This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.
If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Royalty (a child project of the Royalty and Nobility Work Group), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to British Royalty on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you should visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.British RoyaltyWikipedia:WikiProject British RoyaltyTemplate:WikiProject British RoyaltyBritish royalty articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London 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.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom 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.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Why is there nothing here about the woman in black, suspected to be Princess Diana? Or the supposed ghost when Wills and Kate were on the balcony? The Woman in Black is of much speculation in the wedding and media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clements1997 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified 28 external links on Wedding of Prince William and Catherine Middleton. 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.
Title Upon Marriage section - Titular link with Wales?[edit]
This section states that Prince William now has a titular link through his 'four' titles with the four nations of the United Kingdom. However,
I do not believe that Prince William's previous name of 'Prince William of Wales' is a titular title? Surely this designation is purely a courtesy title in assocation with his father's position as Prince of Wales, and is not a titular title at all? Furthermore, given his new peerage titles, it is extremely doubtful whether Prince William would now use this designation anyway? If there is agreement I suggest this last sentence of this section be either revised to reflect this fact, or removed altogether.Ds1994 (talk) 16:48, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously Prince William is linked to Wales through his father's title, but the name 'Prince William of Wales' is NOT a titular title, it is a courtesy title. On this particular question the source material you provide is irrelevant in this context. My question still stands in this regard - the association can be mentioned but not in a titular capacity. At the very least this particular point in the last sentence should be removed. Do you understand the difference between a substantive title and a courtesy title, and the use of the term 'titular' in this respect?Ds1994 (talk) 17:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Titular just means title, it doesn't specify if it by courtesy or substantive. The source is not irrelevant as it is what supports the assertion in the article. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well it was certainly a courtesy title, a title that the Duke of Cambridge no longer uses. In this context alone the last sentence still remains extremely tenuous. Particularly so as the three peerage titles held by Prince William are substantive titles, and are not merely 'titular'. Also, please improve your English, your syntaxal construction is dreadful. You should not be commenting on this section if you have a poor command of the English language. This is my last contribution on this topic, as I am not discussing a specific English topic (Personal attack removed).Ds1994 (talk) 18:32, 16 January 2018 (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.
Not moved. There is no consensus after extended discussion, and a reasonable policy-based to maintain the current concise title. bd2412T02:36, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral/Weak oppose per WP:CONCISE. It's already a pretty long title (and it might be worth it to attempt to change the other titles back). "Prince William" already redirects to the Prince's page, so that part's not an issue. (And, it doesn't really matter much, but it kinda looks like it's the wedding of three people, haha.) Hmm. Paintspot Infez (talk) 00:50, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I think Surtsicna made a good point which is applicable to the other pages as well. Why not give a move request for those pages to shorten their titles as well? Keivan.fTalk18:51, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The fact is that there's been only one 'Prince William' who has married a 'Catherine Middleton', and none of these princes or princesses were known as the 'Duke/Duchess of X' before their wedding day. That is why I disagree with moving them to the title that Opera hat suggested. For example, instead of moving it to "Wedding of the Prince of Wales and Lady Diana Spencer", the page could simply be moved to "Wedding of Prince Charles and Lady Diana Spencer". It seems that a separate RM is necessary for those pages though. Keivan.fTalk13:34, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)This article originally had the proposed title and at least two of the others were created before this one was moved away from that format. The proposed title is just as sensible. If you feel others should be in a different format, propose them yourself. Timrollpickering13:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The proposed title is not just as sensible because half the article is about the preparations for the wedding and the groom was not known as Duke of Cambridge before the wedding day. As mentioned below, nobody reported about the upcoming nuptials of a Duke of Cambridge. Sources referred to the upcoming wedding of Prince William. It is also not just as sensible because it is not concise, i.e. it is much longer than it has to be. Surtsicna (talk) 13:44, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Over and above accuracy issues, Prince Andrew is much more recognisable than Duke of York, ditto Edward and Wessex, ditto all the other royal princes/princesses. Pincrete (talk) 18:52, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Consistency in different cases can be detrimental. Charles was Prince of Wales before he married, but William was not Duke of Cambridge before his marriage. Surtsicna (talk) 11:38, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hours before the wedding, on the wedding day. He was definitely not known as Duke of Cambridge before the wedding day. Nobody talked about the impending nuptials of a Duke of Cambridge. The wedding everyone expected and talked about was that of Prince William. Surtsicna (talk) 12:15, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
New RMs are not a problem but mass moving a whole set of articles whilst a discussion is going into consistency for an outlier doesn't make for the easiest of discussions. Timrollpickering12:14, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - unless all the other Royal Wedding articles are changed to match this article. What's most important, is consistency. Either have them with all royal titles or none. GoodDay (talk) 16:32, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are again trying to impose a single format without any regard to accuracy or recognizability. It is incomprehensible to me that you would be fine with half the article titles being wrong for the sake of having them all under the same format. Unhelpful does not begin to describe it. Surtsicna (talk) 16:50, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It would be quite cumbersome, to change a bunch of article titles. Therefore, best to just change this article's title, to match the others. GoodDay (talk) 17:16, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, it would definitely not be best to change an article's title simply to match others. If the groom did not hold a peerage before his wedding day, it is nonsensical to include it in the article title. If Catherine is listed by the name she used before the wedding day, William should be too. Surtsicna (talk) 17:41, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, just before marrying. He was not known as Duke of Cambridge until his marriage. No source called him Duke of Cambridge before he married Catherine. None. Surtsicna (talk) 19:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He was given the title by his grandmother before he got married (a matter of hours, I believe). He didn't become Duke upon his marriage. GoodDay (talk) 19:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's absurd pedantry. He did not become Duke of Cambridge upon his marriage but neither was he known as Duke of Cambridge before his marriage. The wedding everyone (including reliable sources) talked about was that of Prince William. His father, on the other hand, was known as Prince of Wales before his marriages. Surtsicna (talk) 22:24, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again, pedantry. No reliable source called him Duke of Cambridge until after the marriage. Your often professed preference for consistency over verifiability is unfortunate for Wikipedia. Surtsicna (talk) 23:03, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose per WP:PRECISE and WP:CONCISE and arguments by Surtsicna: "No other Prince William married a Catherine Middleton". The short form should be adopted on ALL such pages IMO. The further down the royal 'pecking order' one goes, the less recognisable the specific Dukedom/title becomes. The simplest recognisable form of the royal should be adopted, (ie Prince Forename) and the simplest recognisable form of the name of the non-royal - on the morning of the wedding (ie before they took the vows). eg Wedding of Prince Charles and Diana Spencer … Wedding of Princess Elizabeth and Philip Mountbatten etc. Pincrete (talk) 18:44, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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.
