Talk:Princess Maria Josepha of Saxony (1867–1944)

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility (assessed as Low-importance).

Germany Low‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women's History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move to Princess Maria Josepha of Saxony. —Nightst a llion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 07:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

Maria Josefa of Saxony → Princess Maria Josepha of Saxony - The lady was never ruling queen or empress consort, she was only married to an archduke. This article's name should revert to her maiden form of name per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles). Gryffindor 16:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support for what it matters, I support this. Charles 17:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No reason for Princess. Archduchess would be acceptable, but why not leave it alone? I do support changing to the English Josepha. Septentrionalis 18:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rules are the rules Septentrionalis, we need to respect that. Unless you have an alternative to offer that is in more compliance with the rules, but until then this needs to be moved. Gryffindor 19:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- See discussion below. Septentrionalis 20:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - If we are not going to follow the naming conventions, why do we have them? As Gryffindor said, where she is now, anyone unfamiliar with her would assume she was a empress/queen consort. Prsgodd e ss187 23:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - it's an improvement. There are no "rules" for Wiki naming; they're conventions. The convention for consorts appears to address only the consorts of monarchs (it doesn't mention consorts of cadets). In my opinion this page would be better titled "Archduchess Maria Josefa of Austria" (the name she is best known by in English). But I support the move, while waiting for an improvement in the naming conventions. Noel S McFerran 07:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Obvious as it falls in line for the treatment of princesses vs consorts. Charles 17:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The maiden-name usage on this subject makes no sense to begin with; this is one of the worst examples. Septentrionalis 18:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then may I suggest you post your grievances on the talk page of the naming conventions? Until then we need to comply with the rules. Gryffindor 19:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The naming conventions are a guideline, which may be ignored with cause. My reasons for believing that this branch of them is an imperfect guideline, which generalizes beyond prudence, are already on Wikipedia talk:naming conventions (names and titles). You didn't see them? Septentrionalis 20:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect I don't understand why this is such an issue. Leaving it at the current format would lead users to believe she was queen consort, when in fact she was not. I don't think ignoring guidelines is the way out here, it would all be in chaos. Gryffindor 20:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This implication (which is denied by the text of the article) only follows for a reader who knows the Wikipedia convention on the subject. Since I think most of those readers are already represented on this talk-page, is this really a problem? ;->Septentrionalis 03:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say I'm not convinced the move is justified. I would support whatever is the most common usage. Deb 21:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the 313 google results for "Princess Maria Josepha" [1] appear to be for the third wife of Ferdinand VII of Spain. I will agree that this may raise a problem of disambiguation, but awarding the name to someone other than the primary use seems an odd way to solve it. Septentrionalis 23:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Compare this site, which uses "Archduchess Maria Josepha of Saxony" [2] Septentrionalis 23:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Archduchess Maria Josepha of Saxony"? Since when are archduchesses from Saxony? Septentrionalis what exactly are you saying, that the current form "Maria Josefa of Saxony" should be left as it is, or would you rather have her as "Archduchess Maria Josefa of Austria"? please explain... Gryffindor 15:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Separate options

There seems to be general agreement on Josepha, but if anyone wants to add other choices to the mix, please do. Septentrionalis 15:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Josepha of Saxony

Support Septentrionalis 15:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose She wasn't queen, grand duchess, empress of anything. Charles 18:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archduchess Maria Josepha of Saxony

Support Second choice. Actually used here[3], presumably of Saxony on the same principles of disambigustion as "Mary of Teck" Septentrionalis 15:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pretty lame in my opinion. There is no Queen of Edinburgh or Duchess of Belgium. Charles 18:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Maria Josepha of Saxony

Oppose Not what she was notable as; do we have pages on all the daughters of Saxon kings? Septentrionalis 15:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Were all Saxon princesses the mother of an Emperor? Charles 18:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Other business

So what did she do for the last 25 years of her life? Septentrionalis 03:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this article have such a moralistic tone? Was it taken from the Catholic Encyclopedia? --173.32.134.108 (talk) 00:36, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Princess Maria Josepha of Saxony (1867–1944). 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/20050912031351/http://www.kaisergruft.at/kaisergruft/mjosefa.htm to http://www.kaisergruft.at/kaisergruft/mjosefa.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:24, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]