This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Royalty and Nobility 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. European Microstates: Liechtenstein Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Microstates, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of European Microstates 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.European MicrostatesWikipedia:WikiProject European MicrostatesTemplate:WikiProject European MicrostatesEuropean Microstates Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Liechtenstein.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aloys II, Prince of Liechtenstein. 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/20120622092017/http://www.fuerstenhaus.li/en/fuerstenhaus/fuersten/fuerst_alois_2.html to http://www.fuerstenhaus.li/en/fuerstenhaus/fuersten/fuerst_alois_2.html

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) 18:13, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• It should never have been moved to 'exclude' "of country", to begin with. But anyways. GoodDay (talk) 21:01, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Sometime next month. I'll open an RM on this topic. PS - Something the other editor a year ago, chose 'not' to do. GoodDay (talk) 21:12, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Amakuru, disagree that “the title has been stable for over a year” is a substantive statement for a page with so few edits, only bit and gnome edits at that. Your revert serves to validate sneaky pages moves that are a disruptive game to break the apparent natural CONSISTENCY that readers and normal editors expect. All sneaky page moves like this one should be summarily reverted and the sneaky page mover warned. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:22, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @SmokeyJoe: I don't see it as "sneaky" at all. Anyone is allowed to make a WP:BOLD move, that's expressly part of the WP:RM guidlines. And this one was done with a named policy (WP:CONCISE) as its rationale. It's always reasonable to revert bold moves within a short timeframe, but this one was now beyond the period at which we'd usually consider the prior version the stable one. To be honest, your comment here appears to be casting aspersions on the editor who made this move, which is quite surprising from a seasoned and respected editor such as yourself, and I suggest you retract that accusation. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 21:29, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Also pinging Interstellarity. Since the motives of their move in September 2020 have been questioned here, they have a right to be aware of that.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:32, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Short time frame should be measured relative to substantive editing and related talk page activity, and the bold page move was not long ago by that move.

  Any RM regular wandering among many articles, articles with little activity, making bold moves aligned with a known controversial titling theory, well within scope of a well known problematic guideline (NCROY), *should* be suspected of being deliberately sneaky. No talk page posts. No prior or page editing of the the page. Look at the pattern. It is not plausible that a seasoned editor and RM regular would not think the the move would be opposed if publicised. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:37, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(non-automated message) Greetings! I have opened an RfC on WT:ROYALTY that may be of interest to users following this article talk page! You are encouraged to contribute to this discussion here! Hurricane Andrew (444) 19:07, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]