This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia'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 articles
This article 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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece 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.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bavaria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bavaria 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.BavariaWikipedia:WikiProject BavariaTemplate:WikiProject BavariaBavaria articles
Beyond this, what's the deal with calling this "controversial." One can only know if it's controversial if someone objects. As it stands, it's been moved back without it being clear that anybody actually objects. This strikes me as the wrong way to do things. Perhaps I was wrong for moving it in the first place, but I don't see how moving it back is the right response, unless you actually personally feel that the "Prince Regent of Bavaria" title is better. john k21:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is clearly controversial to move a page which has been moved before (in July 2006), and which has also been the subject of a page merge (in June 2005).
Mr Kenney has given little reason here for the move (other than an ad hominem attack contrary to Wikipedia rules). On his edit summary he says that "'Prince Regent of Bavaria' is an *office*, not a *title*". I think that it is both. Mr Kenney states that "Being Prince Regent isn't like being a sovereign", when the exact opposite is actually the case; being prince regent is very much like being a sovereign. Noel S McFerran21:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is very much like being a sovereign in every way except the formal sense that he was not the sovereign. And it is the quality of being the sovereign that makes us treat monarchical titles differently from other official titles. The future George IV was called the "Prince-Regent", but in terms of formal titles he was still "HRH The Prince of Wales." Was Luitpold not still "Prince Luitpold of Bavaria"? If Prince Luitpold of Bavaria is technically correct, it also has the advantages of being the most straightforward and intuitive title, and there's absolutely no reason to use the more awkward Luitpold, Prince Regent of Bavaria. I don't particularly like the Rupprecht, Crown Prince of Bavaria format - I find it awkward, and much prefer Crown Prince Rupprecht of Bavaria. I certainly don't like seeing this expanded beyond crown princes. Junior dynasts should only employ the "X, X of X" format, imo, if it is actually a noble title, like "Duke of X" or "Prince of Y". "Prince Regent of Bavaria" is awkward, and would be an almost unique form for Luitpold. john k22:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Prince Regent. The Prince Regent of Bavaria has the predicate of Royal Highness and the style of Allerdurchlauchtigster (Most Serene?). (Prince Albert of Prussiaisnot Prince Regent, but Regent of the Duchy of Brunswick)"
Bavaria. The Prince Regent holds royal predicates with the exception of the style of Majesty and the title of King. (...)"
Although I don't like the English language Wikipedia practice of putting titles of nobility in the article title (it only causes disputes like this, I'd prefer the plain and simple Luitpold of Bavaria, like most other Wikipedias), under the current standards, Luitpold, Prince Regent of Bavaria would be correct, although I don't think that Prince Luitpold of Bavaria would be incorrect either. Känsterle (talk) 13:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
I have just modified one external link on Luitpold, Prince Regent of Bavaria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.