text:
The Sweetest Thing

The Sweetest Thing is a 2002 American romantic comedy film directed by Roger Kumble and written by Nancy Pimental, who based the characters on herself and friend Kate Walsh. It stars Cameron Diaz, Christina Applegate, and Selma Blair. The film was released on April 12, 2002 and received negative reviews from critics. However, according to screenwriter Nancy Pimental, the film later went on to gain a cult following.

Plot
A group of men are interviewed regarding Christina Walters; they consider her a player and a user of men in the swinging singles market. She is a 28-year-old successful interior designer living in San Francisco near North Beach.

Christina meets up with her friend Courtney Rockcliffe, a divorce lawyer. They console their friend and roommate Jane, who had recently broken up with her boyfriend, by taking her out to a dance club. Jane feels out of place, so Christina grabs a man named Peter to set Jane up with, but he berates Christina for her methods and leaves her standing there. While in the bathroom with Courtney, she refers to him by name, leading her to suspect that he got under Christina's skin and she is actually in love with him, which she denies.

After running into Peter again, Christina buys him a drink and they spend time together. He explains that he will be attending a wedding on Saturday, and that he is at the club with his obnoxious, womanizing brother Roger to celebrate. He invites Christina and Courtney to an after-party at their hotel, but Christina goes home and later regrets not going.

The next day, while having lunch with Courtney, Christina cannot stop talking about Peter, while Jane pays an embarrassing visit to the dry cleaner. Courtney arranges for Christina and herself to travel to Somerset, where Peter's brother's wedding is to take place, and they meet Jane's boyfriend, whom she previously met at the club. After they leave in Courtney's Saab 9-5, Christina and Courtney go on a series of misadventures including an exploding toilet, a glory hole discovery, and a motorcyclist who is led to believe Courtney is receiving cunnilingus from Christina while driving.

Meanwhile, Jane encounters her boyfriend at her retail job and is nearly caught having sex with him in a changing room. When Christina and Courtney finally arrive in Somerset, they visit a store to replace their wet and ruined clothes, only to come out in extremely gaudy, indiscreet outfits. When they arrive at the wedding, Christina begins having second thoughts, but a series of coincidences, including a chance conversation with the bride, causes her to have a change of heart, and they attend. However, they discover that it is Peter, not Roger, who is getting married, and the pair nearly ruin the ceremony in their attempt to escape. Peter and his fiancée then decide that they do not want to marry each other and they call off the wedding.

Christina and Courtney return home and help Jane get out of a sexual situation with her boyfriend where the emergency crew was called in. Sometime later, Courtney is dating a doctor and is clearly very attracted to him, and Christina is back to a newly unfulfilled life of being single again. Later, Peter finds Christina's address in the log at the store they bought their clothes in and tracks her down. Christina, determined not to fear the commitment, kisses Peter and then walks away disappointed.

Peter is interviewed like the men at the beginning of the film, retelling his version of the events calling Christina a bitch and a player, but ultimately reveals that he and Christina are together, having gotten married and are living very happily with Jane, Courtney and Roger as well.

Cast

 * Cameron Diaz as Christina Walters
 * Christina Applegate as Courtney Rockcliffe
 * Thomas Jane as Peter Donahue
 * Selma Blair as Jane Burns
 * Jason Bateman as Roger Donahue

 * Parker Posey as Judy Webb
 * Nancy Priddy as Mrs. Franklin
 * Warren Powers as Uncredited Extra

Home media
The film was released on DVD and VHS on August 20, 2002 by Columbia TriStar Home Entertainment.

An unrated version was also released on DVD with some extra scenes added, including a musical performance by Diaz, Applegate and Blair, known as "The Penis Song".

Reception
On its opening weekend, it earned US$9,430,667 on 2,670 screens, ranking #3 behind Changing Lanes and Panic Room. It eventually grossed US$68,696,770 worldwide.

Critical response
On Rotten Tomatoes the film holds an approval rating of 26% based on 111 reviews, with an average rating of 4.30/10. The site's consensus called the film "a collection of hit-or-miss gags tied together by a thin plot." On Metacritic, the film has a weighted average score of 32 out of 100, based on 30 critics, indicating "generally unfavorable reviews". Audiences surveyed by CinemaScore gave the film an average grade of "C+" on an A+ to F scale.

It was among Ebert & Roeper's "Worst of 2002", in the category "Big Stars in Big Bombs".

title: The Sweetest Thing


text:
Talk:Trick-or-treating

Scotland
the children are only supposed to receive treats if they perform tricks'-treat''? Andy G 17:37 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)

This article's introduction is poorly written. Sounds more like a sixth grader wrote it. It could use a rewrite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.73.75.192 (talk) 13:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The trick FOR treat practice derives from trick OR treat, appearing in isolated accounts in the U.S. just a couple of years after the invention of the phrase in the early 1930s. The "trick" of the phrase originally meant "prank," but as Halloween pranking was forgotten, some homeowners (to interact with their young visitors) began demanding a "trick"--meaning a "stunt." I recall those demands in the late 1950s in Southern California and being confused by them: "Trick or treat" to me was meaningless; it was just something I'd been told to say to get candy.--Bentruwe 19:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It's called guising. The article's a bit misleading by mentioning "trick" here; I'll see what I can do about that. Mendor 13:30, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)

"It originated in Great Britain and Ireland and is still popular in many parts of Scotland, England, and Ireland"
 * Dit it, and is it!? Most people I know think of it as very much an 'American import' and not all British. Mintguy
 * It's Celtic, not British. Guising is the original form. The only reason it exist in America is because of the Scottish and Irish emigrants who took it there. — 62.6.139.10 07:24, 1 November 2005
 * At its narrowest, "British" refers to the pre-Anglo-Saxon Celts of Great Britain, represented by their modern descendants, the Welsh and the Cornish. It is generally extended now to the mixed Celtic/Germanic inhabitants of Great Britain, the Scots just as much as the English. Sometimes extended to include the Irish as well (e.g. the British Isles). Koro Neil (talk) 06:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

-As a Scottish lass, we had some Southern Irish neighbours move beside us in Inverness. The Irish children had a different take on Guising, which was to sing a mildly unflattering song ie 'Trick or treat, smell my feet, give me something nice to eat!" This seems to be more like the American take on Halloween, whereas in Scotland, you can only expect to get your treat if you have a) performed to a good enough standard and b) made polite small talk with your neighbours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nextinthequeue (talk • contribs) 15:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

It can't be British, surely. The British would never beg the neighbours for anything - its only the state they sponge off! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.72.26.234 (talk) 17:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

 * I agree - some kids here in AU where i live came to my door trick or treating - i gave them some chocolate but i was seriously tempted to say "This is not the USA and could you find someone else to annoy?" PMA 13:33, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC) (I like kids, i really do!)

 * growing up in England in the 1970's, I don't remember seeing trick or treat, or very much fuss over Halloween until the 1980's. I did see children going from door to door with a Guy Fawkes figure in a wheelbarrow. They would ask "penny for the guy?" The reason we didn't bother with Halloween was probably because it had been replaced by "Guy Fawkes Night" 5 days later, sometime in the 17th Century. Halloween would have been far too Catholic for a protestant nation and it was probably conveniently buried. Yes it was re-imported in the 1980s and was probably disliked because it began to displace the more traditional (if rather sectarian) English festival. All the trappings of Halloween, the earlier Saxon Wassailing, and the earlier still Samhain had been subsumed into Guy Fawkes night and that was when we did things like lighting bonfires, burning effigies, bobbing for apples and setting off Fireworks77.101.245.56 (talk) 15:55, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

 * There is no evidence to support the claim that trick-or-treating was brought to America. The earliest known instance of ritual begging on Halloween in English-speaking America is from 1915, seventy years after the peak of Irish immigration to America. It did not become a widespread practice until the mid-1930s. And when it did arise in America, it was not in those areas of the United States that had the highest concentrations of Irish Americans or Scottish Americans, but in the West and Midwest. The existance of similar practices on each side of the Atlantic does not mean one was the origin of the other. — Walloon 12:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I grew up in Scotland in the 1930's and I don't remember Halloween being celebrated, and by the way Christmas wasn't celebrated here either. You know, we Scots invented everything from the wheel to the moon landing. But Halloween getting more popular due to American popular culture.83.70.163.125 18:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)--Nextinthequeue (talk) 15:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There is possibly some confusion of Halloween with Bonfire Night Celebrations, on Bonfire Night an effigy of the pope is burned and there is the tradition of people making the guy and of children parading it around - it's a Protestant tradition on the anniversary of the foiling of the Gunpowder Plot more in common with the Orangemen's marches celebrating the victory at the Battle of the Boyne. Christmas and Easter of course wasn't celebrated in Reformed Churches and until the 18th century in the Church of England because the date of Jesus's birth wasn't given in the Bible and they had not been ordained in the Bible as something to be celebrated, although Reformed Churches did adopt the Lord's Day, these days though even the Free Church of Scotland is celebrating Christmas leaving only The Free Church Continuing and Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland left maintaining the Orthodox Protestant position among Reformed denominations.--Lord of the Isles 20:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not really of Irish or British origin. It originally came out of "souling", a European tradation, where the young poor would dress up, knock on the doors of the better off, and offer prayers for the souls departed, and then might be treated to a little gift of food or money. This very practice is documented in Dublin journals in the 17th centuary. Taramoon 22:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Trick-or-treating is called "ritual begging" by ethnographers; it's been invented and reinvented many times, in many cultures, including ancient Greece. There was no trick-or-treating in the U.S. until the 1930s; "proto"trick-or-treating began in the 1910s. Proto-trick-or-treating lacks one or more of the elements: costumes, going door to door, asking for a treat, a ritualized (if unwitting) threat of damage. Under the pressures of the Depression, ritualized begging was independently invented in many places in the U.S.; in the initial years, children said different things in different places: "Handout!" "Nuts! We want nuts!" "Anything for Halloween?" The phrase "trick or treat" (possibly invented by an anonymous Portland Oregonian news writer in 1934) caught on, sweeping across the country over the next twenty years. When the practice was finally turned into an industry it was ripe for export to other countries.--Bentruwe 19:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Halloween is certainly NOT an American invention, nor is the begging tradition associated with it. If I cared enough, I'd clean up the wild inaccuracies of this article. Has anyone else detected the sublte anti-Irish bias of this article both in relation to the origins of Halloween and trick or treating? It is well settled that Halloween evolved from the celtic festival Samhain and was purposely co-opted by the Church and subsumed into the All Saints celebrations. Being from Ireland (Co. Ciarrai), I can assure we had trick or treating in the 60s and 70s and my grandparents attest to it being part of the Irish Halloween tradition well before that. We followed the trick for treat model where we would perform a song, poem or joke for the treat. — 12.37.61.2 16:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC

 * This article does not say that Halloween was an American invention. It says there is no evidence that trick-or-treating was brought over to America by immigrants, and it says that trick-or-treating may have developed in America independent of any ritual begging analogues in Ireland or Britain. Keep in mind that the peak of Irish immigration to America was during the Famine in the 1840s. Yet except for isolated references in 1915 and 1920, the earliest known practices of trick-or-treating in America were not until 90 years later, in the 1930s. And it didn't arise in the Eastern states, the area of the country with the highet concentrations of Irish Americans, but in the West and Midwest. As I wrote above, the existance of similar practices on each side of the Atlantic does not mean one was the origin of the other.

 * Also, there is no documentary evidence that Samhain was "purposely" co-opted by the Catholic Church by the placement of All Hallows (All Saints) Day. Read the section in the Halloween article on the origins of All Saints Day, which originated as a strictly local holy day in Rome, and was later expanded churchwide. — Walloon 23:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

AIUI the "treat" part of the trick or treat was part of the old European custom. The Americans added the "trick" part all by themselves. Because it's been seen on American TV shows it is now being imported back into the UK but the older teenager's idea of a "trick" can be very puzzling or even threatening to older people who don't watch American TV shows. The "trick or treat" can be seen as a form of "demanding money with menaces" -- SteveCrook 13:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

St. Louis "Tricks"
I'm from St. Louis and grew up in the 1960's. We were not expected to simply tell a joke - we were expected to do a trick. I can remember turning somersaults, singing songs, dancing, doing imitations - whatever. But not everyone required it (most did not) and usually it caught us unprepared. It wasn't like we planned a.) our costume and b.) our act. Through the years, though, telling a joke became easier, mainly as kids lost imagination and the desire to showoff; "tricks" - as we knew them - simply degenerated into Laffy Taffy wrappers. Mrbentley (talk) 15:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * In addition to that, Judy Garland's film 'Meet me in St Louis' is a (I think) post-war film but set in 1900. Margaret O Brien plays a small child, Tootie who goes 'Trick or Treating'. This is the American-style trick or treat - as I recall, Tootie throws flour at an aggressive home owner. I don't know how much historical research was done on the part of the producers of the film though!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nextinthequeue (talk • contribs) 14:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * .... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 10:14, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Scooped out turnips
This surely refers to Swedes/Rutabagas and should be made clear as hollowing out a turnip would be a bit of a fruitless task.Muleattack (talk) 17:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Ha...the definition of a swede v turnip depends on who you are speaking to: to me, it is a swede - but I'm from South Wales. To me wife, a native of the most northern tip of the UK near John O'Groats, it is a turnip :-)

DaioftheTriffids (talk) 23:27, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

What the Article Should Say
People tend to make the main rule about trick-or-treating say that you have to look and talk like how a child does rather than be in a young age group. (Those people say that Halloween is for “little kids” which means whomever looks and talks that way.) Cbsteffen (talk) 21:23, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

First appearance in North America.
I've never edited an article before and don't want to make a change in case I make a mistake. But I found an earlier reference to trick or treating then 1911. A Vancouver Daily World newspaper from 1898. https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/halloween 24.207.100.169 (talk) 03:15, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Trick-or-treating


text:
Talk:Radiology

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 July 2018 and 31 July 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Xraynae. Peer reviewers: Xraynae.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Merging
Okay, this is really messy. Radiology, radiography, and medical radiography all have the same summaries for the various radiology-department imaging modalities! One of these pages should have the summaries. The others should only have a list of links to their respective pages. I don't want to change anything until everyone agrees, but I'd really like to start with Radiography and remove the summaries. Possibly radiography should be disambiguation page for medical (which says the same thing) and Industrial. This page maybe should have one-line summaries, and also medical radiography. Otherwise we're killing mosquitos with shotguns here and it looks bad.Gaviidae 17:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC) --- I see it as this: :)   :(   :0     ;)     >:(

Clinical Science has a couple of branches Medical Physics and Medical Engineering. (The engineering has computer scientists in it) these are the SCIENTISTS, then there is the PHYSICIANS, these are all the physicians that use medical imaging, and they are by no means all Radiologists.

The remit of clinical science is much wider than RADIOGRAPHY, RADIOLOGY, MEDICAL IMAGING e.g. electon microscopy might be part of clinical spcience... use of lasers definitely is... Thermography - that is...

Then there is RADIOGRPAHY, which is the application of specific bits of this science (which has grown up by convention and politics more than anything else) science in everyday clinical practice, which is very important to the encyclopedia reader, as this is the stuff they may need to know about e.g. x-rays, ct scans, MRA's, ultrasond, fluoroscopy, nuclear medicine, etc. etc.

Then there is the body of knowledge held by Radiologists and others, that enables decisions to be made and treatments to be given by the use of RADIOGRAPHY, this is RADIOLOGY.

Philipcosson 11:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

There is another point against merging. There are two wider fields of medical image processing and medical image analysis, which bear lots of similarities to computer vision and have rarely little to do with radiology. From these viewpoints radiology is merely an input modality able to generate two-dimensional and three-dimensional image data for subsequent analysis and processing. User

Radiotherapy is not the same class of medicine as Radiology. Alex.tan 17:39 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)

True, but radiation therapy and radiology are related because they both rely on ionizing radiation. Would you say that radiation therapy is perhaps closer to oncology in a sense than to radiology because it is used so heavily in the treatment of cancer? Chad Harston 17:34, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes. I consider myself an oncologist more so than I consider myself a radiologist. —Brim 07:01, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

It seems when searching for Radiologic Technologist, I get a hit for RT, which then suggests I look here for that info. However, there doesn't seem to be anything here about them. Aren't they a slightly seperate job position than Radiologists? Even if they're not, I think some clarification is needed. --anon
 * There is a page now called radiologic technologist. RT does stand for rad tech, but it also stands for respiratory therapist, so I wouldn't look there.  As for slightly different than radiologists--  A radiologist is a medical doctor.  A rad tech performs the exams and does not make diagnoses (UK has some exceptions to this).Gaviidae 09:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

For me it is rather the other way around ! isn't radiology considered a part of medical imaging ?. Medical imaging is a vast field, just have à look at Category:Medical_imaging--Khalid hassani 19:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Medical Imaging and Radiology are NOT the same field. Medical Imaging may use radiologic tools, but it's not the same as the medical field of Radiology. Medical Imaging deals a lot more with computing sciences and in this case Biomedical Informatics. I see Medical Imaging as the science that enables engineers/scientists/medics to build radiologic tools and methods. -- (Joao) mrbillnauea (at) oninet.pt 83.132.229.59 02:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The above post has a point. Perhaps radiology is more akin to DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING if Medical Imaging is generally thought to involve Biomedical Informatics and computing sciences.

There is another point against merging. There are two wider fields of medical image processing and medical image analysis, which bear lots of similarities to computer vision and have rarely little to do with radiology. From these viewpoints radiology is merely an input modality able to generate two-dimensional and three-dimensional image data for subsequent analysis and processing. User , 22 February 2006

My opinion is that there should be separate entries in Wikipedia for "medical imaging", "medical image processing" and "radiology". These terms are of course related, but have different interpretations in terms of the fields they correspond to. Tpl 18:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)Tpl

My vote: I dont think we should merge. MRI is usually not considered as a radiology modality, yet it is a diagnostic imaging tool. A similar argument can be made for PET and SPECT. They are bunched with "Nuclear Medicine Imaging" (separate from radiology) and yet fall under diagnostic imaging. And same again for ultrasound.

My 2 cents. Best to all.--Zereshk 04:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Point of clarification...MRI IS USUALLY CONSIDERED A RADIOLOGY MODALITY, at least in the United States. Radiologists read MRI's routinely, supervise scanning, and issue reports.--Josh Powell 07:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I would argue against merging because other specialties use imaging; I'm thinking of pathology in particular (which is mentioned very early in the article itself.) Historically, (surgical) pathologists might (and did) argue that they did not examine images, but real objects or slices of objects, typically magnified with a microscope. However, electron microscopy could be cited as an exception. Moreover, pathologists are increasingly accepting high-resolution digital images as acceptable substitutes for direct object magnification. I have less experience with forensic pathology, but photography seems important in that field as well.

I suspect there are other examples...all the more reason to maintain separate entries. It would be nice to have these fields better represented. I will review the article and consider adding a bit on surgical pathology if it seems appropriate. --Josh Powell 07:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. My vote is also not to merge the two. --Billgaitas@hotmail.com 19:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Do not merge. "Imaging" in ophthalmology, for example, has nothing to do with radiography. -AED 06:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Radiology implies the use of x-rays. Right, medical imaging can use radiology (x-rays) as a tool as well as it can use MRI, PET. So Medical Imaging article should not be merged into radiology. The article on radiology also should not be merged into Medical Imaging as radiology is used as a treatment techique as well as a visualization tool.

The two articles should stay separate.

Radiology is a general term where as medical radiography is a specific one.Both are separate.One is broader and other is limited.Radiology includes radiologist.Medical radiography concerns a medical specialist.
 * The discussion seems to have tapered off many months or years ago, so I am removing the Merger tag. Yours sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Motion MRI vs Digital motion analysis vs cineradiography, videofluoroscopy
Exactly what are the differences between Motion MRI vs Digital motion analysis vs cineradiography, videofluoroscopy, in regard to spinal evaluation.

Special interest in differences between Motion MRI and Digital Motion Analysis.
 * videofluoroscopy is a type of cine-radiography (old term for "moving x-ray pics"). Usually used by the speech pathologist to videotape (yes, still using ol' VCR's) the patient eating.  MRI has no ionising radiation and its usefulness is dependent on who you're imaging (kids, preggers, anyone you don't want to radiate) and the speed and power of the MRI's computer.  I've not actually heard of "motion MRI" but I've used fMRI for "functional" or sometimes "fast," which is live motion turned to a digital video the radiologist can watch.  Does this help?  I dunno if there will ever be pages on these. Gaviidae 09:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Aquisition of Radiological Images
This starts by saying to go to radiography main page, but all the stuff about each different modality is redundant-- the radiography page has the same thing on each modality (worded differently and with a bit less information). This is unnecessary overlapping. There should be a brief summary of getting images, and then a link to the radiography page, where people can read the summaries of the diff. modalities, and click on them for more info at each mod's main page.Gaviidae 09:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Free Online Medical Image Database
The Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences - in Bethesda, Maryland - sponsors a free online Medical Image Database called MedPix. This archive contains peer-reviewed and pathologically proven cases. The majority of features are available without login or registration

Here is the primary portal for MedPix:

http://rad.usuhs.mil/medpix/medpix_home.html

MedPix also includes a new "diagnostic match" service. Search parameters retrieve a series of related images from the database, and these may be compared to an unknown image being evaluated remotely. Here are some sample searches:

http://rad.usuhs.mil/medpix/parent.php3?mode=image_match&action=search&geo=32&subloc=&cat=-1&subcat=112#top

http://rad.usuhs.mil/medpix/parent.php3?mode=image_match&action=search&geo=70&subloc=&cat=-1&subcat=30#top

This funtionality would allow comparison of known proven cases with a current unknown case as a guide or adjunct in making an imaging diagnosis.

MedPix is also a distance learning tool, providing Category 1 CME for Physicians and CEU for Nurses:

http://rad.usuhs.mil/medpix/parent.php3?mode=cow_sorter

Commercial sites in External links
There is nothing inherently wrong with having commercial sites listed under External links; however, they have to add something to the site, such as being a reference. Sites which are JUST commercial implementations of Radiology don't belong in the article. Bejnar 17:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Imagiology
Pfft. Why can't you people just call it 'Imagiology' like we do here? In imagiology we study radiology, MRI and all the other medical imaging techniques. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.169.99.64 (talk) 10:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

need more info
you need more info in the page for people that know nothing about radiology

GE
"The Wayne State University School of Medicine and the University of South Carolina School of Medicine both offer an integrated radiology curriculum during their respective MD Programs in collaboration with GE Medical led by investigators of the Advanced Diagnostic Ultrasound in Microgravity study.[5][6][7]"

This is a total non-sequitur and appears to be shilling. I think it needs to go. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daveman 84 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

actinoscopy
Hello, the term actinoscopy redirects here but this word is not used in the article. So could add a part about this term or delete the redirection? Thanks. Pamputt (talk) 15:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Radiographs - History
"A capture device then converts them into visible light, which then forms an image for review and diagnosis and health management. "

Is the 2nd line trying to explain the process that Roentgen discovered, however, in the descriptive of this paragraph, the above is an error, as there is no "capture device" that is converting "X-rays" to visible light in a conventional X-Ray Source and Film System.

The X-rays penetrate the body, and stimulate the halide of silver-salts on the film, or 'expose' the film. This is when the conversion happens, and the fixing of the silver halides on the film get developed in a chemical process that reverses the 'exposure' by having the areas that were exposed to the X-rays turn dark, or develop, and the leser areas that are not as much exposed by the X-rays, appear as clear parts on the film.

It is the actual layer of film then that is projected with a light source, that a clinician examines, and then uses for further diagnosis. Some Film sizes can be large, 20 x 30 cm, or small (3 x4 cm) depending on the purpose, Knee vs Dental examination. Richard416282 (talk) 17:41, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

"Displaced" patella?
The description of the knee MRI reads "Image from an MRI examination of the knee with a displaced patella." Although there may be mild patella alta, I don't know if I would call it "displaced" (and there is no bone edema to suggest recent lateral subluxation). Can whoever posted this image please explain what they mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.1.129.96 (talk) 14:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Looking at it again, maybe there is some abnormal signal in the patella. And maybe it's a section from a little more laterally than the usual position of the patella. I'm not a radiologist, but is there someone out there who can just check and make sure the caption is correct?162.1.129.96 (talk) 14:33, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Radiologic Health
The NLM classification places radiologic health under WN: Radiology (WN 600 to 665), including such topics as radiation injuries, radioactive food contamination, and radiation pollutants. If these are generally considered within the radiologist's practice, they should be included in the article. Dynzmoar (talk) 14:27, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Radiology and imaging technology course
Qualification? 43.229.90.64 (talk) 15:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

radiology
the study of radiation is called radiology 37.111.137.165 (talk) 15:44, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Radiology


text:
Nancy Pimental

Nancy Marie Pimental (born May 31, 1965) is an American actress and film and television writer.

Early life and education
Born in Boston, Massachusetts, and of Portuguese descent, Pimental graduated from Somerset High School in 1983 and Worcester Polytechnic Institute in 1987. At WPI, she was a member of the Phi Sigma Sigma sorority and completed a degree in chemical engineering.

Career
From 1998 to 2001, Pimental was one of the writers of South Park. In 2002, she wrote the script for the film The Sweetest Thing, which has been described as "the forerunner to films like Bridesmaids and Girls Trip."

Replacing Jimmy Kimmel, she served as co-host of the Comedy Central game show Win Ben Stein's Money from 2000 to 2002.

In 2010, Pimental joined the staff of the Showtime dramedy Shameless (U.S. version) as a writer and producer, and later as an executive producer.

Actress

 * (818) (2008)
 * Prey for Rock & Roll (2003)
 * Dumb and Dumberer: When Harry Met Lloyd (2003)
 * Dickie Roberts: Former Child Star (2003)
 * The Sweetest Thing (Uncredited, 2002)

Writer

 * The Mick (2017)
 * Bad Girls (2012)
 * Shameless (2011–2021)
 * The Sweetest Thing (2002)
 * South Park (25 episodes, 1998–2001)

title: Nancy Pimental


text:
Talk:Victoria, Princess Royal/Archive 1

There is a page named

Heir Presumptive

yet the link here to

heir presumptive

does not go to it.

However, should Heir Presumptive be capitalized? I have not capitalized it here pending resolution of this point.

Songwriter 17:43 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * As it is a formal title, it is capitalised when used as a formal title, in lower case when written generically. As this article is talking about the Heir Presumptive, not about a heir presumptive, it is capitalised here. (Just as one talks about presidents but President of the United States, a queen but Queen of the United Kingdom.) FearÉIREANN

Aren't there several Princesses named Victoria? RickK 19:27 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Shouldn't this page be at Victoria, Princess Royal? --Jiang 22:00 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I have moved it to Princess Victoria of the United Kingdom to follow royal naming conventiions. I would love to use the PR title but as there are a number of PRs with the same name and they lack ordinals to distinguish between them, using name, Princess Royal is too problematic and so should be reserved for the current Princess Royal. It is a problem that was discussed at length. Using the basic royal title also matches general naming conventions in terms of reverting dead royal brides to their maiden title (Catherine of Aragon, etc). The convention agreed was that unless a royal had a peerage, they would be entered as Princess of whatever state they came from (or linked to title if relevant, in this case the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. (Hence Princess Margaret of the United Kingdom, Prince William of Wales, Princess Beatrice of York, etc.) BTW I have also set up a redirect from her marital title which also existed. FearÉIREANN 22:43 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)

There were two princess of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (excluding Queen Victoria before her ascension) who were officially known as "Victoria": (1) Victoria, Princess Royal and later Empress Friedrich (1842-1901), the eldest daughter of Victoria of the United Kingdom; and (2) Princess Victoria (1868-1935), the unmarried second daugther of Edward VII of the United Kingdom. I am considering contributing an article on the second Princess Victoria (nicknamed "Toria"). However, if I used the naming convention Princess Victoria of the United Kingdom it would create a conflict with the existing article dealing with Victoria, Princess Royal. Do you have any suggestions? Also, since 4 Jul 2003, I have added the article Louise, Princess Royal and Duchess of Fife and expanded the existing article Mary, Princess Royal.

Jeff 2:05 28 Sept 2003 (UTC)

=
To solve the problem I noted above, I renamed the article Princess Victoria of the United Kingdom as Victoria, Princess Royal and Empress Frederick. I then created a separate article for Princess Victoria Alexandra Olga Mary(1868-1935), the daughter of Edward VII, using the title Princess Victoria Alexandra of the United Kingdom.

Jeff 10:38 29 Sept 2003 (UTC)

heading, again
To use Princess Royal as her only distinguisher is an obvious anglocentric decision. Basically generic titles cannot in that way reserved to one country. She should be at her pre-marital location "firstname of countryshewasprincessof". I object strongly to this sort of use of title which causes more difficukties than solves anything. And, to repeat Princess twice in the heading is something unspeakable - the heading does not need it even once. 217.140.193.123 3 July 2005 20:50 (UTC)

requested move

 * Oppose. This article itself should not have been moved to a hybrid Victoria, Princess Royal and Empress Frederick (which is sadly not in accordance with any Naming Convention, and is a ridiculous bunching of two titularies) without move request. (I expect such move request would have been defeated.) The user who made the said move has in my opinion shown her ineptitude also by leaving this talkpage behind. Arrigo 08:36, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, but on the plus side, maybe no one will be able to find it to read your comments. Deb 17:27, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

There is now a discussion (and possibly a poll) ongoing regarding the location of the article itself, see Talk:Victoria, Princess Royal and Empress Frederick. I would hope that any moves of talkpages are not executed before the location of the article itself finds its ultimate location. 217.140.193.123 18:12, 17 September 2005 (UTC) PS: the ultimate location might be a bin, mightn't it :)

Marriage section
I added back in the links to Victoria's children: Sigismund, Waldemar and Sophie. Prsgoddess187 15:39, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Requested move 2005
This article should not be located in this sort of hybrid name which besides contains too much titulary (i.e Victoria, Princess Royal and Empress Frederick). 217.140.193.123 19:06, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes, it's a problem. When I adopted your suggestion to get rid of one of the duplicate articles, I put the other one at the title that was most linked-to by other articles.  The person who had previously moved it to "Victoria Adelaide of the United Kingdom" hadn't bothered to clear up the double redirects.  Anyhow, I suggest that people now make suggestions for alternative titles to move it to, while I finish fixing the links. Deb 22:39, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Vote
As a result of talks below a (preliminary) short list of choices was developed, now proposed for the vote. This set of most likely choices will be added to the vote proposal at WP:RM.

This is an Approval vote as suggested by WP:RM (i.e. striving for at least 60% consensus on an option before a "move" to that option is operated). See How_to_hold_a_consensus_vote for further guidance if not accustomed.

''Here are the options. Vote for as many as you want. The option with the most votes is the consensus.''

 * Don't move (= keep "Victoria, Princess Royal and Empress Frederick")
 * Actually, acceptable although I think it rather too long (sorry, forgot to add this option before) --Francis Schonken 20:59, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Empress Frederick
 * Support Actually used, and I think most common. Will croggle some newbies, however.Septentrionalis

 * Victoria, Princess Royal
 * Actually used; perhaps most important association.Septentrionalis 17:38, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Victoria, Empress Frederick
 * Support - Both "Victoria" and "Empress Frederick" appear unavoidable as part of the page name to me, see below --Francis Schonken 09:10, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Empress Frederick of Germany
 * Acceptable, but third choice. Septentrionalis 17:38, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Victoria Adelaide of the United Kingdom
 * Support. Is in accordance with NC, and follows the same idea as the already existing heading of her niece (Princess Victoria Alexandra of the United Kingdom). Arrigo 16:43, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Victoria Adelaide Mary of the United Kingdom

 * Victoria, German Empress

Allow me to add a new note as well. I looked at the German language version. It simply says "Kaiserin Victoria" so I would say, this whole Empress Frederick or Princess Victoria business would be confusing. I would propose:

 * '''Empress Victoria of Germany
 * Acceptable. Gryffindor [[Image:Flag of Austria (state).svg|20px]] 20:31, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Acceptable, but last choice. Septentrionalis 15:17, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

so there can be no confusion with any other Victorias.

How about simple
 * Victoria of Germany
 * 1) fourth choice, and would require an explicit statement in the header that she was consort, not reigning Empress. Septentrionalis 15:29, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) *the problem with that heading would be that one could assume she was ruling empress of germany, but she was only consort. Following Wikipedia's policy of naming consorts for example Queen Sophia of Spain, I would say better to take the Empress Victoria of Germany because there won't be confusion.. Gryffindor [[Image:Flag of Austria (state).svg|20px]] 13:05, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) **I still prefer something that is merely orginal to something directly contrary to contemporary usage, but I will accept either, as stated. I suppose that Gryffindor's logic would lead to Empress-consort Victoria (with or without German/Germany), but I mention this rather than supporting it. Septentrionalis 16:05, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

 * ? No, I do not want "Empress-consort Victoria", or what do you mean with your comment? Gryffindor [[Image:Flag of Austria (state).svg|20px]] 19:31, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * If one begins with Empress Victoria and tries to alter it to avoid all possible confusions, one will wind up with Empress-consort Victoria of Germany, or possibly Victoria, German Empress-consort. Gryffindor atarts down this road, in his first comment above. I think either of the destinations is a reductio ad absurdum; I'm glad he agrees they are absurd. Septentrionalis 22:28, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Vote count result, 9 days after start of vote
In total 4 persons voted (Arrigo, Gryffindor, Francis, Septentrionalis). The option with the highest number of votes (2 votes, Gryffindor and Septentrionalis) supported a move to Empress Victoria of Germany, summary:
 * 2 votes out of 4 supporting a move to "Empress Victoria of Germany" = 50% < 60%, not enough for a move.

As it seems unlikely that this discussion will result in a clear consensus anywhere in the foreseeable future, keeping it this listed on WP:RM for prolonged voting seems not advised, so I implement the present NO MOVE vote result, and remove the listing of the request from WP:RM, helping out with the backlog there. --Francis Schonken 08:49, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Comments
Comments for the voting

"Empress Frederick" and "Empress Frederick of Germany" are untenable choices, as they do not even include her own name. To me, it is unthinkable to put a biographical article about a female under the heading that says only her husband's name. Arrigo 16:52, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

 * You have a long row to hoe; starting with Princess Michael of Kent. Septentrionalis 17:04, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

 * "Princess Michael of Kent" is not yet deceased, thus she could be an exception, as for living, here is some tolerance to formulations they themselves use in formal protocol. However, I oppose also her naming. As she is living, and besides is not a consort of any monarch, she is a false example for naming Vicky, who is supposed to conform with NC for deceased monarchical consorts. Arrigo 17:34, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, to those who are keeping all formalities (such as the style by husband's name and other paraphernalia in accordance with male privileges) I would suggest one technically very correct form: Victoria of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. See, she was her father's daughter, and as such her mother's realm should have no effect to how male-stylists regard her. Arrigo 20:08, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I oppose strongly the use of "Princess Royal" as her only disambiguator. In my opinion, that continues a certain trend of "political" anglocentrism here, pushing British-view POV to material which is supposed to be international and NPOV. Arrigo 16:52, 19 September 2005 (UTC) P.S. Anyway, she certainly was not known as "Princess Royal" during the biggest part of her life. The idea of consort naming is not to endorse girlhood titulary to all eternity, but to disambiguate between consorts of the same first name by using preferentially a territorial designation. As deceased monarchical consort, she should thus not have any titulary in her heading (if any titulary were to used it should be her highest title, i.e Empress, but all titularies are against NC). I repeat: no titulary. Arrigo 16:52, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

She actually was not "Empress of Germany", she was German Empress. The first-mentioned formulation obviously is from someone who does not even know the facts of the case. Arrigo 16:52, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Oh, I include, and will accept it, only in deference to the people who insisted that we must have Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden and not Gustavus Adolphus. It's wrong, but better than the present title. Septentrionalis 17:04, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

 * As my little research of yesterday pointed out, the second given name is never mentioned without also adding the third. The sequence of the three first given names occurs not so often as the sequence of all four given names, but, at least it exists. So, if following the Alexandra example, in this case it would involve three names. So I added that more obvious choice too in the list above, but would not vote for it (for reasons given below): just pointing out it is more likely than exclusively the first two given names + "of the United Kingdom". --Francis Schonken 20:48, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Some choices
Victoria the Empress

Victoria, German Empress

Victoria Adelaide of the United Kingdom

Victoria, Empress Frederick - included in short list for vote

Victoria of the United Kingdom (Vicky)

Victoria of the United Kingdom (1840-1901)

Victoria, Princess Royal - included in short list for vote

Princess Victoria, Princess Royal

requested move
The chief problem, as always, lies of course in the fact that there have been at least four individuals with some stake to the simple and nice name Victoria of the United Kingdom. Some disambiguation is thus needed. The three worthy persons were Queen Victoria, who is now located at Victoria of the United Kingdom, her eldest daughter Vicky, the German empress, who could be at Victoria Adelaide of the United Kingdom and the second granddaughter of the first-mentioned queen, Princess Toria, who currently is located at Princess Victoria Alexandra of the United Kingdom. Additionally, another granddaughter could also have a stake, but fortunately she can be located at Princess Victoria of Edinburgh (and I am certainly not suggesting her move at this time). This mess has made me think again and again that we possibly should not have a prohibition against using the ordinal ("I") of monarchs who were the only so-named in their monarchies, as the first Victoria could then be at Victoria I of the United Kingdom which at least hints that she was not only a princess or a consort.... Arrigo 09:17, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

 * This paragraph would be much easier to follow if the four choices were divided by semicolons or bullets. Arrigo, please consider either doing this or else consenting to it's being done. Septentrionalis 16:28, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Whut? they are not choices (at least for heading of this biography), at least the paragraph of 17.9.2005 09:17. There is just listing basically of other persons who have also a stake to same or similar headings. Septentrionalis, is your question an error, or what do you mean? Arrigo 21:06, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I would prefer not to see Victoria I of the United Kingdom because it will not be used either as a search or in running text. Her present location is at least possible. Septentrionalis 16:28, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

My opinion: Victoria, Princess Royal and Empress Frederick as the current heading of the article is a horrible abomination, it is against all naming conventions. It has two epithets which were never used simultaneously. It defines her with her husband's name, which IMO is almost always a bad way. It has as many as two titularies in a case where a heading is possible (and recommended by NC) without even one titulary - titularies in headings taste somewhat unencyclopedic, and two such in one heading could be regarded as ridiculous sycophancy by our some readers, which tends to make this encyclopedia seem ridiculous. It has "Princess Royal" as one epithet, although that sort of use can be regarded as anglocentric POV by several. Arrigo 09:01, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I would at this stage prefer Victoria Adelaide of the United Kingdom as it at least is disambiguated and follows the same idea that has created her niece's article at Princess Victoria Alexandra of the United Kingdom. Let's have a thorough discussion. Arrigo 09:17, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Not voting
I'm wary of all these votes triggered without the flimsiest evidence of prior research to sort out the most likely alternative(s), nor any attempt to create consensus prior to triggering a vote.

This is what I found: Clarification by Google test in this case near to impossible, while so many pages telling something about Vicky, also mention Queen Victoria (and mention attributes like "of England", "of Germany" and the like) - so there appears no reliable way to separate the one from the other by web search engine.
 * 1

The only thing I learnt from the google test is that "Adelaide" is, as far as I can see, never the "only" mentioned middle name for Vicky: either at least also her second middle name "Mary" is mentioned, but seemingly even more often the full set, including her 3rd middle name "Louize" is mentioned (that is, if any of the middle names is mentioned). On the other hand, I found this list of books about (or partly by in the case of letters) Vicky: -> I don't know about how correct/exhaustive this list is, so feel free to complete/check it, and inform your fellow wikipedians.
 * 2
 * Empress Frederick, Daughter of Queen Victoria, by Richard Barkeley (1956)
 * The Empress Frederick Writes to Sophie, Her Daughter, Crown Princess and later Queen of the Hellenes: Letters, 1889-1901, edited by Arthur S. Gould Lee (1955)
 * The English Empress: A Study in the Relations Between Queen Victoria and Her Eldest Daughter, Empress Frederick of Germany, by Egon Caesar Conte Corti (1957)
 * Letters of the Empress Frederick, edited by Sir Frederick Ponsonby (1928)
 * The Other Victoria, by Andrew Sinclair (1981)
 * Royal Web: The Story of Princess Victoria & Frederick of Prussia, by Ladislas Farago & Andrew Sinclair (1982)
 * An Uncommon Woman: The Empress Frederick, Daughter of Queen Victoria, Wife of the Crown Prince of Prussia, Mother of Kaiser Wilhelm, by Hannah Pakula (1995)
 * Vicky, Princess Royal of England and German Empress, by Daphne Bennett (1971)

-> Apart from "Other Victoria" and "Daughter of..." which are too ambiguous for a wikipedia page title on a person, and the "Wife of..." and "Mother of ..." that wikipedia likewise tries to avoid in page names: -> Taken together it seems to me that:
 * 5 publications refer to her as "Empress Frederick" in the title;
 * 2 publications refer to her as "Princess", and then in two variants 1 x ", Princess Royal"; 1 x "Princess Victoria", so that would not be the same page name in wikipedia;
 * 1 "Vicky"
 * 1 "German Empress", and 1 "of Germany"
 * only 2 mention her first name "Victoria" (the other 2 Victorias mentioned in the book titles refer to the UK Queen)
 * only one names English as an epithet, and one other of England: "of the United Kingdom" nowhere mentioned in these titles.
 * Empress Frederick seems unavoidable in the page name;
 * Middle names not usual.
 * Princess Royal, unnecessary (the only book mentioning this appears to go through great lenghts of adding less evident qualifiers, seemingly only to avoid the "Frederick")
 * Princess not necessary
 * Victoria, not needed from a "disambiguation" perspective, might be added while habitual at Wikipedia.
 * of the United Kingdom, unusual, doesn't solve anything of the ambiguity with her mother either.
 * of Germany or German, likewise unusual, and doesn't *exactly* solve the ambiguity with her mother, with her "German" pedigree (allthough, true, in general perception the "Queen"-also-empress-of-India would be perceived less "of Germany" than the Empress-also-queen-of-Prussia)

For the supporters of the middle name(s), there's still Britannica, 1984 printed edition listing her under Victoria Adelaide Mary Louize
 * 3

On-line encyclopedias: I found:
 * 4
 * Victoria, empress of Germany in Bartleby
 * Britannica has both mother and daughter under the same header "Victoria" in the members section; the "Free" section has only the UK Queen under, also, "Victoria". Britannica's inadequate way of handling disambiguation and search (possibly linked to their inadequate page naming) was already commented before by me, John K. agreeing if I remember well (see Talk:Frederick II of Prussia).

None of the English encyclop(a)edias appear to be mentioning "Empress Frederick" in the title (and even only one mentions "Empress" at all). Noneteless all mention "Victoria" in the article title; so "Victoria" seems sort of unavoidable too.
 * In sum

Victoria, Empress Frederick appears the most likely choice to me at this point. Try and convince me otherwise, I would say! --Francis Schonken 16:04, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

 * A poll would be evil, if a minor evil; but discussing the various possibilities under separate heads might be useful.

 * This is a choice between bad and worse. Unfortunately, the present title is one of the worse. I would suggest one of the three titles by which she was actually known:
 * Victoria, Princess Royal;
 * Victoria, Crown Princess of Prussia; and
 * the Empress Frederick.
 * (Empress Frederick of Germany is acceptable, although it would involve piped links.)

 * Given the license of translation, the first may include the second. I am not drawn to the hybrid Victoria, Empress Frederick which is not usage, and (I hope) will not appear in running text.

 * I continue not to understand what exactly Arrigo means by anglocentric. It sometimes sounds like he is opposed to the English wikipedia being anglophone, which is both policy and unavoidable. I wish he would explain. Septentrionalis 16:43, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Added something to the "conclusion" of my searches, see above: from an encyclopedia viewpoint "Victoria" as part of the name appears sort of unavoidable too, IMHO.
 * If we could limit the obvious alternatives to these five, that would be OK to me:
 * Victoria, Princess Royal;
 * Victoria, Crown Princess of Prussia
 * Empress Frederick
 * Empress Frederick of Germany
 * Victoria, Empress Frederick
 * If considering these five possibilities, the first two I would throw out would be "Victoria, Crown Princess of Prussia" and "Empress Frederick of Germany".
 * For "Victoria, Empress Frederick" I support keeping it in, notwithstanding the "unusual" aspect mentioned by Septentrionalis.
 * Can we agree to reduce the list of 5 to a list of 3 according to this proposal? In other words, is anybody, at this point, adamant that either "Victoria, Crown Princess of Prussia" or "Empress Frederick of Germany" should be kept in as a "likely alternative"? --Francis Schonken 17:08, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep Empress Frederick of Germany. There's enough sentiment that royalty must have a country label that someone will probably support it; if no-one does, it won't be a problem. Septentrionalis 18:18, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

This is indeed a choice between bad and worse. And those of us who knew her in advance, were aware of that - it is no surprise to those who are experts in royalty, genealogy etc (thus, anyone who shows being surprised, demonstrates his/her unfamiliarity with the substance in these questions). The sad move history of this article is evidence of what happens when choices are all more or less bad. However, as this is so bad, here we therefore can almost discard the principle "best known as" because we will never get any NC-acceptable result by that. I understand that the current NC were written partly to direct the formulation for just these sort of cases where any ready answer is not available. Another editor, imo quite acceptably, solved the same problem with her niece resulting in a "never-used-irl" Princess Victoria Alexandra of the United Kingdom, which is afaik just an application of NC, and not to be found anywhere else. 217.140.193.123 17:57, 17 September 2005 (UTC) - Hey Arrigo, as you say in this paragraph this is a somewhat more complex case. Taking part in the discussion with two different signatures is, of course, not making it simpler. Especially as you take different stances with each of the two signatures. --Francis Schonken 18:25, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Who's surprised? I expected this.

 * I think "best known as" is clear: Empress Frederick, with Victoria, Princess Royal as runner-up. The problem with Empress Frederick is the number of readers, especially from republics, who will be bewildered by the use of a male name for her. I'm not sure how serious a problem this is, but it is one; one of the guidelines for naming is to avoid surprise. Septentrionalis 18:18, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

 * So, if I understand, this "short list":
 * Empress Frederick
 * Victoria, Princess Royal
 * Victoria, Empress Frederick
 * Thus far, Septentrionalis wants the first two to be kept on the short list, Francis wants the third choice to be kept on the short list. --Francis Schonken 18:25, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

 * copied these three options up for the vote. --Francis Schonken 09:10, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Oops, just noticed Septentrionalis inserted a comment higher that he wants to keep Empress Frederick of Germany as an option at this point too. Will add that. --Francis Schonken 09:24, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree that those are the best three to start with. None of them are my favorite so far, but we need a place to start, and if someone comes up with something better, that is good too.  Prsgoddess187 15:23, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

German Empress Frederick
In the titles and styles section, it gives her dowager title and style as Her Imperial Majesty The German Empress Frederick. Does anyone know for certain if she adopted the style of the German Empress Frederick or just the Empress Frederick? The latter seems to me the most logical style, although if the other was what she had adopted, then that is fine. I want to change it to The Empress Frederick, but I will wait for discussion. Charles 01:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I've never heard her referred to as "The German Empress Frederick." john k 04:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

 * "German Empress Frederick" OR "German Empress Friedrich" gives 305 Google results, while "Empress Frederick" OR "Empress Friedrich" gives 22 500... I think it's safe for me to change it then. Charles 04:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

 * When her husband was alive she was called "The German Empress", but when her husband died she was called "The Empress Frederick/Friedrich". The "rule" is, I think, proved by the small (1.5%) number of exceptions cited by Charles. Noel S McFerran 14:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I have never heard of "German Empress Frederick" as a title per se. I just checked the German version, it says she was "Ihre Majestät Kaiserin Victoria des Deutschen Reichs". Which means she was not "German Empress" but "Her Majesty Empress Victoria of the German Empire". I cannot find a reliable source saying that her title was indeed "German Empress Victoria" or "German Empress Frederick". This whole "Empress Frederick" business is a bit of a mess I think, the article should be renamed anyways. Gryffindor  15:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * What do you think would be a good name? Without reading the extensive mess above, I would root for Victoria, Princess Royal. Are there other Princesses Royal who became consorts? I think the problem with the initial move request was that too many hybrid choices were presented. Charles 18:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I just checked and Queen Charlotte of Württemberg is at Charlotte, Princess Royal. Charles 18:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This naming game is a complete nitemare sometimes. I think it should probably revert to the first name before it was moved under "Princess Victoria, Princess Royal". The "Charlotte, Princess Royal" is an interesting case, because wouldn't this be in violation of the Naming conventions? hm, because in that case this shouldn't this be something like "Victoria Adelaide of the United Kingdom", no? Gryffindor  20:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I think we still have Frederick, Prince of Wales, Henry Fredrick, Prince of Wales and Arthur, Prince of Wales though... Each case is a substantive title that each held by grant of a sovereign (although it was a specific title akin to crown prince... hmm). Indeed, it would be Victoria's pre-marital title. I am against Victoria Adelaide of the United Kingdom... I don't think she ever used Adelaide. She was also the Princess Royal for almost her entire life and certainly before her marriage. Charles 21:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is with the Princes of Wales. "Prince of Wales" was the highest title held by all of them. The problem with Vicky (and Charlotte) is that they were Princess Royal, but they also held a higher title (Queen of Württemberg/Empress of the German Empire). Officially, we're supposed to remove any "Princess" title from royal consorts. Thus, we have Mary of Teck, not Princess Mary of Teck; Alexandra of Denmark, not Princess Alexandra of Denmark, and so forth. john k 07:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Princess Royal isn't "just" another title though. It is a substantive title. Charles 17:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, remove all Princess titles, and what do we get? Victoria of the United Kingdom. just grand. That's why I was proposing to add her second name in order to avoid confusion (I would like to avoid any of that when-she-lived-in-brackets format (1840–1901), that really is messy looking. Or go with "Victoria, Princess Royal"... or something like that. Gryffindor  18:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm for Victoria, Princess Royal. It's short, concise and matches up with Queen Charlotte of Württemberg, another Princess Royal who became a consort. Charles 18:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I just checked the other Princesses Royal. I could agree with that as well. Gryffindor  21:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I will post it up on Requested Moves. Charles 19:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

How about Victoria of the United Kingdom (German empress)? disambiguating her maiden name by her most notable achievement.
 * I suppose some will worry that someone will imagine that she belonged to that empty class, German empresses-regnant? Please answer one question: who exactly will fall into this error, and why shouldn't we disambuse them in the first paragraph? Septentrionalis 20:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Requested move 2006

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . 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.

move. — Nightst a  llion  (?) Seen this already? 19:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Victoria, Princess Royal and Empress Frederick → Victoria, Princess Royal - This follows all present guidelines for the naming of royal and imperial consorts. The practice is in place with Charlotte, Princess Royal who was queen of Württemberg. All other Princesses Royal held peerage titles via husbands or are named as to disambiguate them from Princesses Royal of the same forename. Such is not needed for Victoria. Charles 19:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Support. See above and below for my comments. Charles 19:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This issue was exhaustively discussed as recently as September and I don't see that anything has changed (except for a unilateral campaign to ignore 1. previous discussions and 2. NC mandating "Best known name in English" for all monarchs and their spouses, which is being rapidly replicated throughout WP). I would prefer Victoria, Empress Frederick based on the extensive review of comparative usage conducted and reported in last year's discussion by Francis Schonken on 17 September 2005.Lethiere 14:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Although I can share some of Lethiere's concerns, rules are the rules at the moment, otherwise we would have no order in the naming in the end. Unless rules are changed, I will support this move. Gryffindor  17:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Question – Gryffindor, below you didn't support any option that would include "Princess Royal" in the article title, but added a new option instead: Empress Victoria of Germany – may I ask what happened in between? --Francis Schonken 10:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * hi Francis Schonken. What happened? I changed my mind. Charles did a good job at convincing me during our discussion and how this should be named. Since this topic was so controversial and no agreement could be found (which you can evidently see below) I am supporting the option which seems to come closest to current Wikipedia rules. As I have stated above, I do have my personal reservations of course, but the rules are the rules and should be respected, regardless what my personal viewpoint is. I agree also with Prsgodd e ss187 that we should work with the rules we have at the moment, until they get changed. But that's another topic and needs to be discussed elsewhere. Gryffindor  11:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Regarding this dubious interpretation of what "the rules" are, see my vote justification below. If other wikipedians convinced you of an erroneous interpretation of what the rules are, well, err, shame on them. It doesn't justify however you making the same error. --Francis Schonken 12:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Support - I too do have some concerns, but I see Charles' point, this would distinguish Victoria from her mother and her niece quite nicely. In the future, there could be other naming conventions that would take precedence, but for now this is what we have. Prsgodd e ss187 21:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Support WP:NC spells it out quite nicely:
 * "Past Royal Consorts" (in this case our Victoria here) "are referred to by their pre-marital name or pre-marital title, not by their consort name, as without an ordinal (which they lack) it is difficult to distinguish various consorts; eg, as there have been many queen consorts called Catherine, use Catherine of Aragon not Queen Catherine." (emphasis added)

 * "Existing Royal Consorts are referred to by their consort name, eg. Queen Sofia of Spain. But when she dies, she will revert to her pre-marital title, ie, Sofia of Greece & Denmark. As widow, some appropriate addition (usually announced by the country in question) will be amended to (such as Queen Dowager or Queen Mother), with the new Queen of Spain being referred to by the consort designation. The same rule applies to male royal consorts." (emphasis added)

 * If a mandate existed to use the best known name in English for royal consorts the second rule in the WP:NCs would be superfluous and wasted ink (or bits and bytes in our case) as freshly deceased royals would clearly always be best known by their consort titles. Along the same line, there is clearly no justification for the strange convolution of titles currently found in this page name.  Furthermore, the use of two titles in this page name indicates in and by itself that there is no "best known name in English" for this lady. For these reasons, the argument brought by User:Lethiere|Lethiere]] doesn't hold up, and because there is a clear directive in the WP:NCs to use a consort's title before marriage for past consorts the page should be moved to "Victoria, Princess Royal".  --Mmounties ( Talk )  [[Image:pawprint.png|20px]] 01:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Oppose per the earlier discussion (conserved below on this page). "Princess Royal" is UK-centered POV, and nearly not recognised outside the UK. Maybe for the British it will always be so that the fact that she was "Princess Royal" is more important than the fact that she was Empress-consort in Germany. But generally, worldwide among English speakers, the point of recognition is rather having been Empress in Germany. So, the present name (far from being ideal) tries to get a good recognition for both British and other English speakers (while referring both to the "Princess Royal" and the "Empress" function). @Gryffindor: "rules are the rules at the moment": the rule (as in official policy) is presently: "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." ("policy in a nutshell" formulation of the naming conventions policy, my bolding) – rules of thumb given at naming conventions (names and titles) (or its talk page) do not supersede the official policy. --Francis Schonken 10:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

 * A move to Victoria, Princess Royal will settle the issue of controversial naming, etc. It falls well within Wikipedia's guidelines for the naming of consorts, as is seen with the treatment of a queen of Württemberg at Charlotte, Princess Royal. The name of Victoria, Princess Royal distinguishes the German Empress from her mother, her niece and other ladies of the same forename and territorial designation. All Princesses Royal who were consorts are under articles titled such, with extra titles shown only for Princesses Royal who share the same forename. Such is not the case with Victoria. Charles 19:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No, the proposed move is in no way something that would "settle" a controversial naming, see also my vote justification above (and my research efforts below, at the time of the previous WP:RM). --Francis Schonken 10:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * OF COURSE the *British* title of Princess Royal is *British* POV. It factually existed. There are people today who think calling Elizabeth II a queen is POV, but it is fact. The title of Princess Royal was a British honour for a British princess. Charles 18:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Were you implying you have no intention to comply to Describing points of view (that's the page I linked to when writing UK-centered POV above)? So maybe cut out all the nonsense about "we follow the rules". You've lost all decorum in that sense. You don't follow official policy (as I explained above), neither are you prepared to follow wikipedia's recommendations on avoiding POV. Makes it all clear. --Francis Schonken 00:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, the semantics of it all. What I meant is that the title of Princess Royal is as British POV as is the title Queen of the United Kingdom. Charles 00:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That's where recognisability (as in official policy) comes in:
 * For Queen Victoria the point of recognition (worldwide, on average) is that she was monarch of the United Kingdom, not that she also was Empress of India - naming the article Victoria of India would be Indian POV in this case, even if there would be more English speakers from India than from the UK.
 * For Vicky the point of recognition (worldwide, on average, see the ample references below) is that she was Empress(-consort) to Frederick in Germany, not that in the UK she had the title of Princess Royal. "Princess Royal" is only a point of recognition in the UK – don't even know for the former colonies – so, if this important minority wants to keep this point of recognition in, we'll keep it too, alongside with what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize (as official policy requires).
 * --Francis Schonken 09:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Francis I am slightly confused now. So what exactly is your proposal? And under which rule would your proposal be covered under? I still think Charles solution so far comes closest to being in compliance.... Gryffindor  14:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Titles from Prince Albert
Just wondering, did Victoria (and by extension, her siblings) receive any titles from their father? This passage from her mother's page says that the Queen would have been a Princess of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and Duchess in Saxony as Prince Albert's wife, but of course the title of Queen would outrank those. Prsgodd e ss187 13:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Yes, Victoria, as the daughter of a Prince of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, was a Princess of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha and Duchess in Saxony, in addition to any other titles held by the Wettins of that line. Charles 14:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Thanks Charles, that's what I thought, but wasn't sure. [[image:smiley.png|15px]] Prsgodd e ss187 14:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Expansion of article
Although hardly a stub, it is still a bit bare bones and other pertinent info could be added. Vicky was a controversial figure in Germany as well as being involved in many contemporary events, from her patronage of the arts and sciences (eg Virchow) to her political clashes with Bismarck and later, her son Wilhelm. I'LL add what I can source adequately but this could use some expert attention too Plutonium27 (talk) 10:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Princess Louisa Inlet
The source of the naming of this inlet in British Columbia is uncertain as described in the article howver neither of those who are thought to be the ones it was named for have "Louisa" as part of their names, but rather "Louise". I mention it here in case anyone comes across a source that would indicate who this inlet was named for. -- KenWalker | Talk 05:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Name revisited
Recent discussions at naming conventions mean that we have moved away from normally referring to queens and the like by their maiden name. However, actually referring to a woman by her husband's name sound artificial nowadays. I therefore propose "Victoria, Empress of Germany" as the best title. Another possibility is "Victoria, German Empress". PatGallacher (talk) 16:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "Victoria, Empress of Germany" would be incorrect; there is a significant difference between the titles German Empress and Empress of Germany. Anyway, I don't think that we should ignore the most common name because some people find it artificial. We certainly don't do it in cases such as Princess Michael of Kent. The most common name appears to be Empress Frederick. Victoria, Princess Royal is, according to the 2005 move request, the second most common name, while Victoria, Empress Frederick is a compromise wich includes both her name and the title by which she is best known. All three options are fine by me. Surtsicna (talk) 16:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC

I agree with PatGallacher. I also agree with the point raised by Francis Schonken that "Princess Royal" is UK-centered POV. Victoria, Princess Royal is actually a horrible and very misleading article title. If we were to use her pre-marital "name", it would be the house name (Victoria of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha). "Princess Royal" is just one of several titles she held, and not widely understood outside the UK. I think her being the German Empress and Queen of Prussia is a lot more significant than the Princess Royal title in the UK. I like the idea above of simply Empress Victoria of Germany, analogous with Queen Sofía of Spain. I feel Empress Frederick is too old-fashioned and not in line with other similar article titles, also, this expression was only used when she was the Empress Dowager. Jolanak (talk) 06:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Title
Shouldn't the title of the article read: "Victoria, German Empress"? HansNZL (talk) 08:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 2012

 * 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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. Future discussions of what the title need to involve how the subject is referred to in the reliable sources. Cúchullain t/ c 16:25, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Victoria, Princess Royal → Victoria, German Empress – Comparatively recent discussions on the talk page seem to be heading in this direction. We are moving in the direction of referring to queens by their married not maiden title, see the discussion at Marie of Romania. She is more important for her role in Germany, where she spent most of her life, than in Britain. The current title is not very satisfactory since the title of Princess Royal is slightly obscure, only used in formal contexts, even in Britain most people think of the present holder as Princess Anne, and it is also biased since Portugal also had a Princess Royal for a time. Consulting Wikipedias in other languages is not much help since they use a wide range of titles but I have not found any which uses the exact equivalent of the current title. Relisted. BDD (talk) 21:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC) PatGallacher (talk) 10:14, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose If we're not going to apply the maiden name precedent in favor of what she's most known by, she was never called "Victoria, German Empress" or "Empress Victoria" at all: she is best known to history as "Empress Frederick". FactStraight (talk) 11:28, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a tenable case for "Empress Frederick" but on balance I would be against it. Although this was her formal title during her widowhood I would be cautious about assuming that this was what everybody called her even then.  As far as I can judge, histories of the period tend to call her "Vicky" to distinguish her from her mother.  The German Wikipedia calls her "Victoria of Great Britain and Ireland (1840-1901)", other Wikipedias have a range of titles, but they are all some variant of Victoria, none call her Frederick.  It now sounds awkward to refer to a woman by her husband's name in this way, even if it is her formal title, we should reserve this for cases where this really is how she is generally known e.g. Princess Michael of Kent.  Also it would help to say where she was Empress of. PatGallacher (talk) 17:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This is precisely the muddle we wade into by abandoning the time-honoured maiden name principle: the names of articles on royal women become unstable because no other rule is as prevalent. So we end up choosing what we like and rationalising it based on some obscure, never-to-be-applied-again premise. To wit, since nobody's suggesting putting this article at "The Princess Royal" there is no prospect of confusion with the current "Anne, Princess Royal" or any other holder of that title. Why is it relevant how common or rare "Princess Royal" is outside of English usage? Nor does anyone contend that Empress Frederick "was what everybody called her" since, as an encyclopedia, we shouldn't be trying to call her what "everybody" called her: NCROY leans toward maiden name, Wikipedia's general rule calls for the name best known to English-speakers. (Personally, I advocate for the most correct name & title used in English -- since "correctness" is what I think people turn to encyclopaedia to discover and where they expect articles to be located -- otherwise we are eventually defenceless against "Princess Di"). Alleging that it's awkward to call her "Empress Frederick" is simply a version of I just don't like it -- and that animus, directed against hereditary titles as well as sexism, seems to be gradually driving article titles toward "modernising" historical rulers to look like commoners because it is becoming "awkward" to allow class differences of yore to go un-retroactively corrected. If the rationale for changing this article's title is that Victoria, Princess Royal is not "what everybody called her" then the only move which makes sense is to one by which she was prevalently called by the handfull of relatives entitled to refer to her by a name at all: "Vicky". But the name "Victoria, German Empress" is completely fabricated and has neither the virtue of being prevalent nor accurate (and some would say that her mother has a better right to it, being an empress regnant who held the title far longer). FactStraight (talk) 05:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * To clarify, is it entirely fabricated. Was she not known, nationally and internationally, as the German Empress, during the year or so that she was?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, she was properly known as the German Empress Victoria -- for less than 100 days in 1888. From then until her death in 1901 she was known (in English) as Empress Frederick, and that is how she is most commonly called and remembered in history except when being referred to in the context of specific earlier periods of her life when she was exclusively Princess Royal (1841-1858), Princess Frederick (of Prussia) (1858-1861), Crown Princess (1861-1888) or Empress Victoria (March-June, 1888). Of course, bear in mind that only diplomats, academics and journalists actually called her "German Crown Princess" or "German Empress" at all: most people, in German and other languages, referred to her as the Crown Princess/Empress "of" Germany -- although this was incorrect, being a form of title explicitly rejected for political reasons when Germany formally became an empire in 1871. But if this encyclopedia insists on using what was common rather than what was correct, why should one more awkward "fact" be ignored -- merely because it was erroneous? FactStraight (talk) 21:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * To one who has been born and bred in England and her history, the question is: How does that tally with Hansard mentioned below, where the Prime Minister in 1901 speaks of "When the then Princess Royal, afterwards German Empress, left these shores in 1857..."? Qexigator (talk) 22:31, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

 * Historians invent titles all of the time, much of the numbering of monarchs is retrospective, several important people are known by names they were never called in their lifetime e.g. Julius Caesar, William the Conqueror, Kenneth MacAlpin, or it is doubtful if they were e.g. Matilda of Scotland, Mary Tudor, Queen of France. There is no longer a presumption in favour of maiden titles at NCROY.  It was recognised that this could produce absurditites e.g. Marie Antionette would have to be "Maria Antonia of Austria", and it is doubtful if she was ever officially called "Marie Antionette", she would have been successively "la Dauphine", "la Reine", "Citoyenne Capet" and "Veuve Capet".  As it happens Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh was awarded this title on the morning of the day he married the Queen, but would it really have mattered for Wikipedia naming purposes if the king had waited only a few hours?  Another glaring case is Diana, Princess of Wales, the maiden title rule would mean calling her "Lady Diana Spencer".  What about Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge?  Is this title formally correct, and what if she becomes queen, as she may well do?  Does she revert to "Kate Middleton" at some point, even if only on death?  There are similar issue with Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall. PatGallacher (talk) 12:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Support generally. Suggest rename to Victoria, German Empress, Queen of Prussia, to match her title when her rank was at its peak, and for which her subsequent notability derives. The current title would only be appropriate for a separate article on her life before marriage. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I feel I should point out that this proposed new title would be an important departure from Wikipedia naming conventions, since where somebody has more than one title, we just use the most important as the article title, see WP:NCROY. For example, her husband is Frederick III, German Emperor not "Frederick III, German Emperor, King of Prussia". PatGallacher (talk) 17:30, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are right. Support per nom. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Matching "her title when her rank was at its peak" is not Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia policy is to use common names. There needs to be a good reason for us to be ignoring policy. --Jiang (talk) 06:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The long-standing convention for royal consorts used in reliable sources is to use maiden names and titles. It is not up to Wikipedia to make its own conventions counter to WP:COMMONNAME as used in scholarly books and articles.--Jiang (talk) 05:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. Can we talk more about the COMMONNAME here?  Does that mean, what was she usually called, overall, or at some specifici point.  Or what she was called just after her death (I’ve not found a death notice, or the description from her tomb, can anyone else?).  Do our sources suffer from our bias to use sources written in English?  Looking at a few source, I see her called:
 * Princess Victoria of Great Britain
 * Victoria Adelaide Mary Louisa Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, Princess Royal of the United Kingdom or Victoria Deutscher Kaiserin
 * Victoria, Princess Royal, Empress of Germany (1840-1901)
 * HRH Princess Victoria of the United Kingdom, The Princess Royal, German Empress & Queen of Prussia
 * I think I'd be strongly influenced by whatever is written on her tomb, or at the top of her death notice. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Her status as a British princess / Princess Royal appears in all the sources you have listed. The title of empress being subjectively "more important" in the eyes of individual Wikipedia editors is not enough to trump WP:COMMONNAME as it is used by historians. (And yes, we should and do focus on English language sources as this is the English Wikipedia.) --Jiang (talk) 06:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Plaque on the facade of Schloss Hotel Kronberg.jpg (talk) 08:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)]]
 * Transcription:

Dieses haus erbaute In den jahren 1889 bis 1893 Victoria Deutsche kaiserin und konigin von Preussen Princess royal von grossbritannien und Irland Geboren zu london am 21 november 1840 Gestorben hier am 5 august 1901]]
 * Translation:

This house was built In the years 1889 to 1893 Victoria German Empress and Queen of Prussia Princess Royal of Great Britain and Ireland Born London on 21 november 1840 Died here on 5 august 1901
 * --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This seems to be a close call, but I see "Victoria, German Empress" and the strongest claim for the page title. "Empress Frederick" is a nickname, and should be a redirect.  "Victoria, Princess Royal" seems excessively English/English royal family POV; she has very little ongoing historical significance as Princess Royal, but a lot as German Empress.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:40, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest Victoria, German Empress consort to satisfy concern about non-regnancy, except I haven't seen it used once in a source. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

 * Oppose. We should stick with the maiden name when an alternative is not obvious. I don't see how "Victoria, German Empress" is obvious, given that she was only known as this for about 90 days, and that's not standard for consorts, anyway.  "Empress Frederick," by the way, was not a nickname.  It was her formal style after her husband's death. john k (talk) 04:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Nickname. Something said that, but on reading the article references, it was not just a nickname.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Qexigator raises a voice in favour of SmokeyJoe's observation "...a close call, but I see Victoria, German Empress... the strongest claim for the page title... little ongoing historical significance as Princess Royal, but a lot as German Empress."Qexigator (talk) 09:39, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Her primary significance was as a German crown princess, and distinctly not as empress (which she only was for 90 days). john k (talk) 18:28, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This is looking like a confused multi-candidate race. You oppose Victoria, German Empress because she was more significant as Victoria, Crown Princess of Prussia, and therefore support Victoria, Princess Royal?  Could you please clarify?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

 * Support: The title German Empress implies her prior status as Crown Princess, just as Frederick, German Emperor suffices without Crown Prince (though a redirect would be helpful). Her survival of her husband Frederick, with the continuing title of Empress, was of continuing historic significance as mother of the reigning Emperor William, Frederick's successor.Qexigator (talk) 19:01, 30 August 2012 (UTC).(Revised by adding support. Qexigator (talk) 07:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC))
 * ---Further: In the section "German Empress and Empress Frederick", footnote [2] cites Hansard which records the Prime Minister in 1901, proposing in the House of Lords an address to the King on the death of his sister, saying "When the then Princess Royal, afterwards German Empress, left these shores in 1857...". The full and formal title is also mentioned later, in the same paragraph as "William, German Emperor" (her son).Qexigator (talk) 06:55, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

 * Comment -- The present target is unsatisfactory, since it suggests that she was Empress Regnant. Victoria, Empress Consort of Germany would however fit the bill.  Calling her Princess Royal (a British title sometiems conferred by the monarch on his/her eldest daughter) is unduly anglocentric.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:32, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Peterkingiron, is there anything in your extensive research (listed on your User page) which points to what you have here proposed, and would outweigh the PM's usage mentioned above (06:55, 2 September 2012)? Not all aspects can be covered in the article's title. It is unlikely that anyone would take it that she were Regnant rather than Consort, but it would be good to see something in the opening paragraph explicitly removing any ambiguity. Qexigator (talk) 19:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

 * Oppose. The proposed title is not the most common name, which, in my opinion, would be the only valid reason to move the article. The proposed title, in fact, doesn't seem to be any improvement. The present title is unambigious, factually correct and consistent with titles of relevant articles. If nothing else, Victoria, German Empress might also refer to her own daughter-in-law, Augusta Victoria. Even having the article titled Empress Frederick would make more sense. Surtsicna (talk) 21:12, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

title: Talk:Victoria, Princess Royal/Archive 1


text:
Wise

Wise, as a word, refers to someone with wisdom.

Wise may also refer to:

People

 * Wise (surname)
 * Wise (composer), also known as Wise da' Gangsta, a reggaeton producer/songwriter
 * Wise (rapper) (born 1979), Japanese hip hop artist
 * Wise (Stetsasonic), real name Leonardo Roman, a hip hop artist known as 'Wise' from the group 'Stetsasonic'
 * Rhett Wiseman, nicknamed "Wise" (born 1994), American professional baseball player

United States

 * Wise, North Carolina
 * Wise, Virginia
 * Wana, West Virginia, also known as Wise
 * Wise County, Texas
 * Wise County, Virginia
 * Wise River, Montana
 * Wise Township, Michigan

Businesses

 * Wise (company), a London-based financial services company
 * Wise Company department store in Long Beach, California
 * Wise Foods, Inc., a snack food manufacturer
 * Wise Solutions, an American software company that made the Wise software installation package
 * Wise Stores, a Canadian department store, mainly in Quebec

Other uses

 * Wise, showing wisdom: good judgement or the benefit of experience
 * Wise Observatory, an astronomical observatory owned and operated by Tel Aviv University

title: Wise


text:
Talk:Duke of Rutland

Marquess of Granby
Quote "The most notable Marquess of Granby was John Manners, (1721-1770). An accomplished soldier and popular figure of his time, his title was honoured by being used by a very large number of public houses throughout Britain."

I saw a television programme which showed such a public house and there was a story that the reason for many public houses being so named was something about him sponsoring retired soldiers in some manner, possibly to become innkeepers, and that the naming of the public houses was a result of this. Does anyone know any more about this please?

Songwriter 17:50 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Correct, he used his influence to get many of his ex-soldiers/often those retired due to wounds posts as innkeepers (whose responsibility at that time was very different as they also ran the supply of post/horses). Alci12 21:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Baron Roos
Who was the first Baron Roos of Belvoir, of Belvoir in the County of Leicester (UK, 1896)? Was it the 8th or the 9th Duke of Rutland, or was it someone else? VM 12:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

500th Anniversary
Doesn't this section really belong on the Belvoir Castle page, rather than the Manners family/Duke of Rutland page? I'd say feel free to move section in its entirety if you agree! (It is about the property/castle, not the peerage or family per se, IMHO.) --gobears87 (talk) 15:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Image of arms
I recaptioned the image as a caricature, as it is definitely not an example of the actual heraldic device.The illustration is possibly a commentary on the death of four dukes or heirs to the title within the ten years previous to its publication (1790).

If anyone is interested in the blazon:

"RUTLAND, Duke of. Titles. Manners, duke of Rutland, marquis of Granby, earl of Rutland and baron Manners of Haddon. Arms. Or, two bars azure, a chief quarterly of the second and gules; the first and fourth charged with two fleurs-de-lis of the first; and the second and third with a lion passant guardant of the same. Crest. On a chapeau gules, turned up ermine, a peacock in pride proper. Supporters. Two unicorns argent, their horns, manes, tufts, and hoofs or. Motto. Pour y parvenir."

from George Crabb's Universal historical dictionary: or explanation of the names of persons and places in the departments of biblical, political and eccles. history, mythology, heraldry, biography, bibliography, geography, and numismatics, Volume 2, Baldwin and Cradock, 1833. (visible on Google Books)

A colour example here: http://www.rutlandarmsbakewell.co.uk/

Not as relevant, being an individual's crest rather than the ducal: http://www.luminarium.org/encyclopedia/rutlandgarter.jpg

1543, shows the quartered shield: http://www.luminarium.org/encyclopedia/rutland1.htm 70.74.188.103 (talk) 16:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Marquess? No, Marquis
While "Marquess" is the spelling preferred by many families in Britain who use that title, the Manners family is one of those that uses the spelling "Marquis" in the courtesy title of the Duke of Rutland's eldest son, the Marquis of Granby, as any authoritative source will show, eg this copy of Debrett's. Why does Wikipedia apparently insist on saying "Marquess" of Granby? Zythophile (talk) 00:57, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, nobody's given me an answer, so I have just gone through the piece converting it to Marquis Zythophile (talk) 08:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Duke of Rutland. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100826010408/http://www.belvoircastle.com:80/500anniversary.asp to http://www.belvoircastle.com/500anniversary.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100715182958/http://www.belvoircastle.com:80/index.asp to http://www.belvoircastle.com/index.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:30, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

gules in chief

 * The original coat of arms of the Manners family was plain gules in chief.

That's bad and ambiguous language. Does it mean to say the original coat was Or two bars azure and a chief gules (itself a somewhat odd design), the chief being later replaced by a chief of augmentation, or something else? —Tamfang (talk) 03:03, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Photo in mirror image
The photograph of Charles Manners, 10th Duke of Rutland, at Belvoir in 1961 is a mirror image. Could someone please reverse it. Ballenstedter (talk) 17:22, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Duke of Rutland


text:
Bed (disambiguation)

A bed is a piece of furniture which is used as a place to sleep, rest, and relax.

Bed, beds or B.E.D. may also refer to:

Film and television

 * B.E.D. (film), a 2012 South Korean film
 * "Bed", an episode of Men Behaving Badly
 * The Bed (film), a 1954 French film
 * The Bed, a 1968 short film by James Broughton
 * Le Lit ('The Bed'), a 1982 drama film

Literature

 * Bed (short story collection), 2007, by Tao Lin
 * Beds, a 1930 book of humorous essays by Groucho Marx
 * The Bed, a 1971 play by Sam Cree

Music

 * B.E.D. (duo), an English music duo
 * Bed (album), 1998, by Juliana Hatfield
 * "Bed" (J. Holiday song), 2007
 * "Bed" (Nicki Minaj song), 2018
 * "Bed" (Joel Corry, Raye and David Guetta song), 2021
 * "B.E.D." (song), by Jacquees, 2016
 * "Bed", an unreleased song by SZA, 2015
 * "Beds", a 2007 song by Lil' Fizz
 * "The Bed", a song from the 1968 album Hair

Visual art

 * Bed, a 1955 painting by Robert Rauschenberg
 * Le Lit ('The Bed'), a c.1892 painting by Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec
 * The Bed, a 2008 installation by Will Ryman

Places

 * Bedfordshire, England, abbreviated Beds
 * Hanscom Field, an airport in Massachusetts, U.S., IATA airport code BED

Other uses

 * Bed (geology), a layer of sediment, sedimentary rock, or pyroclastic material
 * B.Ed., Bachelor of Education
 * Banana equivalent dose, informal unit of radiation exposure
 * Binge eating disorder (BED)
 * BED (file format), for genome information

title: Bed (disambiguation)