Talk:Frederick VIII of Denmark

Denmark High‑importance

	Denmark portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Denmark, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Denmark on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DenmarkWikipedia:WikiProject DenmarkTemplate:WikiProject DenmarkDenmark articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Biography: Royalty and Nobility

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility.

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

This article has previously been nominated to be moved.

Discussions:

Not moved, 26 November 2023, to Frederick VIII, see discussion.
Not moved, 12 January 2024, to Frederik VIII of Denmark, see discussion.

Frederik or Frederick[edit]

Please join the discussion here Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should be Frederik since it is inapproriate to use exonyms for royals who lived after 1900. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Issue[edit]

Can somebody explain in the article what "issue" is or at least link to it? To those unfamiliar (like me), it's curious. TJ Spyke 06:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those are his children, his issue. 2600:1700:BC01:9B0:C9FF:2666:F646:F001 (talk) 03:26, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Death[edit]

His death as described in this article coincides with the official, though fabricated story. According to a norwegian historian Øystein Sørensen (http://www.nrk.no/nyheter/distrikt/nrk_ostlandssendingen/sendinger_nrk_ostlandssendingen/lang_lunsj/3042495.html) he sneaked out of the hotel, without his staff knowing. He is known to have died in the room of a prostitute, and then been transferred to Harbour hospital of Hamburg, section for unknown corpses. The day after he was identified by staff as the king, and transferred to Hotel Hamburger Hof, where the story as it currently is presented in this article, was conceived. If nobody disagrees, I will edit this later.

--PeterKristo (talk) 15:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, where is the proof that he was in the bordello? That link above doesn't work anymore. Sounds like it is assumed he was there simply because he died nearby. This should be clearly stated that this is only a rumor. If there's no proof, then that should be made clear. 2600:1700:BC01:9B0:C9FF:2666:F646:F001 (talk) 03:25, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edits[edit]

I have made a little change to the description of the Nine Sovereigns photo. Maymichael2 (talk) 17:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RfC of interest[edit]

(non-automated message) Greetings! I have opened an RfC on WT:ROYALTY that may be of interest to users following this article talk page! You are encouraged to contribute to this discussion here! Hurricane Andrew (444) 19:30, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Christian I of Denmark which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:17, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, this was about dropping the "of Denmark", and the conclusion was "not moved". Nø (talk) 17:04, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 12 January 2024[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Rough consensus to not move the page. The oppose !votes showed more compelling evidence and were actually based in policy (COMMONNAME, USEENGLISH). No consensus on dropping "of Denmark", though that can be decided in another RM. (closed by non-admin page mover) – Hilst [talk] 18:44, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick VIII of Denmark → Frederik VIII of Denmark – At Talk:Frederik IX of Denmark#Move request, it was discussed and finally decided to move "Frederick IX of Denmark" to "Frederik IX of Denmark", i.e. switching from the German and traditional English spelling of Frederick with a "c", to his actual Danish name, Frederik without a "c" (also in agreement with Frederik, Crown Prince of Denmark, who will become Frederik X of Denmark Sunday January 14, 2024).

According to the discussion there, the same should apply to Frederik VIII, but probably not to the Frederik's prior to year 1900.

Thus, I hereby request a move of "Frederick VIII of Denmark" to "Frederik VIII of Denmark". Nø (talk) 17:03, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not going to 'support' or 'oppose', as I suspect that eventually all the Danish monarch pages named "Frederick", will be moved to "Frederik". But, isn't the German version - "Friedrich" & the English version - "Frederick"? GoodDay (talk) 19:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that informaton about the changes in the use of exonyms after about 1900 totally has escaped you, though I've mentioned them several times. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:43, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We've already made our stances clear on Exonym & its usage on English Wikipedia, post-1900. GoodDay (talk) 19:47, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the German version is Friedrich. See https://d-nb.info/gnd/1024338347 and https://www.deutsche-biographie.de/pnd1024338347.html?language=en. DrKay (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support - After 1900 legal names had specific spellings. Thus the use of exonyms is no longer appropriate for royals who were alive after 1900. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:43, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wilhelm II called himself William in English. —Srnec (talk) 15:43, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Denmark has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:54, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (after supporting Frederik IX). Ngram [1] shows Frederick as consistently more common. Anecdotal sampling on JSTOR and Ebscohost seems to back this up. While I agree that 1900 is a good rule of thumb for use of translated vs. native names, it's certainly not a hard and fast rule. You're going to find edge cases, especially with someone like this who had a short reign, and lived most of their life in the nineteenth century. We should stick with the common usage in sources, which in this case seems to be Frederick. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 21:04, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I think generally native names (endonyms) are preferred unless the English version (or another exonym) is entrenched in English usage. I don't think Frederick/k VIII is well-enough known in the English speaking world to have the English version of his name entrenched. Wellington Bay (talk) 21:47, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support - The difference in the ngrams isn't really enough for me to believe that the common name is an important factor. One editor brought up a good question in the Frederik IX RM in the question of whether "Frederik" is so different from "Frederick" that there is possibility of confusion. It seems as though all of us here so far (including the oppose !voter) can agree that 1900 is a reasonable guideline for translated vs. native names, so I just can't see why the inclusion (or exclusion) of one letter that doesn't affect the pronunciation or increase ambiguity (here, it arguably decreases it) should be such a concern. estar8806 (talk) ★ 02:14, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose. Just because Frederick IX of Denmark got moved, does not mean that this article must as well. As per User:Seltaeb Eht's research, "Frederick VIII" is still the WP:COMMONNAME. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 00:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Using endonyms for modern times (1900 being the cut-off date) is a sound principle, the argument being strenghtened by the fact that this king is hardly well-known in the English-speaking world at all. Økonom (talk) 08:11, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Use English-language common name, per policy and Seltaeb Eht. Frederik IX lived all but the first 9 months of life after 1900. Frederick VIII lived more than 80% of his life before 1900. The argument that he is 'after 1900' is unconvincing. DrKay (talk) 11:07, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per @Estar8806. Killuminator (talk) 13:49, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The Ngram shows "Frederick" to be the common spelling. Additionally, he lived the majority of his life in the 19th century, when exonyms were still being used and the translation of names was common. Keivan.f^Talk 14:08, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think English spelling should be used. Robertus Pius (Talk • Contribs) 17:05, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for once, Google Ngrams is showing that the English spelling was more popular during his six-year reign. Векочел (talk) 02:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The common name here seems to be the anglicized version. Curbon7 (talk) 04:12, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I wonder how long it will be, before another RM is opened here, to drop "of Denmark"? One is already started at Frederick IX of Denmark's page. GoodDay (talk) 06:14, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose strongest possible. Walrasiad (talk) 10:18, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - as for the Ngram argument, I am not sure how to interpret this, but dropping "of Denmark" (but keeping Corpus: English) [2], the two spellings are basically equal. "Frederik VIII" can hardly be anyone other than Frederik VIII of Denmark, where as the count for "Frederick VIII" must include other Fred. VIII's, so it suggests the spelling without C must be the most common. Using Corpus: British English, "Frederik" is a clear winner; using American English, "Frederick" is a little ahead. Nø (talk) 12:16, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support – We're talking about a "c" that holds absolutely no impact on the pronunciation of the name. While you can certainly make the argument for the anglicisation of Hans into John, the anglicisation of Frederik makes very little sense to me. Cotillards (talk) 00:17, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Status - There is hardly any concensus, but a small majority for Oppose. I would like to hightlight my comment above about Ngram data: I believe correctly interpreted Ngram data supports the spelling Frederik as COMMONNAME for this individual, not Frederick, even though a direct Ngram comparison of the two possible titles appears to support Frederick. Ping user:Seltaeb Eht, user:Therealscorp1an, user:DrKay, user:Keivan.f, user:Векочел, and possibly user:Curbon7, who all seem to base their opposition on Ngram data.

Nø (talk) 07:58, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nø, I didn't see the ping, apologies. I don't think Ngram is the smoking gun either way, but I respect the evidence you've presented they may be equal. In my quick (and not scientific) searching academic articles I saw Frederick a little more (anecdotally). Really, I think the crux is that he reigned for such a short time that English language sources just don't deal with him very much, so there's not a huge corpus to go off of. To clarify/amend my initial comment, I'm more of a mild oppose, leaning neutral because I think Frederik VIII of Denmark (and probably Frederick VIII or Frederick VIII, a WP:Primary argument can be reasonably made) is probably a just about equally good page title. If it moves, I don't think any reader is going to be confused. But because I also don't see an compelling reason to move so my gut would be to keep it where it is. If it were already at Frederik I'd probably be arguing the same. But the page moving definitely does no disservice to our readers, at I certainly wouldn't be upset if it does move. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 20:36, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Wellington Bay and Nø's comment about other Fred VIII's in the ngram results. Better still, support move to Frederik VIII which would be unambiguous per WP:SMALLDETAILS and thus in line with WP:NCROY and WP:CONCISE. Rosbif73 (talk) 09:19, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For the record, though I base my Ngram argument on searches for "Frederi(c)k VII" without "of Denmark", I do not support a removal of "of Denmark" from the article title - I don't think Ngram data is relevant for that discussion. There is also an ongoing discussion about removing "of Denmark" for Frederik IX (see Talk:Frederik IX of Denmark#Requested move 15 January 2024) that will probably conclude with "no move" (possibly through "no cencensus"), and there was an recent discussion at Talk:Christian I of Denmark#Requested move 26 November 2023 about dropping "of Denmark" for these and 16 other Danish kings, concluding with "no move". Nø (talk) 09:38, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't pin my hopes on that. It seems widespread opposition in RMs doesn't matter for this this new clique determined to eliminate country names (vide Talk:Ferdinand VI of Spain). So changing the monarch's spelling here is only going to lead to an inevitability. Walrasiad (talk) 19:26, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.