151.177.56.148

Welcome!

Hello! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. You are welcome to edit anonymously; however, creating an account is free and has several benefits (for example, the ability to create pages, upload media and edit without one's IP address being visible to the public).

Create an account

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:43, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

April 2023

Hello, I'm Fragrant Peony. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Charles XIII, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Fragrant Peony (talk) 14:25, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

I explicitly declared that I didn't have a source. If you bother to read the sentence in context, perhaps you can see why I templated it. 151.177.56.148 (talk) 14:29, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I have now checked with Template:Dubious. It says no source is needed. The template should be used to flag statements one considers dubious, not ones that one can prove wrong.151.177.56.148 (talk) 14:39, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

It seems that you considered the expression "royal couple" dubious when used about a prince and his wife, because they where not a king and queen. This is a misunderstanding of the term royal. The person had the title duke, but he was a prince (and his wife a princess with the title duchess). A royal prince and a princess are royalty. Thus they do not have to be a king and queen to be called a royal couple. The statement is thus not dubious at all and the template was not necessary. --Aciram (talk) 00:22, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

No, I did not misunderstand the term. It is in fact ambiguous in this place, since the text tells about two couples at once: the king and the queen, and the king's brother the duke and the duchess. Those couples have to be distinguished somehow, and they aren't. The passage in question could refer to either. 151.177.56.148 (talk) 06:14, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

And may I add, in this matter I would have thought simple, that although the king's marriage is mentioned in the sentence before, it is Charles, not the king, who is said a little below to have had "numerous affairs".151.177.56.148 (talk) 20:53, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

---