This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Royalty and Nobility This page 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 page is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility. Council This page relates to the WikiProject Council, a collaborative effort regarding WikiProjects in general. If you would like to participate, please visit the project discussion page.CouncilWikipedia:WikiProject CouncilTemplate:WikiProject CouncilCouncil

Archives (index)

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12

This page has archives. Sections older than 182.5 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III.

Was patrolling this article and couldn't really verify much in this outside of references to books that I cannot access. One of the family, Peter Daniell, has written a book on the family history, but that might not be independent. Was wondering if the WikiProject Royalty and Nobility had any view on it? thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 13:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see that @AirshipJungleman29 has nominated it for deletion. thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 15:24, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Umberto I of Italy#Requested move 9 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Векочел (talk) 18:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Francis, Duke of Guise#Requested move 14 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 • [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 22:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Rose Hanbury#Requested move 15 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 16:16, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On James Hamilton, 3rd Duke of Abercorn, I removed the note that he was the great-grandfather of Diana, Princess of Wales on the grounds that he died several years before she was born, citing the various removals from the lede of the article of Prince Andrew of Greece and Denmark that he was the paternal grandfather of Charles III, arguing that they never met, and thus had no impact on each other's lives. It was suggested that consensus be gained for this. I posted here instead of article talk page in hopes of getting more discussion. 2601:249:9301:D570:F1A2:5799:7476:D3A3 (talk) 15:38, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that unless the connection has a special significance (such as an inheritance that went direct from person to great-grandson in the case of Louis XIV), such remote connections are not important enough to feature in the lead. DrKay (talk) 15:49, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed (and I think this is obvious). --JBL (talk) 19:05, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Family tree of Chinese monarchs (ancient)#Requested move 3 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 05:47, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed there are some discrepancies with using old/new calendar for the Russian royalty/nobility (example Grand Duke Konstantin Pavlovich of Russia, where the birth/death date in the infobox were mixed: birth date > OLD calendar and death date > NEW calendar, it's now correct). What is the standard for this? I've been looking for a while but couldn't find any rule, if anyone could be nice to redirect me, I'd be happy to re-edit. Thanks Daphoenyx (talk) 00:01, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Pandukabhaya of Anuradhapura#Requested move 22 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Векочел (talk) 21:59, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Someone is trying to prevent the removal of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH materials in Greek royal family and Prince Christian of Hanover without addressing the main concerns. They are trying to use sources that do not even mention the article subjects in question to make original conclusions about them. Editors are invited to contribute to the discussion at Talk:Greek royal family#Original research. StellarHalo (talk) 19:24, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it would be excellent to have more voices in this discussion about the best way to avoid WP:FRINGE content concerning people who are not royalty (despite being descendants of people who were), while also respecting other core policies. --JBL (talk) 19:26, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be posible to rename this category to include (royalty and nobility) seeing as it belongs to this WikiProject? As it is, the names of these articles only include british peers and royalty. EmilySarah99 (talk) 08:35, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged a bunch of statements in Frederick Barbarossa's lead as either not being supported in/contradicting the body, not being verified in the body, or being absolutely ridiculous (one sentence says he was "almost superhuman" .......). Does anyone have the resources to be able to address the article's issues? See also Talk:Frederick Barbarossa#Problems with the lead. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 06:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Haakon Magnusson of Norway#Requested move 26 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Reading Beans 07:47, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Franz Joseph I of Austria#Requested move 29 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Векочел (talk) 00:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a COIN discussion that I just opened for a source that's being added to royalty and nobility articles. You can view the discussion here. Perspectives appreciated. CPR certified and forgetting it all (talk) 16:43, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Beatrice of Bavaria#Requested move 1 September 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Reading Beans 08:02, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Eric XI of Sweden#Requested move 31 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Reading Beans 11:19, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson#Requested move 5 September 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. reading beans 01:21, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is an ongoing discussion about a draft which will be published under Draft talk:List of legendary rulers of Wales. This is similar to lists to the fellow Celtic nations of Ireland, Scotland, Cornwall, and similar to the listing of the Kings of Britain, again similar to other legendary king lists from other nations. Could we get some consensus on the matter, or if anyone has experience on the topic, could you please join the talk ? Cltjames (talk) 21:00, 07 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate input from more editors into these edits concerning various Americans with the surname Radziwill:

• [1], [2], [3]
• [4], [5], [6]
• [7], [8], [9]

The question of whether any of these people wrote their name with the ł instead of a standard English l is also maybe interesting. (It is not necessary to point out that my edit summaries are not entirely civil, nor that I have now reverted twice; I'm not planning on directly engaging further.) Pinging Unfriendnow (the other involved editor). Thanks. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 21:08, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Radziwiłs, to quote their article arę "a Polish princely family of Lithuanian origin", though I'm not sure what the current legal status of their title is, as Poland is a republic. 98.228.137.44 (talk) 03:12, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That article is almost entirely concerned with people and events of the 16th through 18th centuries (maybe a bit earlier). Our article Stanisław_Albrecht_Radziwiłł#Title (one of the ones Unfriendnow has been trying to pipe to add the word “Prince” instead of linking the article directly) says this: According to Debrett's, although known as Prince Radziwiłł in Britain, on becoming a British subject and in keeping with standard practice, Radziwiłł strictly needed permission from Queen Elizabeth II to use his princely title. The Radziwiłł family held the title Prince of the Holy Roman Empire since the early 16th century. However, noble titles were abolished in Poland and Austria. The other people are the American woman he was married to from 1959 to 1974, their son (b Switzerland 1959), and his wife (b USA 1963, m 1994). 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would really appreciate additional input on the appropriateness of the edits in my OP. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:30, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Constance, Queen of Sicily#Requested move 1 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Векочел (talk) 14:05, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Constance of Aragon#Requested move 5 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:30, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Angevin kings of England has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Borsoka (talk) 02:33, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone from this WikiProject take a look at Mashiding Lomandong and assess it per WP:BIO? Most of the sources cited in the article are to Facebook posts, and the creator might have a WP:COI. If, however, the subject is notable, those things could possibly be cleaned up or better sources could be found. I'm not sure whether this article would fall within the scope of this project, but the article claims this person is a "sultan" so perhaps it might. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:49, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Unknown Archon#Requested move 22 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Feeglgeef (talk) 02:59, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this person was actually a count, and if so, that he was notable. Please find sources. Ping me if you need any help. Bearian (talk) 02:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Sweyn II of Denmark#Requested move 14 December 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Векочел (talk) 20:49, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I opened a discussion on the BLP noticeboard here regarding Prince Gharios El Chemor of Ghassan Al-Numan VIII. In July he had a BLP that was deleted. That was actually the second creation of the article (at least), but because the original editor of the latest article used a different title, it looked like it was the first. The first AfD has been blanked as a courtesy. I've opened the discusssion to see if those article titles can be salted. Just an FYI if you want to participate. --19:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC) Gym Samba (talk) 19:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#MOS:POSTNOM for discussion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Eystein I of Norway#Requested move 17 December 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Векочел (talk) 00:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Richard of Shrewsbury, Duke of York#Requested move 23 December 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Векочел (talk) 03:20, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asking because I'm looking at several articles about noble families, which often have poor sourcing, such as WP:SELFPUB blogs or WP:USERGENERATED websites which reject all responsibility for accuracy of information, while other websites appear to be quite reliable and useful for us. It probably won't be worth it to take every single case to WP:RSP, because writing about noble families is usually limited to this WikiProject. So, have we got a list of reliable and unreliable websites for genealogical research? If so, where can I see it? If not, should we make one? It makes checking the quality of sources for a large set of articles a lot easier. NLeeuw (talk) 19:26, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'm gonna start building up these lists until I get a response, or find lists if there are any. I'll go through both the archives of the Reliable Source Noticeboard and the WikiProject Royalty and Nobility for the term "genealogical websites" and variations thereof. Once we have lists of reliable and unreliable websites, we no longer need to reinvent the wheel by assessing whether source A is reliable for article B, but whether source A can be used on enwiki at all, and if so, to be used in multiple other articles that could use some improvements, or if not, require a purge. This may start off as mostly a note-to-self, but this is relevant for everyone working in this content area, and some previous decisions and assessments already apply right now, and have already been implemented over the years, particularly those of WP:RSP. NLeeuw (talk) 10:42, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Deprecated

• Peerage websites (self-published)

   Generally unreliable

• WP:ANCESTRY.COM
• FamilySearch
• Find a Grave
• Findmypast
• Geni.com

   Generally reliable in its areas of expertise

• Burke's Peerage
• Debrett's

NLeeuw (talk) 11:00, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 103#Self-published royalty websites After over a week's debate, consensus is that these self-published ancestry sources should not be used as sources in biographies of living people. Closing per request at WP:AN/I. – Quadell (talk) 20:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC) See WP:BLPSPS (biographies of living people - self-published sources). Examples mentioned were:
  • http://www.uq.net.au/~zzhsoszy/ "Genealogical Gleanings"
  • http://www.royalark.net "Royal Ark"
  • http://www.genealogics.org/index.php
  • http://thepeerage.com/index.htm NLeeuw (talk) 11:14, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 298#Royalcruft again (June 2020) has an in-depth discussion of lots of questionable genealogical websites.
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 405#fmg.ac (Foundation for Medieval Genealogy) (Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley) was deprecated 1.5 year ago upon my inquiry. It was used in 500+ articles, where we purged it from. This might merit a follow-up for other unreliable genealogical websites which are still currently used as sources in noble families articles. In some cases, removing these unreliable websites will show that the rest of the articles is not really based on anything reliable, and may not pass WP:GNG either. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khilkov for a current example of this. In other cases, we can probably improve articles up to current standards by using reliable websites for multiple articles. So having lists of reliable and unreliable genealogical websites can work well both ways. NLeeuw (talk) 19:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• FamilyTreeDNA familytreedna.com. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 353#Familytreedna.com September 2021. Like the others its a hard no, they are basically completely useless for encyclopedic purposes. No definitely not. A lot of this is just a mish mash of theoreticals even if they did reveal their data sources and linking. As it is for these services, for all we know it's just a random number generator looking up data. WP:USERGENERATED. used in 100 enwiki articles.

genealogy.eu / genealogy.euweb.cz has been discussed many times before:

• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 131#Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley (2) (August 2012):

I have also been through the articles that use "Marek, Miroslav. "A listing of the House of Orléans". Genealogy.EU. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)" as a cited source marking them in a similar way. The problem with that source is that Marek does not cite his sources. PBS (talk) 09:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 175#Judgepedia (August 2014):

...1,132 pages link to genealogy.euweb.cz The first page returned is List of princes of Austria-Hungary 21 out of 28 citations (and another page or which I ran AWB), in this case I don't think Miroslav Marek cites any sources. You see the problem is lots of people like to create ancestry trees and articles about nobility the content of which is mainly about who married whom (dynastic pedigree was and probably is still important and if often helps to explain otherwise odd political behaviour, both at the local as well as the national level -- so it can't be dismissed as totally trivial), and it is easy to do if you use this sort of site. Deleting them is impractical at a Wikipedia political level (apart from anything else if one try it one will be accused of being anti-feminist as in prior centuries European female aristocracy are only notable by who they married and as baby machines, so deleting information in Wikipedia articles from these sites affects articles on females more than males).... PBS (talk) 22:54, 13 August 2014 (UTC) (I gotta say that I partially agree with PBS; we do need better representation of women and women's history; I'm a Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red member myself. On the other hand, "no information is better than false information"; that's a rule somewhere as well, right? NLeeuw (talk) 20:33, 28 December 2024 (UTC))[reply]

• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 211#genealogy.euweb.cz and geneall.net (August 2016):

I do not think http://genealogy.euweb.cz/ is a reliable source. Does anyone think that it is and if so how does it meet the requirements of WP:V? PBS (talk) 19:05, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 217#roglo.eu (December 2016):

There are far too many of these genealogical websites being using in articles. It seems that biographies historical minor nobles of European Continental countries are particularly susceptible to having citations linked to these types of sites. [mentions http://genealogy.euweb.cz as one of them] PBS (talk) 21:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 266#thepeerage.com (May 2019):

there is a far larger problem with the use of sites that do not cite their sources -- neither of you addressed my question about insource:/Rayment/ (used in 11,273 articles) -- there are others, most of them are used as citations to support little known (to English readers) continental European nobility eg insource:/roglo.eu/ (88); insource:/genealogy.euweb.cz/ (1,196); insource:/genealogics.org/ (460) and for UK and Irish biographies insource:/www.tudorplace.com.ar/ (381). I would suggest that if you want to help the project cleaning up citations to any of these sites that do not cite any sources would be time better spent than worrying about Lundy where he cites reliable sources. -- PBS (talk) 12:01, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 297#More iffy sources from the fake royalty goldmine (5 June 2020):

These seem very dodgy: (...) genealogy.euweb.cz - pretty confident this was rejected ages ago as user-generated, I will search in a minute... Guy 18:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

genealogy.euweb.cz is self published unreliable (..) Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 298#Royalcruft again (19 June 2020):

(once again PBS pointing out that genealogy.euweb.cz is not reliable, and suggesting a way to "first tag them and then bag them".)

I think it is evidently WP:SELFPUB and should be deprecated. NLeeuw (talk) 11:00, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is currently used in 1,206 (!) enwiki articles – holy *peep*! Deprecating and replacing genealogy.eu should be a priority for us. NLeeuw (talk) 02:00, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All this time for the past 12 years, PBS has been pointing out it is an unreliable source, and it seems that others have started to agree since June 2020. But it has still not been deprecated or discouraged. Instead, the number of enwiki articles which use genealogy.eu has only grown from 1,132 to 1,206 in 10 years. I think that, just like with Cawley's MedLands, we need to finally make a decision to remove Miroslav's genealogy.eu as an unreliable source that should not be used anymore, anywhere, anywhen. Because this problem will not go away if we continue to ignore it for another 12 years. NLeeuw (talk) 20:49, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @ActivelyDisinterested, thanks for your advice below! Do you think this summary here above would suffice to make a case for deprecation at an RSN RfC? If so, would you support it? NLeeuw (talk) 22:08, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a discussion to deprecate these and similar sources. MedLands isn't deprecated and just keep getting added back, as does geni.com and the self-published peerage sites. Maybe all the genealogy sources that are already known to be unreliable, but keep getting used could be done in a single RFC. There's precedent for adding an unreliable source to the deprecation list because of persistent usage, see WP: Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 453#RfC: Universe Guide for instance. Mass RFC's can be unwelcome sometimes, but the other option (holding different RFCs for the same reason for each source) is worse. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:51, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe finish working here, and then take a completed case of unreliable sources that keep getting reused to RSN for deprecation. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:52, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I appreciate that advice very much! If you or anyone else has more input or could help me assess the sources I have been listing here, that would be wonderful. I haven't got much experience with RfCs, but I do want to address all these unreliable genealogical websites properly for once (if not for all), and you have been a great help so far, just like when we tackled MedLands last time. The precedent certainly helps as well. NLeeuw (talk) 23:37, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• ...

NLeeuw (talk) 11:00, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Examples (I'm currently mostly working on Russia noble families, but it could be about anywhere, so this list is not representative):

• Kansallisbiografia seems RS
• Nordisk familjebok seems RS
• House of Nobility (Sweden) / Riddarhuset.se: seems RS
• House of Nobility (Finland) / ritarihuone.fi / riddarhuset.fi: seems RS
• Svenskt Biografiskt Lexikon at riksarkivet.se seems RS
• Vle.lt Visuotinė lietuvių enciklopedija "Universal Lithuanian Encyclopedia" seems RS
• ihst.ru S.I. Vavilov Institute for the History of Natural Science and Technology of the Russian Academy of Sciences seems RS
• Tatar Encyclopaedia seems RS
• dic.academic.ru. ru:Academic.ru states it is a database of dictionaries, encyclopedias, bookstores and films; it suggests it is reliable, but does not always respect copyright. Seems fine, although preference should be given to citing the source which the academic.ru search result comes up with rather than the search result itself. Discussed once in March 2024, positively: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 431#zvukibukvy.ru. used in about 120 enwiki articles (excluding unrelated "DIC" abbreviations)
• rulex.ru Russian Biographical Lexicon, seems generally reliable; it is merely a digitisation of two encyclopaedic dictionaries from 1907 and 1916 that we use already, although WP:AGEMATTERS. used in at least 48 enwiki articles, but I've also seen it in many not found in this search result. used in about 270 enwiki articles.

• gerbovnik.ru General Armorial of the Noble Families of the Russian Empire seems RS, but from 1917, so WP:AGEMATTERS. used in 43 enwiki articles.

• adelsvapen.com: WP:USERGENERATED wiki which works very much like Wikipedia, risking WP:CITOGENESIS if they repeat each other's claims. used in 145 enwiki articles

• vgd.ru All-Russian Genealogical Tree. WP:USERGENERATED used in about 17 enwiki articles used in about 80 enwiki articles (excluding articles where the abbreviation "VGD" stands for something else, usually Vologda Airport)

• freeart.com/terms-of-use-and-sale/ previously abcgallery.com WP:USERGENERATED
• russianartdealer.com selfpub used in 2 enwiki articles.
• funeral-spb.narod.ru/ selfpub. used in 9 enwiki articles
• sergekot.com/services-we-offer/ selfpub
• https://www.m-a-k.net/ probably selfpub
• heraldry.at.ua. untrusted website according to WOT
• imperialgerold.ru suspicious website according to WOT. used in 3 enwiki articles.
• geneal.ru WP:USERGENERATED
• translate.googleusercontent.com WP:USERGENERATED
• rgfond.ru/about evidently WP:USERGENERATED. used in 10 enwiki articles.
• hrono.ru / hrono.info / hronos.km.ru (ru:Хронос (сайт)). "Hrono.ru" currently yields 362 enwiki articles; "Hrono.info" currently yields 82 enwiki articles; "Hronos.km.ru" currently yields 34 enwiki articles. Discussed once in Feb–March 2021 with an inconclusive RfC: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 334#Chronos Encyclopeadia. Current status seems "no consensus / case-by-case basis" (WP:MREL). It seems that hrono.ru was originally hronos.km.ru, a former subdomain of km.ru, run by the ru:Кирилл и Мефодий (компания) "Cyril and Methodius" company ("KM"), whose primary publication was a digitised version of the ru:Большая энциклопедия Кирилла и Мефодия Great Encyclopedia of Cyril and Methodius. Archived URLs such as https://web.archive.org/web/20090319003748/http://www.hronos.km.ru/biograf/krestinski.html mirror those of currently-live hrono.ru: https://www.hrono.ru/biograf/bio_k/krestinski_nn.php . These days, however, "hronos.km.ru" no longer works, and redirects to km.ru, which is now a website about everything and anything to do with media, entertainment and "news" (its "history" section nowadays features mostly pro-Kremlin opinion pieces about how awesome Russia is and how bad Ukraine is). We might task a bot to run a script updating these 34-ish URLs if we think it's worth the effort separating hrono.ru / hrono.info as it is now from km.ru after the hronos.km.ru was split off from it. NLeeuw (talk) 16:30, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• genealogia.ru ? This 2005 Researchgate.net review of genealogia.ru calls it "the most extensive Internet resource on the Russian segment of the web, devoted to genealogy issues." The description suggests it is WP:UGC:

In a 23 March 2015 review, S.D. Kotelnikov wrote: Сайт Генеалогия.ру (http://www.genealogia.ru) Хороший был в свое время проект Константина Погорелого, но зачах. The site Genealogy.ru (http://www.genealogia.ru) Konstantin Pogorely's project was good in its time, but it has languished. He goes on to lament the commercialisation of genealogy websites, but not necessarily their reliability. NLeeuw (talk) 21:20, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• svenskadel.nu deadlink. https://www.svenskadel.se/ appears to be a WP:SELFPUB site dedicated to document all Swedish noble families, including those not registered at the Riddarhuset. This register covers all genera or, more correctly, has the ambition to present all genera. It does not cite any sources at all. I don't know how often it is used (search can't find anything), but I saw it at least once for a Russian noble family article. NLeeuw (talk) 21:29, 28 December 2024 (UTC) Correction: Used in 2 enwiki articles atm. NLeeuw (talk) 00:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Feb-web.ru ? The Fundamental Electronic Library “Russian Literature and Folklore” (FEB) is a network multifunctional information system that accumulates information of various types (text, sound, visual, etc.) in the field of Russian literature of the 11th-20th centuries and Russian folklore, as well as the history of Russian philology and folklore studies. It is a project of the Russian Academy of Sciences. The About page seems to stipulate quite high standards of scientific and scholarly quality, accuracy, correct reproduction of original texts, completeness, and "Compliance with the modern scientific level". On the other hand, it has hundreds of authors, and seems to be set up as a WP:USERGENERATED wiki. I don't know. It might be similar to Adelsvapen or Nupedia in the sense that it requires authors to be or behave like experts and use only highly reliable sources, but it is still usergenerated. Feb-web.ru is currently used in about 70 enwiki articles. I think this might be case-by-case WP:MREL. NLeeuw (talk) 21:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• russianfamily.ru expired domain name, used in 5 enwiki articles.
• russiannobility.org Russian Nobility Association in America. WP:USERGENERATED? used in 27 enwiki articles
• russiarevisited.com expired domain name. (only in Anrep (noble family)).
• oldkiev.info expired domain name. used in at least 4 enwiki articles but I've also seen it in a Russian noble family page.
• vybor.gorod.dn.ua deadlink (only in Tereshchenko family)
• liveuamap.com useful for military OSINT, but probably not very useful for genealogical research
• peoples.ru/about Although content is apparently submitted by project users (Проект Люди является общедоступным, и наполняемым пользователями проекта), it does have some editorial review / control. Might be reliable case-by-case.
• ...

NLeeuw (talk) 19:26, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll comment on the ones from Sweden:

• Nordisk familjebok is an old general dictionary. Generally OK, but can be outdated.
• Riddarhuset is the Swedish house of nobility. I would consider it acceptable, especially on genealogy.
• Svenskt Biografiskt Lexikon generally an excellent source for Swedish biographies, but some of the oldest material might not have quite the same standard, and it is imcomplete.
• adelsvapenwiki. A wiki where a lot of content comes from an import of the older sv:Den introducerade svenska adelns ättartavlor by Gustaf Elgenstierna. That is a reliable source, available digitally on Projekt Runeberg: [10].

There is also the older Svenska adelns ättartaflor, by Gabriel Anrep, which should be avoided, as it contains family traditions of dubious value.

Andejons (talk) 21:33, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Andejons Thanks for this contribution! So I suppose that Adelsvapen wiki is based on Den introducerade svenska adelns ättartavlor, but users are allowed to add their own genealogy and other contents in a collaborate manner just like Wikipedia? I guess that would mean we still shouldn't use Adelsvapen wiki as a source, but go straight to the original text of Elgenstierna (if we can find it), as that can be relied on? The usergenerated expanded online version of it just cannot be trusted as much. It seems much like the WP:BRITANNICA situation; a digitised version of a printed original that has been updated and expanded, but editorial control over this new online version may not be as rigorous. NLeeuw (talk) 21:48, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One that still gets used in MedLands[11], discussedany times and isn't reliable. Commonly used for offspring and spouses, as MedLands has a very bad habit of linking anything with the same name. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:22, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ActivelyDisinterested Hey, didn't you and I and some others deprecate MedLands 1.5 years ago at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 405#fmg.ac (Foundation for Medieval Genealogy)? I do see that most access-dates in your search result are between 2024-09-30 and 2024-10-22, so these are probably recent re-introductions of MedLands into enwiki, apparently all by the same new User:Vittoriobr who joined enwiki in late 2023, so a few months after we removed all those refs to MedLands in May 2023. For the record Vittoriobr: we appreciate your contributions, but fmg.ac (Foundation for Medieval Genealogy), alias Medieval Lands (MedLands) by Charles Cawley, is not a reliable source. We should not be using it anymore, but seek to replace it with a better source. As a relatively new user, you might not have known that, so we're explaining that to you now. :) NLeeuw (talk) 01:47, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how exactly adelsvapenwiki works, but my impression is that they usually don't change the text of Elgenstierna more than some editorial modernisations. I would suggest replacing with Elgenstierna when possible, but deprecating it should probably not be the first priority. I've certainly seen far worse.

Andejons (talk) 08:34, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Currently I am thinking that Adelsvapen doesn't have to be WP:DEPRECATED (it can't be, this is the first time it is discussed and it is not that unreliable), but should be considered WP:UGC, as ActivelyDisinterested also said at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Adelsvapen.com. It is recommended to be replaced by a better source, but in non-BLP articles, that would have no urgency. Although I could also see a case-by-case WP:MREL classification, I think this would put it in the WP:GUNREL group.

I think the question whether genealogy.eu / genealogy.euweb.cz should be deprecated is far more relevant right now. Not sure if I should make that a separate section here or at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Adelsvapen.com? We should probably keep discussion centralised, but I don't know which place is best. @ActivelyDisinterested where can we best discuss genealogy.eu / genealogy.euweb.cz? NLeeuw (talk) 20:04, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both genealogy.eu and genealogy.euweb.cz have been discussed on RSN before, I don't think either were considered reliable. If you wanted them to be formally WP:DEPRECATED, as in having them added to the edit filter etc, then that will require a discussion on RSN and probably an RFC. If you just want to list them here as "Should never be used", then I don't see why you couldn't have the discussion here. Deprecation is a formal procedure, but in most cases there's no need to do it.

Projects can maintain source lists (and I would encourage them to do so), but they can't do so against the general consensus of the community (basically the advice from WP:LOCALCONSENSUS). So as long as your list takes into account prior discussions you don't need RSN, if you disagree with prior discussions or want some additional input RSN is always available. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:37, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! I've made an elaborate summary above at #genealogy.eu, I'll tag you there. NLeeuw (talk) 22:06, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Finnish sources:

• The website https://www.ritarihuone.fi contains only a little information about the families, but I would expect it to be reliable, since they also publish research on the families. The publications are probably more useful than the website.
• Kansallisbiografia is generally reliable. The articles are usually written by historians specializing on the period in question. At worst, the articles are directly based on Svenskt Biografiskt Lexikon, adding nothing to them, but even this is quite rare. The site is behind the paywall, but the bios can be accessed for free through https://www.biografiasampo.fi

Jähmefyysikko (talk) 08:57, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice! NLeeuw (talk) 19:51, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For those interested, I've got a running list of non-RS genealogy/royalty refs here that includes links to current use/my removal efforts on Wikipedia. Anything that doesn't have a strikethrough has citations that still need to be deleted/replaced. JoelleJay (talk) 00:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That seems quite helpful! I'll have a more in-depth look tomorrow. NLeeuw (talk) 00:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS: What does the insource: part do exactly when you make a search query within enwiki? I notice I can find 2 results for insource: svenskadel.nu, but 0 results for just svenskadel.nu, so it definitely does something useful. Edit: Usually insource: seems to work a bit better than without, as it yields more results, but in a few cases it seems better not to use insource:. I don't know why. NLeeuw (talk) 00:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"insource" searches through the source text (what you see when editing a page if you don't use the Visual Editor), so it catches items in, e.g., templates or URLs that would normally be invisible on the rendered page. JoelleJay (talk) 02:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Eric XIV of Sweden#Requested move 18 December 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Векочел (talk) 04:26, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]