Talk:George IV (disambiguation)

Controversial move

This page has been moved from "George IV (disambiguation)" to here without discussion. Why? Previously George IV of the United Kingdom was the primary meaning of "George IV". PatGallacher (talk) 17:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Page was moved so simply closing discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

---

George IV → George IV (disambiguation) — We should treat George IV of the UK as the primary meaning of George IV. PatGallacher (talk) 13:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

An admin. has dived into this issue without consultation or even taking a serious look at all the issues. There is no primary meaning of George I and George II, these pages are disambiguations, since they cover not only British monarchs but e.g. Greece, Bulgaria. From George III onwards the British/UK monarch becomes the primary meaning since the others are monarchs of relatively minor countries e.g. Georgia, Hanover, Imereti. As recently as October 2009 we had a fairly non-controversial move of "George V" to "George V (disambiguation)". At the very least this should have been discussed properly, and in relation to the Georges collectively. Unless anyone objects fairly soon I propose to move this back. PatGallacher (talk) 17:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

But if moving it was controversial, then moving it "back" to where it should not have been in the first place is also controversial. I wasn't aware of the George V move, but that is plainly also flying in the face of the wikipedia conventions - and I see the only person who actually voted was the requester. Which, now I come to look at it, was - surprise, surprise - yourself. Deb (talk) 18:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I am genuinely puzzled by what Wikipedia convention the current treatment of Georges III, V, VI, VII and VIII is supposed to be violating. You can often have a primary topic of a name, see WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. There could be several cases where one monarch is the primary meaning of a given name + number combination, see also James IV. PatGallacher (talk) 18:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

• By the by, the names are different in Georgian. The British monarchs are "ჯორჯ" (Jorg with a soft g) but the Georgian monarchs are "გიორგი" (Giorgi with a hard g). DrKiernan (talk) 08:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose as George IV was used by more then one person. GoodDay (talk) 15:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support. When people search 'George IV', it is blatantly obvious that they are looking for George IV of the United Kingdom, not obscure Georgian Kings. My case in point: 'George_IV_of_the_United_Kingdom, which has been viewed 37065 times in 02/2010', garners much more attention than 'George_IV_of_Georgia, which has been viewed 369 times in 02/2010', & 'George_III_of_Guria, which has been viewed 30 times in 02/2010', combined. I don't even know why the latter is featured on this page. -- Jack1755 (talk) 21:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

George III of Guria was also George IV of Imereti. I am not sure this article is at the right title, I queried this a few months ago, see Talk:George III of Guria, but let's deal with the more important issue first. PatGallacher (talk) 21:38, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for explanation, Pat. -- Jack1755 (talk) 21:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support. While we're on the subject of WP:UNDUE, surely George IV (British Empire) would be a more appropriate title than George IV of the United Kingdom. AJRG (talk) 23:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support, all arguments about Georgia are irrelevant, the UK king is the primary topic for the term "George IV", so that term should at least redirect to his article, in line with the very sensible and well established WP primary-topic principle.--Kotniski (talk) 09:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

In fact, it was only moved to its present title a few days ago, without any discussion and citing a false reason (it certainly is not in line with the disambiguation convention to do this). We don't need a move discussion - we can just move it back to the status quo, and if anyone wants to change it, it's up to them to start a move request.--Kotniski (talk) 10:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I am beginning to wonder if the British king should be the primary meaning of George I and George II as well. Or is that pushing things a bit far? PatGallacher (talk) 12:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Best to let those be, due to the Hellenic monarchs. GoodDay (talk) 22:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I think so, Pat. You're on disambiguation fire this week! -- Jack1755 (talk) 19:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:George IV of the United Kingdom which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 16:46, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Elizabeth II which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:46, 30 July 2023 (UTC)