Talk:Frederick William I of Prussia

	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 articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility.

Germany: Prussia Mid‑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 articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Prussia, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.

Former countries: Prussia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles
	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Prussia, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.

Untitled

This is more than usually useless, HJ. Let me point out (I really ought to have this on cut and paste we tell you so \that w herebythen 'name, ordinal number title of polity' for all others. Unfortunately, a lot of these articles are written by those unfamiliar with English nomenclature. JHK

OK -- I removed the list of titles. Why? because first, the excessive list of titles was leading into a discussion of Hohenzollerns and their titles -- not the topic of the article. Second, titles should take second place to what the subject actually did. Titles mean nothing compared to actions. There were more titles listed than information about the man himself. This is an encyclopedia, NOT Debrett's peerage, and NOT a genealogical resource. As written, it was not a good article -it is now a good stub, and would welcome careful attention and feeding. Sample questions -- what do we know about the man himself? What did he do (why is he remembered)? How was he representative (or not) of his world? JHK

Frederich William

Old Fred-Willy really does deserve more then this. Though not the equal of his illustrious son, he was at least the equal of the first king of Prussia or the Great Elector. I'll try to add some stuff. - CJWilly

Seriously, this guy's article needs a ton more stuff. I'm not trying to gloss his retarded treatment of Fritz JoshNarins (talk) 16:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added stuff on his admnistrative dedication, love of the military, mistreatment of his son. Could also use some notes on his diseases and perhaps some meaningful statistics on his army. -CJWilly

weird move

Uhhh, why was this article moved to "Frederick William I in Prussia"? I mean, I know he hang out there and all but shouldn't it be "of"? Volunteer Marek 06:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

king IN Prussia

This pretty much explains it: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Frederick_William_I_of_Prussia — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeathComesSoon (talk • contribs) 14:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spotty

Perfunctory and incomplete article about one of the more important figures of early modern European history. Much detail about his coffin/sarcophagus but little about his reign. (German WP entry is 10 times as long – 7,000 words – with 14 illustrations.) Sca (talk) 15:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong Name

Why is his name listed in an English equivalent first, and then German in parentheses, almost like the original is English? Can someone fix his name please? 112.198.98.30 (talk) 15:19, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez Louise, this again. If you'd care to look at the German Wikipedia, that is exactly how it is done with British monarchs there. Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:39, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I looked. You are wrong: http://de.wiki.x.io/wiki/Charles,_Prince_of_Wales 112.198.79.234 (talk) 10:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not wrong. It is how fdewaele pointed out, the most common used name is used as article title. Therefore, Charles is Charles but Elizabeth is Elisabeth and George is Georg and Edward is Eduard. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But British Royals are German...112.198.98.30 (talk) 17:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to be offensive, but that might be the dumbest thing I've ever read here... Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:36, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only the ones from the House of Hanover were of German descent, and since the first world war they haven't married into any German royal families either.

The rule on the English language wikipedia is that whenever there is a commonly used name in English, that one is used in stead of the one from the person's own language. That applies to Roman names ( Trajan, Vespasian, Livy...) but also to royal or papal names. -- fdewaele, 29 November 2015, 20:15.

I have NEVER heard anyone say "Frederik William". Besides, even if it were the "common way" isn't this supposed to be an academic website? I mean, writing stuff in the common way, we might as well go all the way and be like "Fred-Willy was a ballah mang. I mean, he had bank, and bitches, and mad lands and shit." This is one of those things that prevents people from taking wikipedia seriously...112.198.79.234 (talk) 07:31, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel it should be dealt with differently, feel free to propose it at the right place, which would probably be here. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are on wikipedia calling an intelligent person "dumb"? If you are ignorant, read wikipedia. It will tell you the British Royals are German Royalty. So are the Russian Royals. It is idiots like you that ruin this site...112.198.98.30 (talk) 18:55, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you talk about what nationality a monarch has, you clearly have not understood the whole point of monarchies. But for now, I will leave you with the good point made by fdewaele. Zwerg Nase (talk) 22:03, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@112.198.98.30: I have pointed this out above: If you feel this should be changed, discuss it in the Wikiproject. Until such a time that Wikipedia decides to change its policy on monarch names, I will keep reverting your changes. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@112.198.98.30: and @112.198.79.234: As Zwerg Nase pointed out if you don't like the policy, then try to change it at the appropriate place but in the meanwhile please adhere to Wikipedia's set policy and don't do any unilateral moves without consensus. I have thus restored the articles to their previous form as you did attempt to move them -- fdewaele, 30 November 2015, 13:48.

I agree. Translating German names into English is offensive and tantamount to cultural genocide. I am glad they have the original German names listed in parentheses. However, the article's title is clearly wrong. And this IS the place to discuss it! How do we report people like you committing vandalism?2001:558:6012:5A:565:ABEA:FCDE:5BBD (talk) 19:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Invoking "cultural genocide" is a bit on the hysterical side. Here are some names from the German Wikipedia, all given as main titles and used throughout the texts: Thomas Morus (Thomas More), Raffael (Raffaello Sanzio), Maria Stuart (Mary Stuart), Ludwig XIV. (französisch Louis XIV), Christoph Kolumbus, Johann Ohneland, Horaz (Quintus Horatius Flaccus). I could give you many more. Are they examples of cultural genocide? If so, it has been continuing for centuries. Culture must be a tough old bird to resist such rough treatment and still survive! METRANGOLO1 (talk) 21:30, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Soldier-King" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Soldier-King and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 7#Soldier-King until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:36, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Mitford's "Frederick the Great"

The 1984 edition of Mitford's book is cited in n.18 and links correctly to page 61. The other references to Mitford's book, however, in notes 12, 20, and 21, cite the 1970 (first) edition, and the page numbers cited in all three footnotes are incorrect. In fact, they don't even exist, because they are pages 6, x, and 5, respectively, and the first page of text in the 1970 edition is page 13. I have a copy of the 1970 edition, but not of the 1984 edition. Page 61 of the 1984 edition is page 55 of the 1970 edition, and I have just added that fact to n.18. I did so because I plan to read the 1970 edition and to look for where the text is that is mistakenly cited as on pages 6, x, and 5. With the edit I just made, all four footnotes will cite the 1970 edition. Maurice Magnus (talk) 20:08, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE. I have corrected the references to pages 6, x, and 5, which are now 17, 15, and 16, respectively. I also noticed that n.14 also cited Mitford with an incorrect page number. I did not find the information for which it claimed to be the source, so I deleted n.14. That results in the footnotes referred to above that were 18, 20, and 21 now being, respectively, 17, 19, and 20. Maurice Magnus (talk) 22:15, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]