mentioned right afterward in the prose that Sibylla never became Queen of Sweden (or at least as a footnote if this is too intrusive). Alternatively, the quoted sentence should be rewritten or removed to avoid introducing this suspense to readers.

Moreover, I disagree with the fact that the later mention discussed above clarifies whether Sibylla became a consort. The pertinent paragraph does not explicitly state that Sibylla never was the Queen of Sweden.

AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 00:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

• (pinged) I looked, and wonder if we could drop the sentence altogether. The one before said that her husband was scond-in-line to the Swedish throne, - isn't that clear and sufficient? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:16, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Seems that still might leave the reader wondering. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Please note that this is the reversal which I cannot find constructive for clarity. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:50, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for pinging me. I have to agree with User:SergeWoodzing that it may seem a bit odd to the reader with the current wording. However, I agree with User:Llewee in that I do not think the solution (the one that got reverted) is good either. Using brackets within Wikipedia articles has never looked very encyclopedic or professional for me personally. I also think the arguments involved in this entire discussion could have avoided from the start. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 22:51, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! LLewee did not revert because of parentheses. They have become an issue (?) only now. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:55, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

To clarify, I reverted because I thought the addition was scruffy and unnecessary so I think I do partly agree with Therealscorp1an.--Llewee (talk) 15:17, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Use of photos

Hi, User:Llewee. Great job on all the work you have been doing to this article lately! I just wanted to bring up the point of images within this article. Have images been used excessively here? From this section onwards, the right hand column of the page is filled with many images. Maybe we could move some to the left hand side to avoid clutter or maybe just remove some in whole? Thanks. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 23:04, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi Therealscorp1an, thank you for the complements. On the picture issue, a while ago they were spread out on both sides. I moved them to the right as the article expanded because the guidance says that its preferred. It is like you say starting to look quite crowded. I'll move a couple and you can I say if it looks better.--Llewee (talk) 12:12, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Birth

"On 19 July 1884, at Claremont House near Esher, Surrey, Princess Helen, Duchess of Albany, gave birth to a son. He was called Leopold Charles Edward George Albert and used the name Charles Edward." reads more like a novel than an encyclopedia and does not clearly identify the article subject. Can this be reworded to reduce drama a bit and increase clarity a bit? SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Reworded now Llewee (talk) 19:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)