Talk:Sweden's Crown Princess marries long-time boyfriend

Minor correction needed
Please change "crown" as in she wore the same crown, to diadem, which is a special european style crown. I'd do it but I'm on my phone and the page is too big to edit. Thank you, M.E. 66.174.93.44 (talk) 16:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree. A wikilink is not sufficient to define a term that will not be familiar to many readers. --InfantGorilla (talk) 16:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, that's fine. There is one more error. My wife pointed out I accidentally wrote Queen Silvia's wedding was on 19 July, when of course it should say June. Ty, M.E. 69.78.133.84 (talk) 16:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree with your disagreement. Wikinews is online paper which has access to the powers of hyperlinks. If a reader doesn't know what a diadem is, simply link to the wikipedia page! It gives a better description of what actually happened, and those who don't know what a diadem is can quickly look it up, learning something new (which I'm sure half the point of reading the news is: learning something new). Dumbing down wikinews is simply wrong. 213.100.136.79 (talk) 08:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I love hyperlinks, but in this case I am with the original author.
 * I found the Wikipedia article confusing and unhelpful: it left me with the impression that a diadem was a band, a ribbon, or perhaps similar to a circlet. So I still don't know what the word tells us about the crown used at the wedding: does it refer to its heritage, its geometry, or something else?  Therefore I have to plead "dumb", and I think that when writing for a general audience, we need to explain technical or cultural terms in the actual article, without relying on hyperlinks.  In my view, hyperlinks in news are for further research, not to explain unusual words.
 * I think this hyperlink might be more suitable:
 * ''She wore the same crown that her mother, Queen Silvia, wore on her wedding day 34 years previously, also on 19 June.
 * If you agree, then add it to the article.
 * --InfantGorilla (talk) 14:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Headline
WTF! Commoner!? I was reading in the article that due sweden's equality issues the bride and the groom walk down the isle together...but it's okay to call a partner of non-royal blood a "commoner"... change this - scratch that I just did! H.R.H Sovereign King Bradley The Great, Autocrat of All Australia talk  03:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Well obviously even though Sweden would like to think it's a forward-thinking, equality-for-all country, it's apparent that it isn't. The sources used all say "commoner" and the Swedish-language papers said the same thing. So I'm kinda pissed that you moved the article, and now it needs moving again because you used the wrong title case. "Long-Term Boyfriend" should be lower case. So well done. Worried about being offensive, really.. 9_9 --M.E. 66.174.93.56 (talk) 03:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think commoner is offensive - its the commonly used term for people not of royal blood. (With that said I think the current title is also fine, but perhaps should be long-term not long-time, and should be lowercase). Cheers. Bawolff ☺☻ 06:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Commoner is not offensive. It's that simple. I'd find a better insult if I was trying; one that was actually, you know, insulting. Blood Red Sandman (Talk)   (Contribs) 06:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The point of the matter is, "commoner" is a subjective term and wikinews only deals with facts...with the facts being she married her long-term boyfriend. H.R.H Sovereign King Bradley The Great, Autocrat of All Australia talk  23:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Our headline should reflect the information that most makes it news. Since "non-royal" is the news, but is not really a noun, I think "commoner" does the job.  Is "commoner" an insult in Australia?  It isn't in Europe.
 * "... marries long-time boyfriend" is like the old saw : "Dog bites man"
 * --InfantGorilla (talk) 14:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, but yes "commoner" is a derogatory term in Australia for future notice...It wouldn't be insulting in Europe, cause they are all so common =P I joke I joke...but if you are offended by that...consider my point made H.R.H Sovereign King Bradley The Great, Autocrat of All Australia talk

P.S whats so bland about royalty marrying a long-time boyfriend, especially considering they were so out and proud about it...usually its kept all hush hush. And I completely agree...dog bites man is so YAWN especially for the man the dog bit... H.R.H Sovereign King Bradley The Great, Autocrat of All Australia talk  11:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * "common" is insulting in UK/Ireland, except in "common people", but "commoner" is mere concession to class system of royal/aristocrat/everyone else.  It is too late to change the headline now.  "Whirlwind romance, shotgun wedding, secret affair": are all good headlines.  I don't think any of the recent UK/Australian long term royal romances were kept secret.  I don't normally read about other royal families.  --InfantGorilla (talk) 14:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * See definitions 1 and 2 (noun) of commoner. A commoner means that the person holds neither title nor rank. A someone born in the UK (where the adjective common has a derogatory sense), the usage of commoner is perfectly acceptable to describe someone who is not born of nobility. --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 17:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I am so glad you all went to such great lengths to tell me why "I" (and most Australians) dont find it offensive...thank god there are people like you in the world telling everyone else what's offensive and what's not...H.R.H Sovereign King Bradley The Great, Autocrat of All Australia talk  23:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

please add "Royalty" category
editprotected

Ragettho (talk) 04:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * ✅ Tyrol5 (talk) 20:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)