Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)/Archive 20

< Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)
Latest comment: 14 years ago by GoodDay in topic Proposal: Replace "cognomen" with "common name"
Archive 15←Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22→Archive 24
Latest comment: 15 years ago22 comments10 people in discussion

It often happened (and still happens) that monarchs held (or had the right to hold) titles that were not related to the states they headed. Should such titles be put next to the titles that are related to the states they head (eg. in infoboxes and succession boxes)?

  • We refer to past Swedish and Danish monarchs simply as King of Sweden or King of Denmark, without mentioning their legal titles King of the Goths and King of the Wends.
  • We refer to the Spanish monarchs simply as King of Spain, without mentioning the titles they were legally entitled to hold (and which all but the last of them used), these being the titles of King of Castile, of León, of Aragón, of the Two Sicilies, of Jerusalem, of Navarre, of Granada, of Seville, of Toledo, of Valencia, of Galicia, of Sardinia, of Córdoba, of Corsica, of Murcia, of Jaén, of the Algarves, of Algeciras, of Gibraltar, of the Canary Islands, of the East and West Indies, of the Islands and Mainland of the Ocean Sea and others concerning low countries (eg. Duke of Burgundy) and Austria (eg. Archduke of Austria, Count of Habsburg).
  • We refer to the kings of Italy of the House of Savoy simply as King of Italy, without mentioning the titles King of Jerusalem, Armenia, Cyprus and others.
  • We do not put the title of King of France in infoboxes of English and British monarchs although the English monarch was officially King of England and France (and Ireland).
  • countless other examples...

So why should we refer to the successors of Louis XIII of France as King of France and of Navarre? Navarre ceased to be a kingdom in the 17th century. The successors of Louis XIII of France were as much Kings of Navarre as the monarchs of Spain were Kings of Toledo (or Navarre as well). So why should we treat French monarchs differently than other European monarchs? Why should their full title be included, but full (and also legal) titles of other European monarchs shortened? What makes the title King of France and of Navarre different than the title King of Denmark, the Wends and the Goths? Why should the latter be shortened to King of Denmark while the former remains King of France and of Navarre? Surtsicna (talk) 15:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

In principle, I agree. But the succession box gives them as separate titles 1614-20 and as a united title 1620 on. I presume this has some basis, though it is not clear from the text of the article. I would nevertheless suggest that the dual title would be inappropriate for his successors. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Surtsicna, you have a good point... Demophon (talk) 17:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I should also add that, if we mention the successors of Louis XVIII of France as Kings of France and of Navarre every time, what prevents us to mention the successors of Edward III of England as Kings of England and France? The French monarchs ruled a part of Navarre and used the title King of France and of Navarre; the English monarchs ruled a part of France and used the title King of England and France. The Kings of Italy of the House of Savoy ruled over the whole Sardinia and used the title King of Italy, Sardinia... Yet we only mention them as Kings of Italy.
These full titles and styles should be in the article, but in a special section. The infoboxes and succession boxes in articles about all European monarchs should mention either only the shortened titles (principal titles, titles which describe the person as ruler of a country) or the full title. Articles should be as consistent as possible and so far, I see no reason to use the full title for French monarchs and shortened titles for others. Surtsicna (talk) 19:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Surely we don't need a new rule for this, just some commonsense and editorial restraint? Since it isn't wrong (or contested), let's not decree exclusion of "extra" titles, but let's not assume that they must always be used either. Let's do beware of "nationalist" usage: Someone habitually adds "and Finland" or "and Iceland" everytime a Danish royal's princely title is mentioned, and it appears that the person is making a nationalistic point that the dynasty ruling over those nations did so independently of ruling Denmark. Similarly, some editors insist that whenever Elizabeth II is mentioned, either all of her realms or none of them must be mentioned. Because nationalist issues are both frequent and contentious, we may need a rule to deal with them. But "France and Navarre" seems to be a matter of adhering to a lingering tradition (and because French was long the lingua franca of the educated classes of culturally Western nations, more such traditions have been borrowed from French by English -- still no reason to wage war on the history of the language). FactStraight (talk) 03:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I certainly agree with you regarding commonsense and nationalistic points, but how can we justify exclusion of other "correct" and uncontested titles? The King of Italy ruled over Sardinia and used the title King of Sardinia; I doubt that was wrong or contested. But "France and Navarre" seems to be a matter of adhering to a lingering tradition - could you please explain this sentence? Are you referring to a tradition upheld by English speaking historians (do they describe the successors of Louis XIII as King of France and of Navarre more often than as King of France)? Perhaps I am misinterpreting your point? Surtsicna (talk) 18:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Louis XIII of France & Navarre, was the last monarch of France & Navarre. Therefore ..of Navarre doesn't belong in the infoboxes of Louis XIV, Louis XV, Louis XVI, Louis XVII, Louis XVIII & Charles X. PS: this also includes the infoboxes of the French pretenders. GoodDay (talk) 20:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
This seems a good policy; also not in succession boxes, but the full titles should still be permitted (once) in the article text. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Strong Oppose. We don't know Navarre's proper legal status; who are we, without any reliable sources having being cited, to judge? Surtsicna, Navarre's case is different to Italy's; Sardinia, as nation, didn't exist, while Navarre was a nation in its own right. We also don't know whether the state that Louis XVIII and his successor ruled over was the Kingdom of France and Navarre or not. -- Jack1755 (talk) 23:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I think King of France and Navarre should be in the infobox's title, but not the article's title. That should remain Louis XVIII of France. I feel this is a diplomatic compromise. What do the other editors say?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Is it wise to try and write a hard and fast rule? I agree with you on the page name, but I'm not sure that we really need to have a list of titles in an infobox either. A link to a "Style of the monarchs/rulers of Foo" article or article section might be better. And while we're here, why does Most Christian King link to List of French monarchs when not all of them were? Another reason to have Styles of French monarchs (or whatever it should be called), no? Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
While you're efforts at conciliation are admirable, Angus, unlike the German monarchs, the French King wasn't Margrave of everything that moved; his style was simply "King of France and of Navarre". No more, no less. -- Jack1755 (talk) 18:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Strongly oppose:

  • Roi de France et de Navarre, was the title of every king of France since Henri IV, title they bore all the way to their tomb and on which it is inscribed, please note that no other title is inscribed, only "de Navarre" after "de France":
     
  • The arms of the kings of France show the dual title with, on the left three fleurs de lys &on the right the Navarrese chains.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Blason_Rois_de_France_(1553-1610).svg
http://www.heraldica.org/topics/france/frarms.htm
1786 louis d'or: http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:kKqAx2IKcNsJ:www.jkerncoins.com/inventory/index.php%3FproductID%3D508+Louis+d%27or+1786&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

Frania W. (talk) 15:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

That settles it then. Seeing as the tomb reads King of France and Navarre, we need to use the full title in all the French monarchs' articles as well as infoboxes beginning with Henri IV.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I think that the full dual title should be used in the infobox & in the lead, but not in the title of the article, which should remain: Henri IV, Louis XIII, Louis XIV etc. of France.
Frania W. (talk) 17:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree. It should not be in the article's title but in the lead and infobox. Perhaps a note in the lead after Navarre explaining that it was merged into the kingdom of France, but that the kings still used the title King of Navarre.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Howabout using my 'example edit' at the Louis XVIII article. It's used at many other monarch bio article infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 18:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
An explanation within the lead might bring unnecessary length to it; a footnote could be better with same brought to other kings with title "de France et de Navarre".
GoodDay, I must absolutely leave now & do not have time to look at your suggestion, but will do as soon as I am back.
Frania W. (talk) 18:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Roi de France et de Navarre, was the title of every king of France since Henri IV, title they bore all the way to their tomb and on which it is inscribed, please note that no other title is inscribed, only "de Navarre" after "de France": - i rest my case; it was there title! Leave it!
Monsieur le Duc LouisPhilippeCharles (talk)
  • Leave us be serious: we have long since had this discussion, about the people who want to call James I of England James VI of Scotland, and I of England and Ireland. (I'm surprised that no one mentioned France; that claim was only abandoned in 1800.)
  • Such titles are clumsy, useless, and hard to find, type, and search for; for the Czars, the equivalent title would be preposterous. Discuss roi de France et de Navarre in a section, by all means; but does it have any function in the title?
  • One of the general principles of WP:NC is Conciseness (Even when disambiguation is necessary, keep that part brief). Let's try it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
PM Anderson:
"Leave us be serious"? I do not see where battling not to deny the Bourbon kings their title "de Navarre" is "not being serious".
No one is asking to have "de Navarre" in the title of the article, but in the infobox (info=information) and in the lead.
A quick check on the Bourbon kings outside en:wiki: except for the Dutch, Norsk, and those that do not have an infobox, all have "de Navarre" in infobox & lead.
Frania W. (talk) 23:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Then you are in the wrong venue, to begin with. This is a naming convention; it does not cover what's in infoboxes.
What should be done with infoboxes? This is why some of us think that infoboxes should be discouraged: they take subtle and nuanced information, such as "Louis the Well-beloved was King of France, and King of Navarre, by different claims and different lines of descent; he used the title King of France and Navarre in such-and-such circumstances." and take all the substance out of it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 07:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
PM Anderson,
According to you, I am "in the wrong venue"?
The discussion, begun on Louis XVIII of France talk page after I reversed the removal of "de Navarre" from both the infobox & the lead by a certain Morancio (talk): [[1]], was carried over here by Surtsicna (talk).
If this is a naming convention that does not cover what the original discussion was about, then I see no reason for this discussion to take place here because, as I mentioned earlier, no one is asking for a change of the title of the articles on Bourbon kings of France to "So & so of France and of Navarre", only to mention "de Navarre" in the infobox (if there is one) and in the lead. The title "roi de France et de Navarre" was not a capricious claim, but was the historical, legal & official dual title Bourbon kings bore since Henri IV, not to be compared to that of the kings/queens of England who attached "of France" to theirs for centuries after they were kicked out of France.
Now, if you don't mind, I would like to turn my attention to real editing, such as correcting mistakes & removing trivial nonsense that put much more weight on articles than "de Navarre".
Frania W. (talk) 15:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Elizabeth, Lizzie, Betsy and Bess

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Our perpetual lame discussion is back again, here. Would anybody who cares please comment. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:CANVASS#Campaigning. —what a crazy random happenstance 04:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

This "guideline" contradicts policy

Latest comment: 14 years ago106 comments20 people in discussion

The naming conventions policy is that articles should be at their common name unless there are good reasons otherwise. Both the naming conventions policy and the neutrality policy state that article titles should be neutral and non-bias.

This guideline contradicts these policies in two ways: (1) by setting up an exclusion to the "common name" rule, and (2) by promoting the use of specific terms which could be considered nationalistic. Specifically, it advises that articles on monarchs who reign over more than one nation are placed at titles referring to one nation only, usually the larger, rather than their common name. Article titles chosen on that basis promote nationalist divisions, and are perceived by many editors as offensive.

Per Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, where guidelines conflict with policies, policies normally take precedence. As this guideline is in conflict with two policies, one of which is a pillar of wikipedia, it should be down-graded from a guideline to a proposal or essay.

Alternatively, the disputed part could be removed. DrKiernan (talk) 15:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I must agree, that specific part of this so called "guideline" (which many people have tried to enforce as policy when it is not) is troublesome to say the least and an OUTRIGHT violation of some of the most important policies. Indeed: Degrade this "guideline" to what it should be be if that part is kept, or remove the part which violates policy. --~Knowzilla (Talk) 15:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not very clear about what you mean by point (1) - surely the very fact that there is an "unless" clause in the policy means that exclusions are allowed. Deb (talk) 15:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
But people try to enforce this as if that's not there, or as if the convention must be followed. This has caused a whole mess of trouble several times. This is guideline and a not policy by the way. --~Knowzilla (Talk) 15:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
The answer to that (which is a behavioral problem, not one with the wording of the guideline) is to quote the unless clause when needed. That's what it's there for. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the removal of the sections in question, the implementation of this guideline makes it step on the toes of much more important policies. Articles ought to be at the most common name of their subject, unless there is a very good reason for them not to be. Royalty are no exception. —what a crazy random happenstance 15:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
  • The simplest answer to this is that that is not what WP:NC says. It specifies five desiderata, of which one is recognizability; another is consistency. It also notes that article names must, as a technical matter, be unique
  • For most articles, these can all be satisfied at once; for most of those, the most recognizable name is the most common. But we don't need naming conventions for those articles, we need them for cases like European royalty, where the five criteria are not satisfiable at once. The most common name for most European royalty is almost always ambiguous (our example is Henry IV, which you should look at); disambiguating in the obvious and natural manner (Henry IV of England, Henry IV of France, and so on) produces a pattern which readers will come to learn and expect to be followed even in those rare cases, like Louis XIV of France, where Louis XIV would be unambiguous (or nearly so).
  • Which of these criteria should give way to another? That depends on the details of the subject, and is what we have WP:RM for. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I think you should remember that, in some cases, the monarchs we're naming the bios of are not strictly European; to talk about them as though they were betrays an inherent bias on your part that only contributes to the problem that DrKiernan has pointed out. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I think you should consider that the use of "European" is not to imply that the convention does not apply to the Braganza emperors of Brazil or to Maximilian I of Mexico, much less to monarchs that actually live in Europe. The point was that we don't need to have Akihito of Japan or Atahualpa of the Incas because only Japan would have an emperor named Akihito, and only the Incas would have an emperor named Atahualpa. This doesn't apply to Pedro II of Brazil. john k (talk) 18:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
There are simple alternatives to avoid national basis that are already used in academic circles, like James VI and I. DrKiernan (talk) 16:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
(ec) James VI and I, as commonly used in the real world, would solve that problem. But on the subject of this guideline, I don't think there's a need for any section to be removed (all the rules here are doubtless useful in many cases), but it must be made clear to everyone that the "rules" here are guidelines that we can deviate from when it makes sense to do so. That ought to be clear already; but from the "arguments" that keep coming up in various move debates it's apparently not clear to a lot of people, so it probably needs to be made more explicit.--Kotniski (talk) 16:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
We tried James VI and I, IIRC; we got complaints from the English - and the Irish, who felt that his position as King of Ireland was being slighted.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
    • (ec; to Deacon) Actually, there's been discussion of William the Conqueror, and there has never been consensus to use it - more because of consistency than POV, although both have come up.
    • The typical POV question involves names like Edward the Confessor, which was originally a strong POV, but is now simply what the consensus of sources call him. It would be both pointy and OR to devise a new name for him, free of Christian taint - although some editors would like that. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
    • This guideline does what guidelines (and most policy) should do; it describes how Wikipedia actually does things; when some of the excesses of the "maiden-name rule were cut back in article space, the guideline changed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes, and I've seen the discussion too. No-one ever contradicted the fact that William the Conqueror is the definitive common name in English. ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
      • No, he is called both William the Conqueror and William I. The question of fact, therefore, is whether William the Conqueror is so much more common as to outweigh consistency. IIRC, the last time this came around, I agreed with you that it did; but we are governed by consensus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
        • You're missing my point slightly and getting into another issue. But on this I will say that, the influence of this page aside, there was consensus for his most (by far) common name: William the Conqueror. ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
          • In the past, William the Conqueror may have been more common; increasingly, William I of England is more common, especially in published works. By assuming we know what the "most common name" is, we're in danger of falling behind the times. Deb (talk) 18:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
IMHO, all monarch bio articles titles should be Monarchs nam of country. I reckon it would be difficult to get an across the board consistancy, though. GoodDay (talk) 18:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Even Charlemagne? It would be impossible - and pointless. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
OK, there's some exceptions. But an article like Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden should be at 'Gustav II Adolf II of Sweden', to bring it in-line with the other Swedish monarchs. GoodDay (talk) 18:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, Goodday, that's what supporters of this guideline normally say. The point of this thread is that it contradicts wikipedia policy (besides producing the "occasional" absurdity). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I take exception to this. I support this guideline; I also was one of the people who argued, at some length, that he should be at Gustavus Adolphus - and I believe that is what this guideline supports. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The most glaring problem here is what we do with monarchs of more than one country where their name + number combination is not unique. Examples are Charles I of England, Charles II of England, James II of England, William III of England, Mary II of England, also monarchs of Scotland and Ireland, William IV of the United Kingdom, also king of Hanover. Unless someone comes up with a sensible alternative way of disambiguating these monarchs from others with the same name + number combination this proposal is up in the air. "Most common name" is only a very general guideline, otherwise we would not need specific guidelines on a large number of naming issues. If you read the guidelines you will see that one problem is that monarchs can be known by several different names e.g. "Henry V of England", "King Henry V of England", "King Henry V", "Henry V", establishing which of these is the most common name, with similar disputes over many other monarchs, would occupy an inordinate amount of Wikipedians time with lengthy edit wars. If we are always against a judgement that one country is more important than another then we would have to stop treating George III, IV, V and VI of the UK as the primary meaning of these name + number combinations, since they also apply to kings of Georgia and Imereti. PatGallacher (talk) 20:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Henry V is unquestionably the most common name of the victor of Agincourt; it is also the name of an Emperor, and of several Princes of Reuss, and is therefore ambiguous - and unusable except as a dab page. This is the beginning of the problem, not the end. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
This seems to confuse some issues (and perhaps the proposal is somewhat confused about this). Where the names are ambiguous, disambiguation is needed, so having a standard form for the purposes of disambiguation is just dandy. But where no disambiguation is needed (or where there is a primary topic as indicated by having a redirect from a simple name to the fully disambiguated title), then that is contrary to the long-established policy of using common names. older ≠ wiser 20:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Bkonrad's proposal would mean that we would have Charles VI of France (because he is ambiguous with an Emperor), but Charles X - with no reason apparent to the reader. This is a cost; some of us think it a serious cost. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Someone at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom (horrible name, that!) suggested that disambiguation between identically named monarchs could be achieved by using the dates of their respective reigns. I thought that would work, but then realised that some monarchs reigned over different countries for different periods; ergo, which period is selected without bias? But, I wonder if anyone here might see possibility in the idea that I can't. Could it maybe be the dates of their first accession and their death or last dethronement? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, but that would render our titles useful only to those people who remember the dates of every Charles III in Europe, and therefore know whether (1759-1788) means Spain or Sweden - a small number of readers indeed. For this reason, our guidelines expressly discourage disambiguating by date when other means of differentiation are available. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Mmmm... True. However, the only other means of differentiation available is clearly not universally accepted as satisfactory, either. Perhaps the date disambiguation can be used only for sovereigns who were the fulcrum of a personal union; should readers not have foreknowledge of each monarch by date of reign, a look at the opening paragraphs will quickly tell users whether they've found the right page or not. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

All of these arguments would be too trivial even for even the most hard-core royalty anorak to get upset about if we could get Manual:$wgRestrictDisplayTitle set to false. Then you can have any ridiculously long or ambiguously short title you like appear at the top of the page. I presume this was never done to prevent vandalism but in this age of edit filters is that really a valid reason? Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't like that idea (confusing to readers and editors alike), nor do I agree with PMA that it harms readers to have dissimilar titles like Charles VI of France and Charles X. We have such situations across Wikipedia (we might have Joe Bloggs (musician) against the untagged Joe Bloggis, also a musician), and I think readers get it. In fact, readers familiar with our practices might be misled by the title Charles X of France into thinking that there is another Charles X of comparable stature to that one. (Also names like "Elizabeth II/Victoria of the United Kingdom" mislead people into thinking all sorts of things - that this is the person's proper title or the way they are normally referred to, or in the first case that there was an Elizabeth I of the United Kingdom.)--Kotniski (talk) 09:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry but the numbering is what is used in the title regardless of accuracy. Do you have a problem with Philip II of Spain, Pope John XXIII, Victor Emmanuel II of Italy, Frederick III, German Emperor, Edward I of England - those numbers are all equally "misleading" as Elizabeth II but don't generate much fuss at all. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Because those names are familiar to people from real-world usage. The "of the United Kingdom" ones are not, because they're pretty much inventions of Wikipedians (what would normally be called "original research").--Kotniski (talk) 18:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
  • The convention has been developed so that there is a consistent system for naming monarchs. It is necessary because monarchs either do not have or rarely use their surnames. Yes, it is an artificial convention, but I do not see how else we can get consistency. If there are alternative names, it is good for them to exist as redirects. Occasionally, it may even be good for the article to be at an alternative name and the standard form to be a redirect. However, as long as both exist, those searching for an article should get there quickly. Another reason for the form is that WP should not be anglo-centric or euro-centric. It needs to use these names so that it does not display a POV. I may regard William the conqueror as the most usual term for him, but some one on another continent would be unfamiliar with that term. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
  • William the Conqueror is his most common name the "someone on another continent" line is steaming bs. The only other thing I can make sense of in your post is that you privilege consistency over usage, as did the designers of the page. Great ... we already knew that. This topic is about whether or not it violates policy. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Temper, Deacon. But several participants in this discussion are from North America and Australia, so I also see no grounds to believe that "someone from another continent" would be unfamiliar with William the Conqueror - as long as they speak English. We are encouraged to be anglophone. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Forgive me, PMA, but I don't see any consistency between supporting "William the Conqueror" and not supporting (plain) "Elizabeth II". If you insist on "of the (country)" being included in one case, why not in the other?--Kotniski (talk) 07:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Because once we go to a nickname, we have left the conventional format, and don't need to disambiguate: so there is no real impulse to the silly William the Conqueror of England. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
So why is there a need to disambiguate Elizabeth II?--Kotniski (talk) 15:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
We aren't disambiguating her, we are engaging in consistency. Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom fits our established pattern, which Elizabeth II (and William the Conqueror of England) do not.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Same question again then: why are you prepared to deviate from the established pattern for William, but not for Liz?--Kotniski (talk) 19:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Personally, I think User:Peterkingiron is spot on in his analysis. So many people assume that they know what the most common usage is, but a little learning is a dangerous thing. Far better to go for consistency in these cases. Deb (talk) 12:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
We're not stupid though. We know that certain names are way more common (or more to the point, recognizable) than certain others. As in all naming, there needs to be a compromise between the aspirations recognizability and consistency. When attempts to be consistent lead to unrecognizable names like "Anne of Great Britain" or "Victoria of the United Kingdom", it's time to be flexible and use the names that everyone knows them by (in fact this is still being consistent - with the naming principles applicable Wikipedia-wide).--Kotniski (talk) 13:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
We cannot call the last reigning Stuart simply Anne; there are too many of them. How would you disambiguate her?Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I believe she's the primary topic for Queen Anne; if not, then Queen Anne of Great Britain would still be an improvement over the present title. Similarly with Victoria (where I have no doubt at all that she's the primary topic).--Kotniski (talk) 15:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Primary? Over Anne of Brittany? Probably not; remember how stringent our requirements for primary topic are. She's not even the only British Queen Anne.

Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, if you look you will see that Anne of Great Britain is not the primary meaning of Queen Anne, the latter is a disambiguation page. Is "Anne of Great Britain" any more difficult to recognise than her successor, George I of Great Britain, which at present everybody accepts is the least problematic title of his article? PatGallacher (talk) 21:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
For me, yes - when there's no numeral or familiar nickname, there's a desperate need for the word "King" or "Queen" somewhere. "Anne of Great Britain" sounds like "Anne of Green Gables".--Kotniski (talk) 21:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
That suggestion could have implications for a fairly large number of monarchs e.g. John of England, Stephen of England, Edgar of Scotland, should add King (or Queen) to all of them? PatGallacher (talk) 21:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
A far more sensible system is to do it like the Holy Roman Emperor articles, John, King of England and so on. This is what would have been done if the guideline got started with a few extra years of experience behind it, and the majority of people did favour such a system last time it was put to them, though no-one ever implemented the result. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I still think that would be the best solution. john k (talk) 16:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we need a new guideline on monarchs that they should be called Queen Anne of Great Britain, King John of England, etc. WP discourages the use of honorifics (such as Sir for knights, and Hon. in article names - though not necessarily in the lead), but perhaps there could be an exception for monarchs. However, the present form should continue to exist as a redirect. Making this change will be a serious undertaking, as it will commonly involve overwriting an existing redirect. This is something that only an admin can do. Do we have any admins who will volunteer to undertake this massive task? If not, we must all shut up and live with what we have. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Finding admins these days is no bother. Half the people here are admins. I can do the English, French and Scottish ones first off, if that's the only problem. I'm sure a bot can be arranged to fix any mess. However, I don't support that format ... A far more sensible system is to do it like the Holy Roman Emperor articles, John, King of England and so on. This is what would have been done if the guideline got started with a few extra years of experience behind it, and the majority of people did favour such a system last time it was put to them, though no-one ever implemented the result. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Anybody who proposes mass moves, let alone bot moves, out of this discussion, with its half-dozen participants, is disruptive. Please don't. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

John of England

John of England (and similar monarchs, who are not commonly known by numeral or cognomen) is a problem with several solutions; there has never been consensus - and I don't believe there has ever been more than plurality - as to which to choose. But that is a separate matter, not constrained by policy - so suggestions should be made in this subsection. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd be OK with Deacon's suggestion, although I'd be happier still if we followed real-world usage as is Wikipedia's custom, which I suspect in most cases would give "King/Queen X" if it's a primary topic, "King/Queen X of Y" if not.--Kotniski (talk) 08:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't really agree that it's a problem. When I want to link to this article, I would naturally link to King John of England, which would seem to support the present naming convention in this instance. I wouldn't link to John, King of England, because it doesn't sound natural. Deb (talk) 12:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
"It doesn't sound natural" is precisely the problem with the present setup. The linking thing isn't really an issue, since there are redirects and pipes available. Anyway, I suspect more people would link naturally to [King John] or [King John of England|King John], rather than King [John...], unless they're immersed in these guidelines. The main issue for me is recognizability and the potential misleading of readers.--Kotniski (talk) 12:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
For every naming issue, there are "redirects or pipes available". This may well be a reason why no naming issue matters very much, but it is no support for any particular solution to them; we could in principle use arbitrary strings, and solve all our naming problems with redirects.
But, insofar as any naming issue matters, ease of linking is one of the considerations of WP:NAME. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't see that it concerns us here, though. It might be a consideration if we were discussing whether a particular John was the primary topic for King John (we would want the primary topic to accord with editors' expectations of what would be the primary topic). But if we're just deciding between different terms which would all redirect to the same article in any case, I don't see link-ease as an issue. (Or even if it is one, I still think it leads to King X of Y, my preferred choice.)--Kotniski (talk) 17:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
One reason it matters is that some readers detest the little Redirected from tags; so we should attempt to have the article at the expected name (whether this is a systematic name, like Henry IV of England, or an overwhelming common name, like Charlemagne). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

Most articles on European Monarchs should be altered so that the main article is in the form John, King of England. I think this is better than my suggestion above of "King John of England". It also conforms to the format used for British peers, such as John Russell, 4th Duke of Bedford. The only difference will be that no ordinal number will be included, because the number is traditionally attached to the name as King Henry VIII of England. All existing forms of the name should be retained as redirects. Obviously, the project page will need to be amended. I expect that there will be exceptions like "Charlemagne", but that should not put us off formulatinga new rule. Please vote below, Support, Oppose, etc as on AFD or CFD, in the hope that a consensus can be reached. If you prefer King John of England, please vote for that. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Whilst recognising the sincere motives behing this proposal, I prefer the existing convention to either of the alternatives listed above. Deb (talk) 20:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Objection The articles on most European monarchs can't be moved to the format "John, King of England" because they include a regnal number. What is supposed to happen to e.g. Henry VIII of England, does he stay there, move to "Henry VIII, King of England", or "King Henry VIII of England", or where? This discussion arose because some people wanted to move Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom to "Elizabeth II", if this proposal is carried does she become "Elizabeth II, Queen of the United Kingdom"? This needs to be clarified before we go further. PatGallacher (talk) 20:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
That is precisely what I meant: "Elizabeth II, Queen of the United Kingdom" (with the possible alternative, "Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom"). I have made this proposal not because I object to the present form, but to bring the matter to a head and bring closure. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Further objection Does the requirement to include king/queen in the article title of monarchs extend event to those we currently describe by cognomen e.g. does Harold Godwinson become "Harold Godwinson, King of England"? I can envisage lengthy wrangles and edit wars about how we describe some rulers e.g. was Alfred the Great king of England or Wessex, do we describe Darius I of Persia as King, Emperor, Shah, or what? PatGallacher (talk) 20:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we're ready for a poll yet - can we discuss a bit more and get several realistic proposals (and establish their upsides and downsides), so that people can make an informed choice? --Kotniski (talk) 20:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Preferably proposals that the proposer actually supports. For example, I could see using John, King of England for monarchs who do not usually have regnal numbers or cognomina; we might be able to agree on that. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree it might at least be useful for peculiarities like Alexander of Greece (king). DrKiernan (talk) 21:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
THere's very little reason not to move him to Alexander of Greece, though; at least until the convention changes. The alleged second claimant of that name is certainly far more obscure, and probably should be at Alexander Numenius anyway. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I think this is a very sensible start. Alexander, King of the Hellenes, John, King of England, Anne, Queen of Great Britain, Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom would all, I think, be improvements over the current forms, in terms of the name being more recognizable to readers. I think a more general conversion of all articles in the form "Ted I of Hooperstan" to "Ted I, King of Hooperstan," would be better yet, but perhaps more difficult to agree upon. 16:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Questions to be answered

These seem to be the three questions to be answered (with the most obvious possible answers that occur to me; people may think of others). I'm assuming that titles with cognomens will stay as they are (so are not covered by this).

  • 1) When should "King" or "Queen" be included in the title?
    • a) never
    • b) only when there is no numeral (e.g. Queen Victoria)
    • c) always
    • ...
  • 2) If "King" or "Queen" is included in the title, where should it go?
    • a) at the start (King Henry I of England)
    • b) before the realm (Henry I, King of England) (and hence suppressed if the realm is omitted per 3)
    • ...
  • 3) When can we omit the realm?
    • a) never
    • b) when the subject is the sole or primary topic for the resulting term (e.g. Elizabeth II, Louis XVI)
    • c) when the realm is GB or the UK (e.g. Elizabeth II, Queen Anne)
    • d) when both b) and c) hold (e.g. Elizabeth II)
    • e) when either b) or c) holds
    • ....

I don't know if we should have a poll on these questions directly, or try to come up with a small set of reasonable combinations of answers that we can ask people to choose between.--Kotniski (talk) 08:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Question 3 raises some problems. Answers c, d and e would be one of the worst examples of systemic bias on Wikipedia, unacceptable in an international encyclopedia. As for b, Elizabeth II and Louis XVI are not just the primary meaning of these names but the sole meaning. There are a number of monarchs where they are the primary meaning but not the sole meaning of a name + number combination e.g. George III, IV, V, VI of the UK, James IV of Scotland. PatGallacher (talk) 12:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree on the systemic bias thing (there was a similar discussion recently at WT:Disambiguation; my view is that our acknowledging the predominant interests of our readers is not bias - anyway there are other reasons to treat GB and UK differently), but that's for people to argue when the discussion gets under way. Have changed "primary" to "sole or primary".--Kotniski (talk) 13:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I think 3C is just totally unacceptable. It doesn't even really work - Anne of Bohemia, Anne Boleyn, Anne of Cleves, and Anne of Denmark were also "Queen Anne." Not to mention Anne of Austria, who besides being a famous historical figure, is also a principal character in a class work of historical fiction. It's also rather unnecessary - the ordinary topic of "primary topic" seems like the most important thing here.

I'm going to assume that articles like Charlemagne are not going to be affected by whatever change we make, and that the exception to the guideline for cognomens and the like will thus continue to operate, and note my preferences for how this should be dealt with:

  1. 1c, 2b, 3b - this would give us Louis XVI and Louis IX, King of France, which works better, I think, than Louis XVI and Louis IX of France.
  2. 1c, 2b, 3a - basically, move everyone from the format Name Ordinal of Place to Name Ordinal, King of Place.
  3. 1b, 2b, 3a - I think this is Pmanderson's solution - change the format for monarchs with no ordinal, leave everyone else as they are.
  4. 1a, 3a - the current status quo, which, despite considerable imperfections, has served us reasonably well for the last decade or so.

I think any variants involving any of 2a, 3c, 3d, and 3e are unacceptable. john k (talk) 16:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Why is 2a unacceptable to you?--Kotniski (talk) 16:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh, on the Queen Anne thing - yes, there are plenty more Queen Annes, but we don't know them as Queen Anne. (Well I don't - others will say if they differ.) If someone in the English-speaking world says "I'm writing an essay on Queen Anne tonight", I can be fairly confident they're talking about the woman Wikipedia has christened Anne of Great Britain. The point of making all the GB/UK ones realm-less is that (1) most of them are primary topics anyway; (2) those that aren't primary come close enough for it not to matter very much; (3) the later ones had/have other independent realms which makes Wikipedia seem biased if we choose just one; (4) these monarchs aren't commonly associated by name with their primary realm (making the current names sound artificial); (5) dropping the realm for all of this set will provide consistency (which is popular around here) without any real cost.--Kotniski (talk) 17:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't like 2a because it's not like any other article titles we use for any people on wikipedia, and I think consistency has some value. And many, many British monarchs simply aren't primary topics at all. Charles II and Henry IV come to mind particularly strongly. As for point 3 - once again, tons and tons of non-British monarchs have ruled other independent realms. What makes Canada and Papua New Guinea so special that they get special treatment compared to every other personal union? If there's any bias, it's in pretending that the commonwealth realms are some kind of unique situation. john k (talk) 05:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a dreadful proposal which runs completely contrary to the fundamental principles of the Wikipedia project, see WP:BIAS for an explanation. Point (2) is simply not the case, see George I and George II where the British monarchs are not the primary meaning, and any attempt to make them so would probably be controversial. Does this proposal apply to British monarchs from the Union of the Crowns or the Union of the Parliaments? What about pre-Union English and Scottish monarchs? PatGallacher (talk) 18:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The proposal as I've stated it applies to all those who are currently called something of Great Britain or of the United Kingdom. Of course anyone else is welcome to make other proposals. (I'm not saying I necessarily support this option, but I think a good case can be made for it. In case you hadn't noticed, the current convention - which you seem to support - already generates regular controversy; I think omitting any mention of a realm could be seen as less biased than choosing one of many independent realms.)--Kotniski (talk) 19:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
We seem to be completely omitting the question of how to tell the difference between queens regnant and consorts - or have I missed it? Deb (talk) 20:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
While that would help straighten out the Annes, this appears to be a discussion of reigning monarchs only. (Anne of Brittany and Anne of Bohemia come up because, if we're going to move Anne of Great Britain, we still have to do it within the rest of Wikipedia.) Are we any closer to consensus on queens consort than ever we were? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Don't we call them what reliable sources call them? Is there any alternative? Is there any reason to look for an alternative? --Kotniski (talk) 21:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, of course there are alternatives. Each of them is called several things by reliable sources; the most common for all of them may be simple Anne or Queen Anne, which we cannot use for all of them, and probably should not use for one of them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
This is all true of almost everything Wikipedia writes about; is there any reason to treat consorts as a special case? Or any realistic proposal as to how they might be so treated?--Kotniski (talk) 06:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The Henry VIII, King of England format has the advantage of transferring more easily to unusual titles: we already use it, for instance, for Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, and the equivalent in the alternative format (Emperor Charles V of the Holy Roman Empire) is rather clumsy. I also think that James V, King of Scots would be better than either King James V of Scotland or King James V of Scots (or even the current James V of Scotland). Proteus (Talk) 20:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

It also has (it seems to me) the advantage of more often corresponding to official titles, but the disadvantage of less often corresponding to the commonly used names. (Though we really should be doing Mary, Queen of Scots, whatever rules we decide on - it's so overwhelmingly recognizable...)--Kotniski (talk) 21:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
3c should not be an option, as WP is a worldwide encyclopaedia, and should not take a nationalist point of view. Louis XVI is clearly unique, and is the only possible meaning of the term, so that "of France" is redundant. However many monarchs with lower ordinals will not be as with George I (cited above), which is rightly a dabpage. I consider that the realm could only be omitted where the person was the sole (not merely primary) subject. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
We identify primary topics all over Wikipedia; it's not taking a point of view, just helping readers. On the other hand, including one realm among equals is itself perceived by many as taking a nationalist stance.--Kotniski (talk) 22:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
However, it has the disadvantage of not being natural in running text. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
What is "it"?--Kotniski (talk) 06:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
If you mean the Henry VIII, King of England format, I'd say it's actually quite easy to use in running text, even if not quite natural. All you need to do is [[Henry VIII, King of England|]] and it displays Henry VIII. That is fewer characters than [[Henry VIII of England|Henry VIII]]. john k (talk) 22:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't get how you want to proclaim, a priori, that all British monarchs (even Henry IV, say) are primary topics, and that this is somehow totally neutral, and at the same time we can't use Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, because that's not neutral among her various realms. On the one hand, you're saying that common sense lets us say that all these are primary topics (even when they're probably not). On the other hand, we can't use common sense to say "the United Kingdom is obviously Elizabeth II's most important realm, what with her living there and the UK not having a governor-general, and so on and so forth," because that would be biased. You can't have it both ways. john k (talk) 05:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
You presumably mean "closely associated with her" rather than "important" - I'd half agree with that (though probably "England" is actually more so). The proposal I wrote wouldn't cover Henry IV. But since you say above that you like consistency, perhaps you should consider that advantage of automatic realm-dropping for the British ones from some point on (primary topic identification is a judgement call anyway, and there's no harm in allowing a desire for consistency to be a factor in that judgement).--Kotniski (talk) 06:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not in favor of consistency for consistency's sake. And, no, I don't mean "closely associated with her." I mean "important." The United Kingdom is obviously her most important realm - it is both the realm in which she has the most importance (since she actually carries out the functions of a head of state there on a regular basis, rather than for a few hours every decade or so, or "never," in the case of a place like Tuvalu), and it is the realm which is the most important to understanding her life (since she spends the vast majority of her time acting as head of state for the UK, and almost no time acting as head of state for the other countries). This isn't really disputable. Philip III's role in Portugal, or Carlos III's role in Naples, are all of considerably greater objective importance than Elizabeth II's role in any of the commonwealth realms. They actually ruled those countries, for an extended period of time. Carlos III lived in Naples for a quarter century before becoming king of Spain. But in those cases, there is absolutely nobody calling the current naming unfair or biased, even though objectively the case is much, much stronger than it is for Elizabeth II. john k (talk) 16:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

What are we even arguing about, now? It's obvious that nobody except Kotniski likes 3c or its variants, 3d and 3e. Why don't we discuss the other issues? I gave a couple of solutions I thought were acceptable above. Does anyone have any thoughts about them? john k (talk) 16:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

"Nobody" is a bit strong when only about 4 people have commented (judging from the views expressed in larger debates elsewhere, there are many people who would treat at least the UK monarchs differently from the others - this is a preliminary attempt to rationalize their position). Perhaps we should publicize this discussion a bit more widely, to see if people have any different answers to the three questions (or different questions), and work towards listing the pros and cons of the various answers (and eliminating from consideration those that clearly have no support).--Kotniski (talk) 17:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Kotniski, the discussion is probably followed a lot "more widely" than you think. Furthermore, I have been asking myself the question put by John Kenney: What are we (=you) even arguing about, now? Each of the half dozen participants in the discussion seems to have different/mixed points of view, and difficulty arises as to what the discussion is about. If I am correct, it began with the case of Elizabeth II, but, will reaching an agreement on her - and wanting to extend the processus to others, i.e. covering (European) sovereigns for fifteen hundred years or more, will make sense when applied to other monarchs? There are so many particular cases: what is going to be proposed for Clovis & followers? Charlemagne? Are their realms going to be considered French or German; then ending with the last king who reigned over France, Louis-Philippe I, what is he going to be called in title of article, King of France (which he rejected but that Wikipedia will decide to stick to him) or King of the French? How about sans title Marie Antoinette? Are we going to have Russian tsars or emperors? I fear a can of worms is being opened & can see a huge battle looming on the horizon, that's why I prefer to stay out of the discussion... but it is fun to watch! Frania W. (talk) 18:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC) (By the way, I tend to lean toward John Kenney's way of thinking.)
I don't think we're arguing about anything particularly; we're pointing out some of the pros and cons of the various possible solutions. I also don't think your issues about special cases are anything to do with this. All we're talking about is whether and how to change the convention for the monarchs whose articles are currently titled "Name (Number) of Realm" (and we're not talking about changing "Realm1" to "Realm2", just possibly omitting "Realm"). All other worms can remain safely in their can as far as this discussion is concerned.--Kotniski (talk) 07:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Because I believe that this naming convention serves better to address the many conflicting issues involved than any alternative I've yet seen and reflects years of evolutionary improvement, I generally support the options which reflect its tenets: Thus, I favor 1b (use of King/Emperor only when there is no numeral); and 2b (if used, King/Emperor should go before the realm, and be suppressed if the realm is omitted); and 3a (the realm should not be omitted except in cases where history has conferred unique names/terms upon rulers, e.g. "Charlemagne", "Alexander the Great", "Isabella the Catholic", etc. I agree with Kotniski that use of a "most closely associated with" realm is not POV when it reflects prevalent usage, and that text dis-approbating such usage should be reflected in the article, not in its name. Queens consort should continue to revert to maiden names upon death, but in life they may be distinguished from queens regnant by preceding the name with the title in the former, and following the name in the latter cases. FactStraight (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


On question 1, I would say including "King" would bring the titles in line with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)#Sovereigns point 5, and so increases consistency by applying a uniform style. However, I'm not supporting that change at this point.
If "King" is included, then I prefer 2b, for the same reason above: consistency with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)#Sovereigns point 5.
On question 3, I would support 3b but with the corollary that inclusion of the realm is preferred for the sake of consistency. If there is no special reason to remove the realm, then it should be included. Whether or not "special reasons" apply should be decided on the article(s)'s talk page. Isn't that what was done for the Lithuanian and Polish monarchs? 137.205.183.12 (talk) 08:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The whole reason for having this is that the subjects that need disambiguating here tended to fish in a rather small pool for their names. And even where there were regional differences, say in Iberia or Scandinavia or Anglo-Saxon England, there were multiple kingdoms using that distinct regional pool of names. Scandinavia is, of course, solvable by other means, but I've suggested that in the past and gotten nowhere, so there doesn't seem much point in revisiting ideas like "move Inge I of Sweden to Inge Stenkilsson and Harald IV of Norway to Harald Gille".
Lithuania would be an obvious case where the name-pool was unique and no disambiguation is necessary. The same is true of Merovingian rulers, they clearly don't need disambiguating from anyone else either, and neither do Goths and Lombards. Irish rulers only need disambiguated from other Irish rulers, Welsh likewise, and there are perfectly good traditional ways to do this. Some Muslim states had unique-enough pools of names that they too only need to disambiguate locally. If this is generally the case, things like Category:Seljuk Sultans of Rûm, with it's one odd name, should be avoided. There's a perfectly good way to disambiguate Suleyman bin Kutalmish from any other Suleyman which won't make him stick out like a sore thumb.
If the guideline is to be rewritten, it would be very much better were these types of exceptions (well, they are actually non-exceptions as the guideline is proposing blanket exceptions from our usual, simple as possible, common name, naming standards) made clear. If there is no good reason not to follow the normal standards in a set of articles, we should follow the standards. "If there is no special reason to remove the realm, then it should be included" is entirely the wrong way round. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. Some Swedish monarchs also has the added difficulty of having disputed numerals. Look at Category:Swedish_monarchs, where it's a mix of numeral and non-numeral. The format "Name numeral of Sweden" works fine from 16th century and onwards, but earlier than that is a retroactively imposed system based on historywriting that no one consider the least bit reliable anymore. Thankfully, there are no numerals given to any of the early Eriks, because any assignation would have to be grounded in some sort of POV about which of several rather vacous figures were real and which were later inventions. (And it's rather silly to see that while the article is indeed "Inge I of Sweden", the other King Inge is under "Inge the younger"!)
Andejons (talk) 07:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Monarchial name

I've no probs with having all the monarchial article titles, with just the name. The exceptions of course, can be handled. For example: Henry III - can be Henry III (England), Henry III (France), Henry III (Holy Roman Empire) etc. GoodDay (talk) 16:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Preparation for poll

Latest comment: 14 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

Following from the above discussion, and seeing that people are itching to start voting, I've started preparing a poll page (with the same questions, and brief explanations of the pros and cons we've come up with). It's at WP:NCROYPOLL - please help improve if you can.--Kotniski (talk) 16:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

If you're looking for examples for 3c, I suggest George VI of the United Kingdom, Louis IX of France, James IV of Scotland. The wording of 3e is itself problematic, can anyone explain what "problematic" means in this context? Some people seem to be arguing that any attempt to determine a monarch's primary realm is somewhat POV and should therefore be avoided. Some seem to be arguing that the Commonwealth Realms are a sui generis formation where it is not possible to determine a primary realm, but this does not present a problem with other dual monarchies. The logic of some arguments could be that e.g. Henry IV of France becomes the primary meaning of Henry IV, not because he is more important than Henry IV of England, but because we should not pass judgement on whether France or Navarre was his primary realm. PatGallacher (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

It's been suggested at the poll talk page that instead of putting those three questions directly, we should come up with a shortlist of overall solutions that people could choose between. Any suggestions as to how that process would work (coming up with the shortlist, I mean)?--Kotniski (talk) 11:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I would suggest that we vote now ON THE VOTE PAGE. I have provided a section for that and have voted. I hope that having a dedicated vote page will concentrate minds and lead us coming to a solution, as we have eben beating about the bush on this for far too long. I agree that 3e will be difficult to apply, certainly in any cases where there is any potential ambiguity. I hope that this will provide some kind of consensus for a new convention on which we can then vote "support" or "oppose". Peterkingiron (talk) 17:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Let's be patient; there's no hurry to resolve this. We don't even know yet whether these are the right questions, or the right sets of answers; we should also try and ensure we have all the main arguments summarized adequately, otherwise discussion will just keep breaking out over things which have been gone over many times before. I suggest that further discussion of this take place at the poll talk page, WT:NCROYPOLL.--Kotniski (talk) 09:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Ooooh, a new poll! How cool! Lemme vote, lemme vote, lemme vote! And seriously, I came here because I was thinking about trying to standardize the articles about Polish monarchs (I think consistnecy is generally a good thing and they are currently a mess) and wanted to see if WP:NCROY can be applied, but now I see the guideline itself is being challenged. So now I'm looking forward to see this matter settled. — Kpalion(talk) 15:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Silence for 9-days (until now). Am I to assume this latest push for change has ended? GoodDay (talk) 01:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, I suspended working on preparing the poll, since there didn't seem to be much active interest. I invited anyone else to take over if they wanted to, but so far no-one has. (See WT:NCROYPOLL.) --Kotniski (talk) 11:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I believe it's safe to say, the movement has died out (for now). GoodDay (talk) 16:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: Name Ordinal, Title of Place

Latest comment: 14 years ago43 comments9 people in discussion

I can't speak for anyone else, but I for one am definitely interested in change. (I would have commented at an earlier stage, but I only ran across this proposal and discussion yesterday.) The poll quite clearly states that it is not ready for voting, but, for what it's worth, I would be in favor of a general move to Name Ordinal, Title of Place (Henry IV, King of France and Anne, Queen of Great Britain), which is in line with current practice both for British peers (Bernard Fitzalan-Howard, 16th Duke of Norfolk) and for some monarchs (Wilhelm II, German Emperor and Maximilian I, Holy Roman Emperor) – with, of course, the standard exception for special cases such as Charlemagne. I don't favor a blanket exception for monarchs of GB or the UK (option 3c), but I do think personal-union situations, including Elizabeth II and her predecessors, need particular care. Alkari (?), 7 February 2010, 22:55 UTC

I support this change too, and strongly so. The convention of Anne, Queen of Great Britain, would also help standardise the way such monarchs appear in the prose of encyclopedia pages. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Huh? I hope not; in prose we would continue to refer to them as appropriate to the context, so "Queen Anne" in most cases where it's clear what country we're talking about.--Kotniski (talk) 07:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Support last two. This is a good solution. GB/UK cannot be a special case. WP is a worldwide encyclopaedia, and Henry IV, King of England has no more right to be Henry IV than Henri IV, King of France. (note I reformated the initial indentation of the last two contributions to make it a vote. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Comment, there may be problems with a few foreign monarchies where the title does not cleanly translate into an English title. -- PBS (talk) 01:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Just for purposes of illustration, could you perhaps give a few examples? Alkari (?), 8 February 2010, 08:56 UTC
Support as a move in the right direction (though it still doesn't solve the "United Kingdom/Australia/Canada/...." problem, unless "particular care" means something concrete).--Kotniski (talk) 07:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't have a concrete proposal for dealing with the Commonwealth – my instinct is to say that the current Queen should be at Queen Elizabeth II (which is already a redirect), and thus an exception to the general rule à la Alfred the Great – but I think specific proposals for this and other specific situations should be kept separate from the general proposal. Alkari (?), 8 February 2010, 08:56 UTC
This is not a poll, but if it were, I would naturally oppose - for reasons that have been stated many times. Deb (talk) 12:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
You can still oppose whether it's a poll or not - but can you summarise those reasons for those of us who aren't clear as to what they are? (The main thing I'm personally interested in is how anyone can possibly think that Victoria of the United Kingdom or Anne of Great Britain is the right title for a WP article.)--Kotniski (talk) 14:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
It's all explained in the debate we had only a few weeks ago. Look at it like this: if you were writing about these people in the text of an article, it would be perfectly natural to say (for example): "He was a servant of Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom", whereas it would not be natural to say, "He was a servant of Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom." Deb (talk) 18:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
OK, I see the general point (though in this particular case the obviously right answer is Queen Victoria - to which "of the United Kingdom" can be added in the 0.001% of cases that such explanation is required ).--Kotniski (talk) 18:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Aye, Queen Victoria should probably be another exception – and even if not, the pipe trick makes it easy to do "He was a servant of Queen [[Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom|]]." As for the issue about links in general, I can't help feeling that having a clear and logical title for readers is more important than ease of linking for editors. Alkari (?), 8 February 2010, 22:03 UTC
Of course you can pipe it - you can pipe it the way it is now, so what's the big deal? Deb (talk) 23:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I think the "clear and logical title for readers" is the big deal. (The availability of piping - and redirects - means that the argument you raise is really a comparatively minor one, that shouldn't be deciding the matter if there are other more weighty arguments around.)--Kotniski (talk) 08:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
On the contrary, I would argue that the title you naturally link to is the most clear and logical title for readers. Something that doesn't sound natural can't be that. Once you have eliminated titles that are ambiguous, eg. Queen Anne, what you are left with is what we have now. Deb (talk) 12:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
No, what we have now is Victoria of the United Kingdom et al. That doesn't sound natural; nor is it the title an editor would naturally link to. --Kotniski (talk) 13:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. Deb (talk) 20:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
What with? Surely you don't dispute that V of the UK sounds unnatural, or that editors would not naturally link to that title? (It would be like linking to "President Obama of the United States.)--Kotniski (talk) 07:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Indeed I do! V of the UK sounds fine to me, and works well for 99% of cases. The alternative you propose doesn't. Deb (talk) 12:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
If "Victoria of the United Kingdom" sounds fine to you, you've been on Wikipedia too long. In the real world, that name is just not used.--Kotniski (talk) 15:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Barring unforeseen circumstances, there'll one day, be a Victoria of Sweden. GoodDay (talk) 16:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I thought President of the United States was an an office of state not a title as "No Title of Nobility shll be granted by the United States"(8.8 of the US constitution) so you are not comparing like with like. That is why to British eyes and ears the American habit of writing and saying "Prime Minister Brown" looks and sounds so odd, because Prime Minister is not a title it is the name of an office of state (and a job description) and so British people write and say "Mr. Brown the Prime Minister" or "the Prime Minister, Mr. Brown". -- PBS (talk) 08:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
"Prime Minister Brown" doesn't seem particularly odd to me (though "Minister Smith" would). Anyway, we're off at a tangent here - the point was that no editor (who wasn't intimately familiar with this naming convention) would naturally put the double brackets round "(Name) of (Country)" in the sentence "... (Title) (Name) of (Country)... ", regardless of technical distinctions between titles and offices.--Kotniski (talk) 08:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Oppose on the grounds that this would make titles a stage more wordy, and would mean moving several hundred articles. There could also be problems in a few cases deciding what title to use to describe some rulers e.g. the rulers of ancient Persia. It would mean we have "Elizabeth II, Queen of the United Kingdom", which is not what I think some objectors want. PatGallacher (talk) 22:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
'Name ordinal, title of place'? wouldn't work & is more cumbersome. IMHO, the desire of those to move Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, would be faced with the same problem. As this proposal would call for Elizabeth II, Queen of the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 23:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, the proposer has suggested plain Elizabeth II for her. And really, if we all take a deep breath and put aside past prejudices and unthinking dogma, isn't that the absolutely uncontestably obvious title for that article? (And Queen Victoria as well?)--Kotniski (talk) 08:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Was Anne's title "Anne, by the Grace of God, Queen of Great Britain, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, [...]" If so why stop at just "Queen"? Why not add in the full major title "Anne, by the Grace of God, Queen of Great Britain"? Who decides which part of the major title of a monarch should be used if the reliable sources are split on this issue? Do we go for consistently short titles or do we go with what the majority sources use in each case. If we go with short but consistent is that not OR? If we go with the majority of sources they may vary from monarch to monarch in the same dynasty let alone in the same country. -- PBS (talk) 07:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we ought to balance the criteria: commonness, consistency, conciseness... Then we won't always have the most common name, the most concise name, perfect consistency - but we ought to have titles that are reasonably common, reasonably concise, as consistent as we could expect... This is what Wikipedia normally does when it's thinking straight.--Kotniski (talk) 07:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Or as now, the title does not have to be used in the article name in which case the article name as far as the title is concerned is as common, consistent and as concise as it could be. -- PBS (talk) 07:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Except in the no-numeral cases, where consistency and conciseness have been applied with a callous disregard for commonness/recognizability (no-one really says "Victoria of the United Kingdom" or "Anne of Great Britain").--Kotniski (talk) 08:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
However, these titles automatically educate a less familiar reader on those monarchs. GoodDay (talk) 16:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
That's what the article is for, not the title. Using a made-up name is miseducating readers, as it makes them think that the subject in question really is called that.--Kotniski (talk) 16:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Rightly/wrongly Elizabeth II is seen primarily as the Monarch of the UK. There's no UK Governor General. The Royal Family spends nearly all of their time in the UK castles. Rideau Hall hasn't been inhabited by Liz very often. GoodDay (talk) 16:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
That's the other issue (we were on the Victoria one), but still the same argument applies: using an invented name (admittedly not quite so ridiculous as one we've given Victoria) miseducates readers.--Kotniski (talk) 17:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Someday (barring unforeseen circimstances), we'll have Victoria of Sweden. GoodDay (talk) 17:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
And may her reign be a long and peaceful one. But how does this fact justify our inventing names as titles for articles? --Kotniski (talk) 17:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Victoria of the United Kingdom is not an invention. She was Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (aswell as Empress of India). GoodDay (talk) 17:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Don't see how your first statement follows from the second. This name is not a name by which she is referred in the real world. It's a fairly obvious example of the "original research" that Wikipedia doesn't do. --Kotniski (talk) 08:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I invite the attention of those interested in pursuing the Queen Victoria issue to the new section below. Alkari (?), 12 February 2010, 07:51 UTC

One way forward would be to create redirects for page names like Henry III, King of England and after six month or so see how much names like that are used in articles. We would then have some facts and figures to work with on which is the most commonly used. If it turns out that the redirects are being used in a significant number of articles the case for changing would be enhanced. -- PBS (talk) 20:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

An advantage of this proposed format is that commas work like parenthesis with the pipe trick [[Henry III, King of England|]] is the same as [[Henry III (King of England)|]] both create Henry III -- PBS (talk) 20:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

That's true, but a minor convenience for editors shouldn't be a significant factor in the decision.--Kotniski (talk) 08:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
But is a factor that should be considered see WP:AT "and to which editors will most naturally link from other articles", the comma makes Henry III, King of England slightly more friendly for an editor than Henry III of England in paragraphs where the realm does not need to be explicitly mentioned. -- PBS (talk) 20:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I do not understand your argument. "Henry III (King of England)", "Henry III, King of England" and the present "Henry III of England" are all suitably disambiguated without any national POV. "Henry VIII" may well be sufficient without any disambiguator, because no other kingdom has had an 8th Henry, and "Louis XIV" certainly would be. The question is which of these three forms is perferable. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Where this began was at Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, which, over the years, has been subject to dozens of move requests that wish to eliminate the pro-UK title for a page on a woman who's queen of 16 countries in an equal fashion. That same notion then extends to other monarchs who were the fulcrum of a personal union: the other Commonwealth realms monarchs, the Hanoverian-British monarchs, the English-Scottish monarchs, & etc. The proposal here doesn't address that original problem of national bias. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: Name Ordinal (Place)

Latest comment: 14 years ago60 comments14 people in discussion

I prefer consistancy across on monarch articles. Name & ordinal is good enough, see Akihito (for example). As for those who've the same name & different countries? Henry IV (France), Henry IV (England), Henry IV (Holy Roman Emperor), is workable. We'd still have problem with the Elizabeth's, as one was Queen of England & the other was Queen of the UK, Canada, Australia etc etc. Same with the Edwards & the Williams. 16:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Not with the Elizabeths, surely? (One was Elizabeth I, the other is Elizabeth II, so no need to disambiguate.) There might be a problem of ambiguity with some of the prior Commonwealth kings, which is why I suggest treating them all as primary topics. If we're forced to appear to discriminate either against Commonwealth realms (by choosing the UK over the others) or against other countries (by implying that UK sovereigns are of more interest than, say, French ones), then - this being English-language Wikipedia - I'd choose the second as the lesser of the evils. (I don't think either of them is really an evil, but I can't understand those who think the second is totally unacceptable while the first is quite OK.)--Kotniski (talk) 17:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm, Edward VI, Edward VII, George VI, Elizabeth I, James VI & I, James VII & II, William III & II is workable. So, shall we agree to go for just Name Ordinal for all monarch articles? GoodDay (talk) 17:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Utterly impossible. Read Henry IV before suggesting such a thing again. The Scotticism James VI & I is fully appropriate as a redirect (and I have made it one); it would be appropriate in the Scots Wikipedia - although in fact they call him James VI (and keeng, which is unknown to Jameson's Scottish Dictionary). It is wrong here. It is not common usage, because it incorporates a point of view - one from Arthur's Seat.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
In my experience it's much more common usage than some of the bizarre names we already do use as article titles. (I mean James VI and I; I don't think any of the other double-ordinals are supportable.)--Kotniski (talk) 18:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
If yas wanna call the article James I, it would have to be James I (England), as there would be a James I (Scotland). Same thing with James II. GoodDay (talk) 19:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Not directly related to the overall proposal, but I note that the first line of James I of England calls him "James VI & I" and his infobox calls him "James VI and I". There is (I think) fairly unanimous agreement that occasional exceptions from the general rule, whatever it may be, are allowed – so calling the article by the same name we're already using for him within seems quite reasonable to me. I also don't see how it "incorporates a point of view" more than the current title, which ignores Scotland and Ireland entirely. Alkari (?), 10 February 2010, 00:12 UTC
As for the Henry IVs? - Henry IV (England), Henry IV (France), Henry IV (Holy Roman Empire), Henry IV (Castile). As for the Dukes & Princes, they can keep their titles in the article name. My suggestion is for Emperors/Empress regnants, Kings/Queen regnants. If none of this is workable, then we keep the status-quo (Name ordian & country). GoodDay (talk) 19:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I would be opposed to any rule which treats sovereigns below the rank of king/queen differently. (I do realize that this is what we have now, but that's part of what I think is wrong with it.) Should not whatever we come up with for emperors and kings work equally well for reigning princes, grand dukes etc.? Alkari (?), 10 February 2010, 00:12 UTC
GoodDay: The difference between James I of England and James I (England) consists wholly in this: the first is English prose, usable in running text. Wikipedia prefers to avoid parenthetical dabs when, as here, there is a convenient and natural means of disambiguation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
It's as far as I'll go for any changes to the monarchial article titles. I won't agree to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom (for example) being moved to Elizabeth II on its own. GoodDay (talk) 19:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Why on earth not? --Kotniski (talk) 07:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Elizabeth II should not be treated differently from the other British monarchs (George I to George VI). GoodDay (talk) 15:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Are you really holding the position that British monarchs from George I to George V were in every way identical to those from George V to Elizabeth II? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Pardon me, I meant George III to George VI. GoodDay (talk) 16:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't even notice any error. My question still stands, though: Are you really holding the position that British monarchs from George III to George V were in every way identical to those from George V to Elizabeth II? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm a consistancy buff. Either we have all monarchial article titles with 'of country' or we don't. I don't mind the title Elizabeth II if we have George III, James I & VI, Gustav II, Akihito (which we already have), etc. GoodDay (talk) 16:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
That's similar to User:John Kenney/Naming conventions (names and titles): we only use disambiguation where necessary. 94.196.114.82 (talk) 17:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
The problem I have with that argument, Pm, is that most monarchs aren't likely to be run in the text as "[[X of Place]]". Most are likely to be used as "[[X of Place|X]]". GoodDay's version would allow use of the pipe trick for ambiguous names and "[[X]] of Place" for the places where "of Place" would actually be used. It is simpler, more versatile, and more in line with standard disambiguation techniques. -Rrius (talk) 23:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Comment: in running text, it's often desirable to omit the country altogether, because the context of the article makes it clear. (One wouldn't, I presume, say "King Edward VII of the United Kingdom" in an article about Buckingham Palace; one would say "King Edward VII") Both Name Ordinal, Title of Place and Name Ordinal (Place) allow for the use of the pipe trick to do this, while Name Ordinal of Place doesn't. As I and others have said above, a logical and clear title for readers should take precedence over ease of use for editors, but I think this point ought to be considered if we're discussing ease of linking. Alkari (?), 10 February 2010, 00:12 UTC
Personally, I would say "King Edward VII of the United Kingdom" in an article about Buckingham Palace; it would be quite wrong to assume that everyone reading it knew where he was king of. Deb (talk) 18:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
There is a way to get around the UK stuff. Edward VII of Great Britain and Ireland is workable. GoodDay (talk) 18:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Aside from the major difficulty that he was not King of Ireland. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, from 1801 to 1922, it was all one Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 23:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Honestly, you guys are solving a problem that isn't a problem. There was no other Edward VII - just call him Edward VII (which already redirects to his article). If you think the context of the article requires identification of his realm (in the majority of cases it won't) then just add it afterwards, like you would with President Barack Obama of the United States. No difficulty there. When some other country crowns an Edward VII, our descendants can decide what to do about it (preferably based on what the reliable sources of the day do about it), just as they will when another Barack Obama or Michael Jackson becomes prominent.--Kotniski (talk) 08:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Edward I to Edward VI are monarchs of England. Edward VII & Edward VIII are not. GoodDay (talk) 18:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I fear I may not have been clear regarding Edward VII – Deb says "it would be quite wrong to assume that everyone reading it knew where he was king of", which is true, but my point was that in the context of an article about (e.g.) Buckingham Palace, which states in the opening sentence that it is "the official London residence of the British monarch", it's perfectly reasonable to assume that undisambiguated monarchs are British. (If you wanted to mention a non-British monarch in that article, you would of course need to clarify where he/she was from.) With regard to GoodDay's comments about pre-UK Edwards and "get[ting] around the UK stuff", I can only say that I have no idea what either has to do with any of this; could you perhaps elucidate? Alkari (?), 12 February 2010, 07:01 UTC
We can't have the article titles Edward VI of England & Edward VII of the United Kingdom, moved to Edward VI & Edward VII. GoodDay (talk) 15:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Of course we can - neither of those two requires disambiguation. --Kotniski (talk) 16:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Disagree, they're monarchs of different entities. GoodDay (talk) 18:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Obama and Sarkozy are presidents of different entities - do you think those entities should be included in the article titles? (And why do you think Edward VII is numbered VII and not I? Is it not because everyone in the real world acknowledges him as a natural successor of number VI?)--Kotniski (talk) 08:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Obama & Sarkozy (in France) aren't monarchs. IMHO, the British monarchs shouldn't have numbered themselves after their English counterparts (the Scottish were quite annoyed by it). Anyways, it's the same with the Castillian & Spanish monarchs. GoodDay (talk) 16:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Your opinions about what monarchs should have done (much as I agree with them) aren't relevant to Wikipedia. And why should considerations apply to monarchs that don't apply to presidents?--Kotniski (talk) 17:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Monarachs tend to be herititary Heads of State, Presidents tend to be elected Heads of State. Monarchs usually are in office for the rest of their lives, Presidents are not (exceptions are dictators). Even if we had Edward I & Edward II of the UK, the argument would still be the same, as they would've had to have been distinguished from Edward I & Edward II of England. GoodDay (talk) 17:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I think the difference you're looking for is that presidents can be distinguished by their last names whereas monarchs cannot. I still think the idea of disambiguating monarchs by their regnal years is worth some more consideration. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The status quo is best, Name regnal-number of country. Weither we like it or not, the UK is the realm most identified with Elizabeth II. GoodDay (talk) 18:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

No, that would be England. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
England isn't a realm, it's a part of a realm. I'm sticking with the status-quo. We've already got the 16-realms stuff in that article-in-question's infobox & content. GoodDay (talk) 18:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Whether or not England is a realm is of little importance to most of the world's population that still calls her Queen of England. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm siding with the status quo, thankfully the ..of the United Kingdom in the article title, teaches those that ...of England is incorrect. GoodDay (talk) 18:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
"of the United Kingdom" isn't particularly correct either. Plain Elizabeth II is more correct I think; at least it can't mislead anyone.--Kotniski (talk) 16:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. I'd hope that simply Elizabeth II would communicate that ...of the United Kingdom has a one sided bias. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose as makes meaning less clear than present standard, and means moving several hundred articles. PatGallacher (talk) 00:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Support excellent idea, and no matter what consistent convention finally is adpoted (I hope!), many articles are going to have to be moved, but at least there will be something definite and sensible to go by. All titles should be removed from all bio article names. SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC) adopted, not adpoted - SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Not necessarily, we could avoid moving many articles by sticking with the existing naming convention. PatGallacher (talk) 00:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
We could, if people would stop being so defensive and dogmatic about this convention, and agree that it doesn't have to be applied in every case, where usage and common sense lead to a different name. Then we could just go about changing those titles which are obviously against usage, and discuss some of the borderline cases - the vast majority of these articles would then stay as they are. But while we have people insisting that we have to impose consistency on these titles, then it follows that if we want to change the obviously wrong ones we may end up having to change all the others as well.--Kotniski (talk) 07:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
This misunderstands the issues. Nobody is suggesting that this convention needs to be applied rigidly to every case, everybody accepts that there may be exceptions e.g. Alfred the Great. What some people are arguing that the case for making an exception has not been made, either in the case of Elizabeth II of the UK individually, or in the case of the monarchs of the Commonwealth Realms collectively, or the monarchs of the UK generally. PatGallacher (talk) 17:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, I think the case against "Victoria of the United Kingdom" and "Anne of Great Britain" is pretty solid, for a start - these are Wikipedia inventions where no invention is needed (hint: they need the word "Queen"). The problems with the Commonwealth monarchs are pretty well known as well - at the very least we could drop the controversial realm identification in the cases where no disambiguation is needed. But no, the stalwarts of this convention won't let us take these obvious common-sense steps. So it's hardly surprising that people keep suggesting changes to the convention - it seems to be the only practical way to eliminate the OR and NPOV and UCS problems we have with a few of the existing titles.--Kotniski (talk) 08:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
No case has been made for the monarchs of the Commonwealth realms? How about the titles are a gross violation of WP:NPOV, for a start? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I see no NPOV issues at all. I can understand (if not necessarily agree) why some honourable colleagues feel Scotland ought to be represented in the article title for the King James who succeeded Queen Elizabeth on the English throne, but that's because he united two separate crowns, and this is reflected in James' different ordinals. On the other hand, even though the sixteen Commonwealth crowns are technically separate and equal, the fifteen all split out of the British one; this is presumably the only reason why the current Queen of Australia is Elizabeth the Second, despite the fact that the Australian Crown has never been held by another Elizabeth. Indeed, it is the reason why Elizabeth is on the Australian throne in the first place, and not someone else: the British succession rules were copied in the other Realms. This one-sidedness may offend some sensitivities, but that's colonialism for you, and trying to gloss it over does not seem very constructive or NPOV to me.
Besides, Elizabeth may be the head of state in all her Realms, but in practice this is a role exercised by the Governors-General; if we are to mention a Realm in Elizabeth II's article title, surely that ought to be the one where she opens Parliament in person. And I strongly disagree with not mentioning any Realm. Even if she is the only Elizabeth II, just saying "Elizabeth II" is a name devoid of context outside the Commonwealth Realms. Just look at a British passport, and the international context immediately becomes clear: "Her Britannic Majesty". Waltham, The Duke of 08:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
So what? Do we have to say "Obama of the United States"? It's entirely unnecessary to include the realm; and the United Kingdom crown just like the Australian crown has never been held by another Elizabeth, so that makes the present name particularly misleading.--Kotniski (talk) 09:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
The difference is that the United Kingdom is the successor state; there is a reason they call it "United". And you keep making that impossible comparison between a proper name and a title. The very fact that it seems so difficult to decide what to call Elizabeth while it is so easy to agree on what to call Obama should be sufficient to illustrate this difference. To put it simply: the fact that Obama is the President of the United States does not change his legal name; it is a job, and one day he will leave it and still be Barrack H. Obama, the only change being that people will still call him "President Obama" by courtesy. On the other hand, Elizabeth's name is her job description, and changes as her realms change. Prince Charles' titles have also changed with his status, as did the late Queen Mother's, and the entire nobility is in a similar position. Barrack Obama is a man who happens to be President. If Elizabeth II is not Queen, she is not Elizabeth II. Apples and oranges. Waltham, The Duke of 10:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
In spite of all that, you still haven't told us what purpose it serves to add "of the United Kingdom" to the title of Elizabeth II's article. There is none, except Wikipedia convention, and we are fortunately empowered to change conventions that lead to odd-looking or biased results for no gain. ("It seems so difficult to decide what to call Elizabeth" - not at all, not in the real world, only on Wikipedia where the weird superstitions about always saying a realm and never saying "Queen" seem to have taken hold.)--Kotniski (talk) 12:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I am not sure to what exactly you are referring as "the real world", considering the variety of ways people use to refer to Her Majesty, Her Majesty the Queen, the Queen, Queen Elizabeth, Queen Elizabeth II, Elizabeth II, etc. etc. Referring to millions of people as if they are a homogeneous whole sounds at least as odd as the unfortunate phrase "international community". People usually have the freedom to use whatever is convenient to them, a freedom not available to us because we need to organise our articles somehow. This means we need to decide upon and follow a system, which means, in turn, that we must have some measure of standardisation. The inevitable result is that some choices which may appear excellent for certain articles may seem less fitting for other articles, and when there is such divergence it is natural that our choice may not reflect prevalent usage. In any case, we are not the first work of reference to resort to more artificial titles for some of its entries in order to achieve optimum organisation, nor is this the only area in which we do this. Take peers, for example: we refer to them by their name, surname, ordinal and title, despite the fact that they legally have neither a surname nor an ordinal. Yet it is a system that works well, and we didn't even invent it, because it is also used in other works. So forgive me if I find your persistence about natural-sounding language rather taxing. Especially considering the hundreds of redirects and disambiguation pages out there designed with the specific purpose of leading people to their target with the least fuss. If there are people who object to the sight of the "redirected from" tags, these are more likely to be regular readers than not, and therefore I believe that they are also more likely to pick up a few of our naming conventions than a person who has read a few articles through Google. In which case the value of standardisation becomes even greater.
I think we can both agree that the best location of pages ultimately depends on expectations; we disagree on how one should interpret these expectations. I don't know about you, but I prefer to place faith in the intelligence of our readers: once they find an article, they are perfectly capable of remembering either how they got there (even if a redirect) or what the article's proper title is (and using that one afterwards). If they do some more reading, they may notice the similarities between the titles and roughly understand the underlying pattern, using it to guess the titles of articles they have not yet visited. This is only one of the reasons why I value standardisation as much as I do, but it is an important one, because standardisation is all about the readers' expectations and minimising surprises. Hence, to reach my main argument, it isn't so much about Elizabeth II that I want to keep the realm in her article's title, but it is in order to retain consistency both with other British monarchs and with the monarchs of other nations. You may have a valid point about making it easier for the new readers to guess the article title of the articles they seek by removing unnecessary clarifiers. But I find it more important to aim for the more consistent readers, the ones more likely to be annoyed by inconsistencies and being redirected all over their place. Ultimately, I suppose it is a matter of which audience we wish to please more.
PS: I've never said I am firmly against including "Queen" in the title in some way. I simply don't find it all that necessary, and perhaps a little too informal and descriptive for the title. I may be persuaded either way on this one. Waltham, The Duke of 15:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I fail to see how the origin of the present crowns or the words on a British passport are in any way relevant; I've never seen it say "Britannic Majesty" inside a Canadian passport. The modern reality is that there are multiple crowns held by one individual with no particular precedence (outside of archaic colonial mindsets, that is). The title of Elizabeth II's page here thus contravenes WP:NPOV by allowing a certain faction of editors to keep it displaying a pro-British bias. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

There is a simple answer to the Australian question (and also the Scottish question), which is the form Her Majesty chose as her title on her accession, something like Elizabeth II, Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of her other realms and dominions. Analogies from US or other presidents are misleading, because they have surnames that are in regular use. Since it turns out that Elizabeth II does not need a disambiguator (which was a surprise to me), I see no reason why that article should not become plain "Elizabeth II", but this does not resolve the question of Queens Anne and Victoria (who have no ordinal) or of kings with titles shared by kings of other realms. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

(On further thoughts) (1) Henry V, King of England is a much more natural form. (2) Monarchs without an ordinal - in England Stephen, John, Anne, and Victoria get a very odd-looking article title, in which the country looks like a mis-described surname. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
That assumes that "England" or the like has to be the disambiguator. If Victoria (United Kingdom) truly makes it look like a misdescribed surname, it could as easily be Victoria (UK) or the like. John could as easily be John (English king). -Rrius (talk) 23:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: Monarchial Name Ordinal (Place)

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Same idea as preceding Proposal, but limited to Monarchs. Wikipedia frowns on parenthesis in article title? invoking WP:IAR should take care of that.

  • Support as proposer. We can (for example), have Victoria until/if Sweden's heiress-apparent succeeds. Then we could have Victoria (United Kingdom) & Victoria (Sweden). As for Elizabeth II? there's no other Elizabeth II's in the near future, so nobody has to worry about 'someday' moving to Elizabeth II (United Kingdom), ok? GoodDay (talk) 23:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Support: As stated elsewhere, this would work better in prose (pipe trick), would track with other naming conventions, would make more sense than the current convention, and would allow for flexibility in the disambiguator to deal with POV concerns. -Rrius (talk) 00:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose It doesn't resolve the POV problems that will arise with some monarchs: for instance, there are two George Vs, resulting, according to this proposal, in articles named George V (Hanover) and George V (United Kingdom). The latter, however, wasn't king of only the United Kingdom after 1931. Same with George VI (of which there are three). --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Queen Victoria

Latest comment: 14 years ago36 comments8 people in discussion

Bearing in mind all the caveats of the Google test, I present the following, to be used or ignored as seems appropriate:

Alkari (?), 12 February 2010, 07:51 UTC

"Victoria, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland Queen..." - I would say this is a fairly standard encyclopaedic way of referring to her. We just keep it short because people have to type it in, and we do so by using the shorthand "United Kingdom" and leaving out the "Queen". Works pretty well. Deb (talk) 19:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Working out an entire rule just to make sure that the article about Alexandrina Victoria is titled Queen Victoria would turn out to be pretty pointless should the King of Sweden leave this world soon, don't you think? Surtsicna (talk) 19:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. GoodDay (talk) 20:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Why? Do you think the new queen of Sweden would gain the same sort of prominence that that Queen Victoria has (to the extent that the latter would no longer be the primary topic)? Well, it's possible, but then we go for "Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom" (I suppose) and "Queen Victoria of Sweden". But that's for the future. The important thing is that we include the word "Queen/King" with these numberless monarchs, otherwise there's no indication that that's what we're talking about. It's ridiculous to make up a barely recognizable name for someone when there's an unambiguous indication for that person which everyone in the real world knows.--Kotniski (talk) 08:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Queen, King, Emperor, Empress, Grand Duke, Grand Duchess (etc), are not names. GoodDay (talk) 16:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
But they're part of the names by which we know many of these people.--Kotniski (talk) 17:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
They're still not names. That's why (for example) in the republic Heads of state, we don't have President Barack Obama. There's more then one President in the world, there's more then one King/Queen in the world. GoodDay (talk) 17:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually, it's pretty obvious that Queen Victoria of Sweden would quite quickly become the primary topic, once she was the only living Queen Victoria and hence a focus of worldwide attention. It's a mistake to assume that these things are set in stone - things can change very quickly. Deb (talk) 23:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. GoodDay (talk) 23:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Of course, like the present King of Sweden is rarely off people's lips.--Kotniski (talk) 16:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
The present King of Sweden has no novelty value. Queen Victoria of Sweden will. Deb (talk) 12:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Deb says "We just keep it short because people have to type it in, and we do so by using the shorthand "United Kingdom" and leaving out the "Queen". Works pretty well." The problem is that it doesn't work pretty well, because by leaving out "Queen" we're leaving out the one word that positively, unambiguously identifies her for almost everyone. Even people who don't know when she reigned, don't know the difference between England and GB and the UK, couldn't name her predecessors or successors, etc., still know her as "Queen Victoria". What we have now is a contrived name that's not recognizable, that's not common usage and that no one who wasn't familiar with these naming conventions would ever come up with. (If Queen Victoria of Sweden becomes the primary topic in the future, this can of course be revisited then; in either case, hatnotes will probably be needed.) As for brevity and ease of typing, "Queen Victoria" is much shorter and easier to type than "Victoria of the United Kingdom". Alkari (?), 14 February 2010, 01:24 UTC
We can't have that article as Queen Victoria, as Queen isn't her name. Just ask Queen Latifah. -- GoodDay (talk) 16:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Do you think "Victoria of the United Kingdom" is her name? Presumably not; so what do you propose as the title for her article?--Kotniski (talk) 16:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
The current convention is Regnal Names of Country. Thus Victoria of the United Kingdom is allowable. GoodDay (talk) 16:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
So the convention should be changed to allow the more recognizable name.--Kotniski (talk) 16:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Nope, as Queen was Victoria's position, not a part of her name. GoodDay (talk) 16:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
And the United Kingdom was her realm, not part of her name. --Kotniski (talk) 16:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm sticking with the current convention. PS: Ya should be using the Papal conventions in your argument. GoodDay (talk) 16:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
It's not my arguments that seem to be lacking. --Kotniski (talk) 16:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
You're in the pro-change camp. The onus is on you (plural) to convince us (the status quo camp) of your views. GoodDay (talk) 17:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Not really; if you've run out of arguments (as you so obviously have), the onus is on you to admit you were wrong. --Kotniski (talk) 17:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Well the "we cant have titles in the title" argument certainly seems to have run out. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

We're not changing the current naming conventions, for just 2 monarchs. Sweden will have their own monarch named Victoria (barring tragedy). GoodDay (talk) 17:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

And who is to say the United Kingdom itself won't have a Victoria II in a few decades' time? :-P Waltham, The Duke of 09:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Which is relevant how? The article on the other Victoria would have to be retitled then anyway. The US might soon have another President Barack Obama (it's not entirely unknown for presidential names to repeat...)--Kotniski (talk) 09:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
My point is that one day people will be forced to call her something nobody called her while she was living, in the same way the woman we now call "Elizabeth I" was known simply as "Elizabeth" for five centuries. "Nobody called her 'Victoria of the United Kingdom' " is therefore not the strongest of arguments. In any case, I agree with Deb: Victoria's title was essentially "Victoria, of the United Kingdom etc. Queen, etc.", and the "Queen" part goes without saying, really. I mean, what else could she be of the United Kingdom? And that's for a person unfamiliar with Wikipedia's conventions. (And it shouldn't take very long to become familiar with them if someone pays attention, which is the best part about standardisation.)
PS: Actually, someone did call her "Victoria the First" while she was living. Boy, they really did build that thing to always follow the times. Waltham, The Duke of 09:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
None of this seems to imply to me that "Nobody calls her Victoria of the United Kingdom" is anything but the strongest of arguments. There's no evidence that people will ever come to call her that in the future either, particularly if another Victoria comes to the throne. What else could she be of the United Kingdom? Well, practically anything. Were the Annes of Cleves and Green Gables queens of those respective places? John of Gaunt the king of Gaunt? Stephen of Ripon the king of (well you get the idea).--Kotniski (talk) 12:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I seem to have dug myself into this hole. But, in my defence, although all these examples indicate origins, "of the United Kingdom" does not seem to lend itself to such assumptions, at least in my mind. It's not exactly your typical place-name. Waltham, The Duke of 15:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
That's true, but it's not a typical realm-identifier either, particularly if the word "King" or "Queen" is absent. Basically these names give the reader mental exercise for no gain, and with possible harm. Say "Victoria of the United Kingdom" to someone and they'll perhaps work out it's Queen Victoria you're talking about - after a few seconds probably, maybe longer - but what have you taught them in return for using the confusing name? That this is a name widely used by good historians, or by people in another English-speaking country? That this was her official title? Any of those things might be useful encyclopedic knowledge - but no, all you've taught them in this case is something about a internal Wikipedia naming convention (which they don't need to know anyway - redirects work). And worse (and this applies particularly if the reader is familiar with Wikipedia's more general naming standards), by making this the name of the article, you've actually quite likely misled the reader into thinking that this really is a real-world name of some kind. I know no title is perfect in every respect, but I find this sort of artificial and uncompromising consistency detrimental to the quality of the encyclopedia.--Kotniski (talk) 16:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

To those who are seeking to move particular articles & not change the whole Naming conventions, Wikipedia:Article titles might be the place to discuss it. GoodDay (talk) 18:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Please, no. The place to discuss it is the talk page of the individual articles. This page will, if I have to do it myself, describe what the consensus on individual pages is - but there is no consensus to move to Elizabeth II.
WP:Article titles was just renamed; one of the reasons for that is to distinguish it from subject-area naming conventions, like this one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I reckon that's another (preferred) option, too. GoodDay (talk) 20:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't the onus really be on deviating from standard naming conventions? What is the reason for Victoria of the United Kingdom not being Victoria (British Queen) or Victoria (Queen of the UK) or something similar? The only place most of these people are known as "[Name] of [Realm]" is Wikipedia (and its copycats), which flies in the face of how we are supposed to name articles here. When names that people actually use are fine, why not use them? Also, what is wrong with including the words "king" and "queen"? I think Queen Anne (Great Britain) or Anne, Queen of Great Britain would be better than the current convention. -Rrius (talk) 23:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

If the naming convention was changed (the way I'd suggested days ago), we could have Victoria. Then, if/when Sweden's Crown Princess ascends the throne (and keeps her name), we could have Victoria (United Kingdom) & Victoria (Sweden). My suggestions were rejected, so I went for my 2nd preference, keep status quo. GoodDay (talk) 23:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, I reject the logic that saw your first choice dismissed. There are plenty of disambiguators that could be used, and some might even address Mies's concerns. The rationale for not using common names frankly escapes me. This whole special naming convention seems like it was ill considered from the start. I don't see any valid reason why Victoria shoudn't be at Queen Victoria (UK), Victoria (UK), or Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom. The logic behind the current rules seems especially deficient when compared to nobles. Why is Miles Fitzalan-Howard, 17th Duke of Norfolk okay, but not Anne, Queen of Great Britain? Why Charles, Prince of Wales, but not Elizabeth II, Queen of the United Kingdom? Rank is somehow okay for nobles, but not for royals? That just doesn't seem rational. -Rrius (talk) 23:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I think we might get 'Name # (place)' if it's just monarchs (see my proposal). GoodDay (talk) 00:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
The convention that kings and queens don't use their title but lower-ranking sovereigns do seems to have been decided by three people in 2003 (about a third of the way down this page). IMHO, this convention is arbitrary, confusing and unhelpful. We're already using Name, Title of Place or similar for plenty of people: heirs apparent (Haakon, Crown Prince of Norway), consorts (Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh and Albert, Prince Consort), pretenders (Prince Philippe, Count of Paris), peers (William Cavendish, 4th Duke of Devonshire) and even some sovereigns (Wilhelm II, German Emperor and Maximilian I, Holy Roman Emperor). I've never heard a justification as to why royals should be a blanket exception (though obviously there will be plenty of individual cases where exceptions are warranted) and can't really see the argument for another naming convention for royals which is still inconsistent with the general convention for titled people. Alkari (?), 20 February 2010, 23:48 UTC

PLEASE CLOSE Royal article-titles debates

Latest comment: 14 years ago10 comments6 people in discussion

This debate has been going on for six weeks. The equivalent process for AFD, CFD, etc lasts 1 week. Is there a BOLD admin out there who will be willing to close this debate. We have three alternatives:

  • Status Quo
  • Name Ordinal, title of Country
  • Name Ordinal (Country)

These have been long debated. The time has come for a decision to be taken by assessing the strength of the arguments for each. This will need to be followed by a lot of work in moving articles to the new format (if there is a change), some of which will involve overwriting redirects (which only admins can do). Peterkingiron (talk) 12:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Clearly there's no consensus for any change at the moment, among the people commenting here. I think the WP:NCROYPOLL approach is still the way to go, to find out what the community at large thinks about all this, but we need to be careful and cooperative about working out the right questions and how to present them in an unbiased way (i.e. not just all leap in to give our own opinions and start voting).--Kotniski (talk) 12:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
It's time for closure. I've no probs with the polling idea. GoodDay (talk) 16:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I also have no problem with a poll, if it is conducted as a poll (as for AFD & CFD), rather than becoming another forum for a long-winded debate that gets us nowhere. I would suggest that there is a consensus against the third possibility, so that perhaps that one can be closed, leaving a poll to be carried out between the first two, and (please) then a closure. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Such a poll, should bar discussions & comments in it. GoodDay (talk) 18:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
But we do need some sort of summary of the arguments for/against each proposal, as the majority of editors won't have been following these everlasting discussions. And I don't think we're ready to say that there are just two realistic options - in previous discussion at WT:NCROYPOLL several proposals were put forward, and they haven't all been discussed here this time (or necessarily ever). Maybe a good place to start is to invite specific proposals (including to retain the status quo, of course) and brief statements in support by their proposers.--Kotniski (talk) 19:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Clarification: I meant no comments or discussions following one's 'vote'. When one posts support or oppose, he/she shouldn't comment on why they've voted the way they did or have somebody comment against him/her. Such comments would elongate the poll & turn it into another discussion. GoodDay (talk) 19:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Was the discussion on royalty only, i.e. kings, queens & emperors, or was the case of dukes & princes within a royal family also included in the discussion? What's hitting me as an outsider's (i.e. not AngloAmerican born) it that this discussion has been more on what to do with naming/renaming of English royalty, thus not paying much attention to the rest of Europe, which means that any change made in order to satisfy the Elizabeths & Victorias will not automatically satisfy the Élisabeth(s), Catherine(s), Marie-Thérèse(s), Isabelle(s), Louis, Charles, Alexandre(s), Joseph(s) etc. on the other side of the English Channel.
There is a debate going on here [2] for moving/renaming several members (women) of the Orléans family of France with titles they never had, that of "Princess". Would this here debate concern them? Could, for instance, the proposed move of Élisabeth Marguerite d'Orléans to Princess Élisabeth Marguerite of Orléans, end up with a wiki title Élisabeth Marguerite d'Orléans, Princess of Orléans or Élisabeth Marguerite, Princess of Orléans (France), Princess being a title she and no other Orléans woman bore before the July Monarchy, i.e. the reign of Louis-Philippe I, King of the French? Because, if we begin cleaning the titles of articles of royals, all of them are to be included in the clean-up process, and, most important, non-existing titles should not be invented.
--Frania W. (talk) 01:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Frania. We have to be very sure about the dates these titles were first introduced and not randomly assign them to royals such as the example she used with Elisabeth Marguerite d'Orléans.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I would strongly Oppose a poll without comments. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and polls are evil; the only justification for them is the discussion which goes on in the comments. This has even - once in a blue moon - been known to change somebody's mind. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: Replace "cognomen" with "common name"

Latest comment: 14 years ago85 comments10 people in discussion

An easy and simple way to bring this proposed guideline back into line with the applicable policy is to change one word: "cognomen" in the sentence "If a monarch or prince is overwhelmingly known, in English, by a cognomen, it may be used," to "common name". DrKiernan (talk) 08:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

That might help, though it might be better to be more explicit about what we mean; something like: "is known in English overwhelmingly more commonly by a name other than the systematic title implied by this convention, and is the primary topic for that name, then that more common name should be used as the article title." (That could be phrased better.)--Kotniski (talk) 09:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
The effect of that would presumably mean moving Victoria of the United Kingdom to Queen Victoria (she is "known in English overwhelmingly more commonly by a name other than the systematic title implied by this convention", and she is "the primary topic for that name"), and presumably likewise with many other (particularly British) monarchs. I won't comment on whether I would agree with those moves, but judging by the discussions above, there is nowhere near consensus for them. Proteus (Talk) 10:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Addressed [3]. DrKiernan (talk) 10:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't see the connection between that edit and what we're talking about. (But I agree with Proteus that there isn't consensus for this proposed change at the moment; but maybe there will be if we look at the matter afresh and consider that there's no logical reason to treat "cognomens" and "common names" differently. I have a certain amount of faith that there aren't really many people in the community who think that Vic of the UK is an acceptable article title; there just seem to be a few people around here who have persuaded themselves that it is so.)--Kotniski (talk) 10:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I am suggesting that point 2 could instead read:
If a monarch or prince is overwhelmingly known, in English, by a common name, it may be used, e.g. Alfred the Great, Charlemagne, Skanderbeg. But there must be consensus so strong that it would be surprising to use another name; and the name must actually be unambiguous. For example, although Richard the Lionheart is often used, Richard I is not unusual, so use Richard I of England for consistency with other articles.
I don't see that this is much different to the current version. DrKiernan (talk) 15:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
If it's not different, then what's the point of doing it? What would it change? (Unless things like "Queen Victora" and "Elizabeth II" and "Louis XVI" are added to your list of examples, which logically they could and should be; but then we'd have the usual objections from the usual people.)--Kotniski (talk) 16:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
It would make it simpler, but it would also subtly change the meaning. Deb (talk) 12:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes. DrKiernan (talk) 13:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Folks, if Victoria of the United Kingdom ends up getting moved? I'd prefer Victoria as opposed to Queen Victoria. Afterall, 'Queen' isn't a name in this case, just ask Queen Latifah. -- GoodDay (talk) 14:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
It can't be just "Victoria" - that really would be ambiguous (and fairly silly). We've already been through why it doesn't matter that "Queen isn't a name" (and I don't know why Queen Latifah should be considered any kind of authority on the matter). --Kotniski (talk) 14:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
The Latifah article is an example of Queen being a name. Then, there's Empress Schuck. -- GoodDay (talk) 15:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
It states quite clearly that "the name must actually be unambiguous." That is not true for Victoria. DrKiernan (talk) 14:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Don't forget Sweden's heiress-apparent. GoodDay (talk) 15:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I haven't. I don't understand how your comment relates. I thought you agreed with consistency? Note that currently, the "guidelines" do not mention consistency, I'm suggesting it be included. DrKiernan (talk) 15:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Queen Victoria, Queen Latifah. If you weren't overly familiar with them, you wouldn't be exactly sure (going by title) which one of them is a monarch. GoodDay (talk) 15:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Right, so the one who isn't a queen is called Queen, and the one who was, isn't. I don't think we can expect readers to get that. (It's a bit like saying we can't say New York City because there are other places like Welwyn Garden City which are called cities even though they aren't.) --Kotniski (talk) 16:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Now I'm confused, aren't you folks claiming that Victoria is universally recognized as the British Queen-regnant? GoodDay (talk) 17:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
"Queen Victoria" is. Plain Victoria could be an Australian state, a railway station and doubtless other things.--Kotniski (talk) 18:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Wowsers, you pro-movers are difficult to please. GoodDay (talk) 18:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think "Victoria of the United Kingdom" is that uncommon, and doesn't strike me as strange. This proposal wouldn't alter the article title in that case, but it does allow for changes to peculiar sounding constructions such as "Cleopatra VII of Egypt", for example, by expanding the use of cognomens to the use of common names. Note that Cleopatra VII of Egypt doesn't have a cognomen but she does have a common name, Cleopatra. I'm merely suggesting that in such cases we should allow the common name to be used. This doesn't change James I (as James I of England is as common if not more common than the alternatives) or Elizabeth II (as she is as commonly associated with the UK as not), but it does allow for exceptions when peculiar sounding constructions such as "Mary I of Scotland" are more than a thousand times less common than "Mary, Queen of Scots".

I appreciate that this does not go as far as Kotniski and Miesianiacal would like to go, but a small step in this direction is better than none. And I think this small step does not alter the current guideline to an extent that need alarm editors like Deb and Timrollpickering who wish to retain the status quo. DrKiernan (talk) 16:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, if it's in that direction, then I support it, but I think you should say what you mean by common name (for me, "Queen Victoria" and "Elizabeth II" are just as much common names as "Mary, Queen of Scots" or "Cleopatra", so if you want to exclude the former, you'll need a definition that clearly does exclude them).--Kotniski (talk) 16:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Point 2 includes the wording "there must be consensus so strong that it would be surprising to use another name". That covers my examples to my mind, but do you have an alternative phrase? DrKiernan (talk) 16:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I find eschewal of Mary Queen of Scots no more surprising than eschewal of Queen Victoria and Elizabeth II, but I suppose it will be up to more than one person's level of surprise.--Kotniski (talk) 18:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
  • This guideline doesn't apply to Cleopatra, and it says so; the last move request ignored the language about "Western European royalty". We don't need to invent ways to disambiguate the Lagidae; there are two already in existence.
  • If it did, Cleopatra, like Charlemagne, would be overwhelmingly most common - and I think should prevail; but let's see the page moved before we use it for precedent. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
  • What's being discussed here is not the status of this long-standing guideline; it is a few (relatively rare) cases, on which the discussion has been as much a question of fact (is "William the Conqueror" overwhelmingly common?) as a matter of guidance. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Why arent' the monarchs of Monaco, Luxembourg & Lietchenstein title Monarch # of place? They were/are Monarchs too. GoodDay (talk) 19:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Because they're not royalty. I'm not sure there is strong sentiment on the point; but that is the present situation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I see. GoodDay (talk) 19:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

This guideline took on its current form before "reliable sources" were added to the policy that is now called Wikipedia:Article titles. As such it was constructed to make sure that we used names that were unambiguous and clear, particularly to remove name like Bloody Mary, Richard the Lionheart and William the Conqueror hence the wording close to "Most general rule overall: use the most common form of the name used in English if none of the rules below cover a specific problem." and "If a monarch or prince is overwhelmingly known, in English, by a cognomen".

It took many years to add "reliable sources" to the policy because the article titles policy is much older than WP:V, and so many of the specialist guidelines were constructed to work around Google searches throwing up a popular name that was not the common name as found in reliable sources. These older guidelines, like this one, which have not been modified to accommodate reliable sources ought to be.

However as I recently pointed out (on Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Can we take a second deep breath?), for nobility and royalty, reliable sources have to be looked at in context: a book may refer to "King Richard" without an ordinal because in the context of the book it is obvious with Richard is meant, this means we have to give more weight to reliable sources that unambiguously name royalty and nobility (eg general histories which cover a span of time which includes many kings and queens, other encyclopaedias, the ODNB etc). This point needs to be used to qualify the usage of reliable sources for royalty and nobility and if it is, then I doubt that most article names would not be affected, but it would change this guideline from a rules based one to a source based one, simplifying it and bring it closer to the policy page.

I am against the use of consistency in the policy (I see it as a muppets charter), and I do not think there is agreement that it should be there, to my knowledge it has already been used to justify in a WP:RM the keeping diacritics in a name even thought the name was clearly the least used in reliable sources. Here we have an editor (who I am sure is not a mupper ;) ) suggesting that even if the guideline is changed to be more source driven and less rules based, we should use an name that can be justified "for consistency with other articles", that would then mean that Victoria of the United Kingdom could be justified, not because it is a common construction (it may or may not be), but because it is consistent with other articles whatever the reliable sources use. "Consistency" becomes a particularly useful tool, for someone who wishes to maintain a status quo even when the original policy or guideline no longer supports a particular naming construction. -- PBS (talk) 22:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

All of these names are used in reliable sources. That is a bugbear.
The most common name for almost any monarch is the Henry IV style, but we can't use it for most of them - Uniqueness is a system constraint; we therefore have, perforce, a systematic name for most of them. The question, therefore, is: Are the other monarchs to be consistent with the disambiguated names that 95% of them must have, or not?. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
PMA I am aware of the problems, but that is no reason why the wording of this guideline should remain stuck in the wording of 2005 and not reflect the use of reliable sources as introduced into the policy (by you after agreement on the talk page) in June 2008. -- PBS (talk) 03:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't see it has much to do with the introduction of the "reliable sources" wording into the policy - some of the names that this guideline has us used are just not used to any significant extent in sources, reliable or not. We should make it quite clear that consistency cannot be used as the only criterion for deciding an article title, to the exclusion of all others, just as commonness should not be so used.--Kotniski (talk) 12:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Both of these are red herrings. Henry IV of France is of course used in reliable sources, as Google books will show you; if I thought this convention were at odds with what I wrote in WP:AT, I would have changed one of them. Nor has consistency ever been the only criterion here - or we would not mention Charlemagne at all. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Henry IV of France is itself a red herring; that's not one of the titles which is a problem. Obviously this convention is at odds with WP:AT (at least, the way it's unfortunately come to be interpreted in practice - as a prescriptive rule), since it sets out clear boudaries within which consistency is to be the only criterion.--Kotniski (talk) 20:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Interpreting any guideline as a prescrtiptive rule is a problem. Changing the wording so that the fools think it prescribes something else will not solve anything, it will merely change the problem. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 07:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
PMA, please consider this sentence: "Most general rule overall: use the most common form of the name used in English if none of the rules below cover a specific problem.", to fit in with WP:AT should it not read "When reliable English language sources do not give a clear indication of a common form of the name then use the rules below to construct a suitable article title", (or something similar), because at the moment the guideline says follow the rules and only use the name in reliable sources if the rules don't cover a specific type of name and title combination. -- PBS (talk) 22:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
No, it should not. That stumbles over our basic problem, by telling editors to move both Henry IV of England and Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor to Henry IV. We can discuss what part consistency should play, when we have a proposal which is not an invitation to disaster. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 07:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Not really, as Henry IV becomes a question of precision, and I see no problems with having special rules over precision for this class of articles. Although there may be a need for some extra rules based on reliable sources, ("of the Scots" and "of the French" are questions that reliable sources ought to be used for instead of automatically using "of Scotland" and "of France".) We can also ask the question if there should be a pre-emptive disambiguation for names like Henry IV as is done with military divisions as in 4th Infantry Division. However now that this is now a more mature project it is likely that the majority of monarchs are already covered, although the question is probably still a reasonable one to ask about nobility and baronets. -- PBS (talk) 01:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
At the risk of sounding like the dunce in the classroom, I must tell you that this conversation is becoming incomprehensible to the non-initiated. --Frania W. (talk) 02:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Basically we have this guideline which sets out some very strict rules on what titles to give to certain articles, and we have general Wikipedia principles (described on the WP:Article titles policy page) which say that titles should be chosen with a certain set of criteria in mind (the first one being "recognizability", interpreted as meaning "commonness of name in reliable sources"). In most cases this isn't a problem, as the titles implied by the guideline fit in quite well with the policy. However, in a few cases they don't - they look artificial and are effectively made-up names for people who have perfectly satisfactory well-known names (Queen Victoria is rechristened "Victoria of the United Kingdom"; Elizabeth II becomes "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom" - aside from recognizability, the question of neutrality also arises, since she's queen of many other countries besides the UK). Even this shouldn't be a problem, since policy and common sense ought to prevail over the strict wording of guidelines when concrete decisions are made. However, for whatever reason, this guideline seems to be interpreted by significant numbers of editors as a cast-iron rule (when it's proposed to change titles of the relevant articles to more sensible ones, people keep popping up to say "first change the guideline, then change the article"). In summary - this guideline's inflexibility is causing problems.--Kotniski (talk) 07:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Pardon my abstraction deficit: These options only become meaningful for me as I consider their results when actually playing the name game. So will this move Diana, Princess of Wales to Princess Di or to Princess Diana? Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon to Queen Mum or to The Queen Mother? How will we disambiguate between Prince Albert and Prince Albert, since that is how both men seem to be "most commonly" known? Shall we move Jaime de Marichalar back to Jaime de Marichalar, Duke of Lugo, since he's resumed his maiden name but that may not yet be what the preponderance of "reliable sources" in English will tell us? What counts as the most "reliable source" when trying to determine Wikipedia's article title for Duchess Marie Therese of Württemberg -- the leveling laws of the French republic (Maria-Theresia Herzogin von Württemberg) or the creaky customs of the obsolete social class from which her notability derives (Marie-Thérèse, duchesse de Montpensier), or the canons of the church to which she famously clings (Marie-Thérèse, comtesse de Paris, duchesse de France)? Thanks to his wife's earned fame and his own recent antics, seems to me that we should soon be moving Emanuele Filiberto, Prince of Venice to E.F. di Savoia while putting his cousin and dynastic rival where he is best (though, still, little) known, at Prince Aimone of Savoy-Aosta, even though the former's supporters will indignantly object to what they consider a wounding want of neutrality, while Italian republicans will no doubt demote Aimone by revert to match EF. And what of Barbara Cartland's much-maligned daughter, Raine who, though a commoner born, has come nigh to mau-mauing the media into dubbing her a triple peeress as The Countess of Dartmouth-Spencer-de Chambrun? Once we've changed the rule, won't it be a relief to abide thereby and get on with playing defense on the talk pages of rulers from whom we could no longer withhold their "rightful" cognomens, e.g. Ivan IV of Russia once-again the Terrible and William I of England back to being the Conqueror? Finally, once Sweden becomes a queendom we'll have the perfect excu -- er, defense -- for re-locating the Widow of Windsor to what has always been her "most common" (though oft unspoken) suffix -- Queen Victoria of England -- ssh!
Seems to me that the specialized rules for this class of folk, flawed as they are in sometimes subordinating "most common name in English", have carefully, slowly eased royalty into increasingly improved article locations while evolving explicit conventions and implicit practices that, if seldom unanimously favored -- indeed often the results of compromise born of exhaustion -- nonetheless have come to reflect and to purvey a cumulative, reflective, shared experience -- dare I say wisdom? -- concerning these matters, which sometimes spare the newbies some of the battle scars we bear. I'm just a tad curious where we'll land once we throw baby and bathwater out for the fun of starting all over again. FactStraight (talk) 00:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't think my suggestions are as doom laden as you think they may be. Did you notice my comments about using reliable sources in context etc? Take for example your example of William I of England, (BTW when was the article at the title William the Conqueror, because according to the edit history it has not been edited since 27 June 2002 and the only other edit was to create it as a redirect earlier that year, so I don't know where you get "and William I of England back to being the Conqueror"). In the case of that bastard it is not at all clear that the article would be move to William the Conqueror as reliable sources are split and there is no reason why this guideline should not give guidance on what to do when reliable sources in English are split. What this guideline should not be doing is making up rules that formulate article titles and ignore and hence possibly contradict the consensus in reliable English language sources. As it stands at the moment the guideline can generate names in breach of several Wikipedia policies including WP:AT and the content policies is contradicted by several other guidelines based on those polices including parts of the MOS and some other naming conventions. What we should do is harmonise this guideline so that it enhances (supplements and explains)WP:AT and does not contradict it. If this is done wisely then very few articles will have different tiles as this guideline does not contradict most reliably sourced names, but it would fix the minority where it currently does. -- PBS (talk) 06:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Any guideline based on the MOS will be wrong. The last thing we need is more half-educated prescriptivists. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 07:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Isn't unthinking prescriptivism the exact problem we have with this guideline at the moment? For once I agree with PBS; and can't agree with FactStraight that this guideline is a perfect example of compromise bordering on wisdom - it causes regular dissatisfaction among newbies and oldies alike, for very obvious reasons; but it could be very easily be improved to give even more "improved article locations". Think of the proposed changes as another step in its evolution - no-one's proposed throwing the whole thing out and starting again.--Kotniski (talk) 07:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand FactStraight's and PMA's ojections to the proposal. It clearly states that the "common name" must be unambiguous. DrKiernan (talk) 09:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it is because I have raised the point that the sentence in the lead "Most general rule overall: use the most common form of the name used in English if none of the rules below cover a specific problem" ought to be changed so that it complies with WP:AT. -- PBS (talk) 06:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
But it does comply with AT, which says the converse; use common names unless there is a specific convention. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. See [[4]. DrKiernan (talk) 12:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
And the first section of WP:AT, of course, which makes it clear that there is no one golden rule about what title to give articles (it's often a trade-off between conflicting desirables). This guideline could make that clear too - basically setting out the rules which are widely followed, but stating explicitly that those rules don't have to be followed on every single occasion (clearly a title that does follow those rules is going to score highly for Consistency, but sometimes some other title might be preferable on grounds of vastly superior Recognizability etc.) That way it would be in full harmony with the policy and with wider Wikipedia practice.--Kotniski (talk) 13:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Consistency needs to be demoted on the policy page, because it is far to open to abuse -- as we saw with your argument with Krakow and the arguments here. The way it is being used is to justify keeping a name in line with an old consensus (or even the creation of a different article by one editor), when it we all know that consensus can change. There is no reason why consistency can not be a secondary consideration, but it should not be used to ignore reliable source based naming. As I said before, this guideline was set up before reliable sources were added to the policy page and it should not be updated to reflect that change.-- PBS (talk) 21:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Should not? You mean should? Anyway, please stop using the word "abuse" to mean "arguing for something that PBS doesn't agree with". That's not what it means, and it's bordering on the offensive.--Kotniski (talk) 07:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
As I said before & I'll say again. Since my proposal hasn't been adopted, then we should stick with the status quo - Name # of Place. GoodDay (talk) 15:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
PMA It is clear from many yards of conversation on Wikipedia that a minority can not legitimately impose a guideline on the community that contradicts policy. If the wording of the policy allows this wording then the policy is broken. Where in the policy do you think it says "use common names unless there is a specific convention." I find it strange that you are promote the use of reliable sources to determine the construction and spelling of foreign names, but then demote their usage in this guideline. -- PBS (talk) 21:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
A minority cannot impose a guideline at all; if it doesn't describe what happens in article space, it isn't a guideline, no matter what tags it has. But this guideline does not contradict policy - it implements policy. Policy is present best practice; it is not present practice to call the two kings and an Emperor who are most commonly called Henry IV Henry IV - indeed to do so would involve reworking the entire architecture of Wikipedia, making it markedly less user-friendly. There is no consensus for that.
There is no consensus, again, to title the article on Her Late Majesty as Queen Victoria, for several reasons. If there were, the article would have been moved. It is not present practice.
Present practice is described in WP:AT: Wikipedia has many naming conventions relating to specific subject domains (as listed in the box at the top of this page). Occasionally, these may recommend the use of titles that are not strictly the common name (as in the case of the conventions for flora and medicine). This is followed by much advice to caution in adopting such conventions; before you quote it at me, you should consider that I wrote it - and still agree with it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
In the case of this convention, though, "not strictly the common name" is a vast understatement.--Kotniski (talk) 07:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
It's a vast understatement for the conventions on flora and medicine too. But ask Hesperian if he had his tongue in his cheek; I didn't write that sentence. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 12:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

With the exception of PBS's objection to the inclusion of the clause on consistency, I'm not actually seeing any objection to the wording I actually proposed. Making such a change does not preclude continued discussion on the other issues and proposals raised above. It looks to me as though consensus on this one point has changed. I think we should implement the change and see how it plays out in practice. DrKiernan (talk) 09:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

That one subsitution will not work as it makes the rest of the paragraph confusing, the whole paragraph would need to be modified with other examples. --PBS (talk) 10:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
The current draft would be:
If a monarch or prince is overwhelmingly known, in English, by a common name, it may be used, e.g. Alfred the Great, Charlemagne, Skanderbeg. But there must be consensus so strong that it would be surprising to use another name; and the name must actually be unambiguous. For example, although Richard the Lionheart is often used, Richard I is not unusual, so use Richard I of England.
What wording do you suggest? DrKiernan (talk) 11:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I still think we need to explain what a "common name" is, and I don't understand "consensus so strong that it would be surprising..." - don't we mean "predominance of usage so strong that it would be surprising..."?--Kotniski (talk) 12:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Consensus of reliable sources is what is meant. Adjusting. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 12:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I do not yet see a new consensus for changing this guideline to substitute "common name" for "cognomen". As Proteus and you noted above, at the least Septentrionalis PMAnderson and I have demurred. He because apparently he does not see the need insofar as he considers that the current guideline is in synch with WP:AT, and I because based on WP's definition of cognomen ("Cognomen...is used more generally {i.e. outside the context of Ancient Rome and Latin naming} as a catch-all term for monikers, stage names, pen names, aliases and other adopted {or commonly applied} nicknames or professional names"), the substitution either makes no change or implements one with obscure and less predictable effects than is presently the case. FactStraight (talk) 12:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I see. I misunderstood your objections, I thought they were for another proposal.
Well, I think I'm all out of ideas on how to find a compromise then. If we can't reach agreement through discussion, the only remaining options are either a poll or arbitration. DrKiernan (talk) 13:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
We can't have Victoria of the United Kingdom moved to Queen Victoria, because we've got articles like Queen Latifah & King Clancy. -- GoodDay (talk) 15:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Repeating the same comment multiple times is trollingunlikely to resolve the discussion,Corrected. DrKiernan (talk) 17:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC) particularly when it has no bearing on the previous comment. I have never suggested moving Victoria. DrKiernan (talk) 15:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I thought these discussions were all connected, my apologies. PS: Please don't use the T-word. GoodDay (talk) 15:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
In any case, the argument makes no sense, as was pointed out somewhere above.--Kotniski (talk) 15:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I beg to differ (again). Changing the Naming convention for a tiny handful of articles is destructive. GoodDay (talk) 15:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Ah, but imposing the naming convention on a tiny handful of articles for which it is clearly ill-suited is also destructive. DrKiernan (talk) 17:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps the less stressful (though perhaps longer) way to accomplish page movements, is via the page itself. See Mary, Queen of Scots for example, I found it went rather calm. GoodDay (talk) 17:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree that was the right move, as supported by the present - unaltered - text of this guideline; but I don't think the discussion was consensus. Then again, I don't understand some of the opposes; there seems at least one clear claim that her great-great-granddaughter, also Mary, was not Queen of Scots. (I knew we had some Jacobites, but this is excessive...). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
IMHO it should be across the board for all monarchs 'Name # of Place'. Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden, Mary, Queen of Scots, Akihito (for example) should be Gustav II Adolph of Sweden, Mary I of Scotland & Akihito of Japan. GoodDay (talk) 19:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
So what ordinal would you give to Edward the Confessor and to the later English King Edward known by that ordinal? -- PBS (talk) 19:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Those are exceptions, as ordinals can't be included & having the place name would make the title too long. GoodDay (talk) 19:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Gustav II Adolph is not English usage (nor Swedish, if it comes to that); why? And Akihito is unambiguous. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
So far as Akihito is concerned, the guideline never made any pretence of applying to him: "These following conventions apply to European monarchs since the fall of the Roman Empire ...". Jacobites? Jacobins are many times more common here. Anyway, did you ever see a book that indexed the female half of Williamandmary as "Mary, Queen of Scots"? Enquiring minds want to know. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Why didn't I get a consensus to change things to just Name & Name (Place) when required? What's the big deal about parenthesis? we've got Georgia (country) for example. GoodDay (talk) 20:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Because, other things being equal, parentheses are undesirable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
And commas are undesirable (a million place names, dukes, counts, barons, and so on, notwithstanding) because ... ? Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Since there's only been one Elizabeth I & one Elizabeth II in the world history of monarchs. Would it be alright if the article Elizabeth I of England & Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom were moved to Elizabeth I & Elizabeth II? Same with Victoria of United Kingdom. Same for similiar monarchial names. GoodDay (talk) 20:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Victoria, definitely not. Never mind the future Swedish queen, what about the Australian state? Is Yelizaveta Petrovna "Elizabeth" or "Elizabeth I"? If she's just-Elizabeth then you may have a point with Gloriana and Brenda. But you'd still need to overcome the usual suspects' love of compulsory disambiguation. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Jumpers, I forgot about Sweden. As for 'Elizabeth II'? all the 16 realms accept her as Elizabeth II. GoodDay (talk) 21:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Never let it be said I'm not good to you: Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom#Requested move. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I've opposed all the past page-move requests, but now I'll support. PS: Tharky's gonna have a fit. The others are gonna faint. GoodDay (talk) 22:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Archive 15←Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22→Archive 24
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(royalty_and_nobility)/Archive_20&oldid=1137426040"