From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Prince Andrew)
 | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, use the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.
Discussions:
|
I already asked in the past with a different picture, but I found a new picture so I want to ask again, may we change the image in the Infobox? It’s from 2013 and is quite outdated. This image is from 2017 (newer) and it reflects what Mr. Mountbatten Windsor looks like in today’s day and age. It’s also being used in the Counsellor of State Wikipedia Page and is the picture for the Infobox on the Latvian and Portuguese pages for Andrew.
Atomus23 (talk) 19:09, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes 2017 markedly more up to date compared to 2013? Surtsicna (talk) 19:15, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- The original photo (seen here) is almost a baker dozen years old, compared to the current photo (seen above and in Infobox)isn’t even a decade years old.
- also, in the words of another user on this talk page “Looking creepy might be a point in its favor per WP:LEADIMAGE, "image that accurately represents the topic"…” Atomus23 (talk) 21:04, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I think he looks the same in both pictures but I have no objection to the change I don't think it really matters. ItsShandog (talk) 20:23, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it just me, or does the close-up make him look creepy? I'd personally prefer the old photo, but that is just my two cents. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 20:37, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it is a bit of creepy looking picture lol I do think I prefer the old one too. ItsShandog (talk) 20:40, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking creepy might be a point in its favor per WP:LEADIMAGE, "image that accurately represents the topic"... Surtsicna (talk) 21:51, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- What worries me is that the image might provide more MOS:SHOCKVALUE than the other image. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 22:18, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. It's frankly editorialising to pick a deliberately creepy image; unless he usually looks like that picture, the accurate representation of Andrew is what he normally looks like. People can form their own conclusions re him being creepy or not based on the text.
- My preference would be something like this ; unfortunately that picture is a little blurry. If there's no better picture I'd prefer just the 2013 one. Groot42 (talk) 22:09, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- What worries me is that the image might provide more MOS:SHOCKVALUE than the other image. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 22:18, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking creepy might be a point in its favor per WP:LEADIMAGE, "image that accurately represents the topic"... Surtsicna (talk) 21:51, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it is a bit of creepy looking picture lol I do think I prefer the old one too. ItsShandog (talk) 20:40, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
Which is more appropriate? Infobox person or Infobox royalty. GoodDay (talk) 21:11, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, he arguably is a person. He inarguably is not royalty. Surtsicna (talk) 17:32, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- He is in the line of succession and a King's brother he is royalty. You are contradicting yourself on one hand you want to give his page special treatment because his mother was a Monarch and on the other hand you want his infobox not to be royalty. ItsShandog (talk) 17:38, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand why you reverted the edit of me changing the infobox to royalty it was like that up until recently you said yourself he is still in the line of succession so why would you change it lol makes no sense whatsoever and also why put his mothers name above his fathers when no other page is done that way why is his different to every other page? ItsShandog (talk) 17:23, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Also it is silly to put his mothers name first when their fathers name is at the top of every other page if you are going to do that edit here why not do it on every other page? ItsShandog (talk) 17:26, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not silly. It is logical. What other page? We only have one page about Andrew. Surtsicna (talk) 17:31, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- But why would you put his mother at the top and not do the same with Anne, Charles and Edward. She was their mother too not just Andrew's lol. ItsShandog (talk) 17:32, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- So doesn't sound very logical to me to change that here and then just leave every other page completely different as if she wasn't their mother as well so yeah, that is quite silly. ItsShandog (talk) 17:34, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- So go fix those other pages. Surtsicna (talk) 17:38, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- You can't put the mother at the top on other pages their's is infobox royalty it automatically puts father at the top. But you's don't want infobox royalty here either you just seem to want to make a different rule for Andrew's page which makes no sense whatsoever. ItsShandog (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Andrew is untitled. As a result there should be no difference between the infobox used here and the ones used at Zara Tindall, Lady Louise Windsor, etc. I also see no problem with the mother being listed first; she was more prominent and we have no guidelines that would dictate father's name should come first. Keivan.fTalk 17:44, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- But why put father first on every other page it just makes no sense to me at all. Elizabeth is prominent as a monarch for all her children and we can't do that there so I don't see why Andrew's page should be so special. Why do things consistent on other pages and change the rules for him I don't get that at all. Infobox royalty basically dictate's that though because they don't let you put the mother first. Wouldn't Zara's mother be prominent if so why aren't we putting Anne first there then? ItsShandog (talk) 17:49, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Just seems stupid to be consistent with certain things on pages and then when it comes to something else we are just changing consistency for no reason at all, his father's name was first all along and was never changed before. ItsShandog (talk) 17:52, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- You can always alter Zara or Peter's pages along with other similar pages on children of princesses that use infobox person if you believe the mother is a more prominent figure. Just because a group of articles collectively have a single feature that does not mean the said feature is acceptable unless it is grounded in policy or guidelines. Keivan.fTalk 23:23, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- I have changed Peter's page but with Charles, Anne and Edward I'm not sure how you change it there it doesn't seem to give you the option with Infobox royalty I'm not sure if there's a way round that. ItsShandog (talk) 08:42, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Infobox royalty puts father first by default when the "father" and "mother" parameters are used. But unlike Template:Infobox person and Template:Infobox noble it does not have a "parents" parameter, which would override the individual parameters and allow the mother to be listed first. This issue can be brought up at Template talk:Infobox royalty and if the community agrees the "parents" parameter can be added so that queens regnant can be listed first in the infoboxes used on their children's pages. Keivan.fTalk 18:42, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- I have changed Peter's page but with Charles, Anne and Edward I'm not sure how you change it there it doesn't seem to give you the option with Infobox royalty I'm not sure if there's a way round that. ItsShandog (talk) 08:42, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- You can always alter Zara or Peter's pages along with other similar pages on children of princesses that use infobox person if you believe the mother is a more prominent figure. Just because a group of articles collectively have a single feature that does not mean the said feature is acceptable unless it is grounded in policy or guidelines. Keivan.fTalk 23:23, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Andrew is untitled. As a result there should be no difference between the infobox used here and the ones used at Zara Tindall, Lady Louise Windsor, etc. I also see no problem with the mother being listed first; she was more prominent and we have no guidelines that would dictate father's name should come first. Keivan.fTalk 17:44, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- You can't put the mother at the top on other pages their's is infobox royalty it automatically puts father at the top. But you's don't want infobox royalty here either you just seem to want to make a different rule for Andrew's page which makes no sense whatsoever. ItsShandog (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- So go fix those other pages. Surtsicna (talk) 17:38, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- So doesn't sound very logical to me to change that here and then just leave every other page completely different as if she wasn't their mother as well so yeah, that is quite silly. ItsShandog (talk) 17:34, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- But why would you put his mother at the top and not do the same with Anne, Charles and Edward. She was their mother too not just Andrew's lol. ItsShandog (talk) 17:32, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not silly. It is logical. What other page? We only have one page about Andrew. Surtsicna (talk) 17:31, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've shortened his name in the lead, to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, as his full name is in the infobox. If anybody disagrees? Please bring forward other options. GoodDay (talk) 21:36, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Keivan.f: reverted my change to the lead. Is the change in Andrew's status, something new? I'll let ya'll figure this one out. GoodDay (talk) 20:16, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see why as a non-royal person he should be treated any differently from other citizens. We start the opening sentence of numerous biographies with the subject's full name, including his non-royal relatives such as Lady Louise Windsor. This page is no exception. Keivan.fTalk 23:20, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no legal obligation to use any particular name in England. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-47564-4 (talk) 14:33, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Does this warrant inclusion?
- McArthur, Tom; Heyndyk, Rachel Muller; Izundu, Chi Chi (30 January 2026). "Epstein files photos appear to show Andrew on all fours over female". BBC News. Retrieved 31 January 2026.
– GnocchiFan (talk) 11:14, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added info from that to this page "Relationship of Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein" feel free to add more to it. ItsShandog (talk) 11:58, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]