Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)/Archive 22

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24

Infantes vs. princes

Should we call the infantes of Portugal princes? There is a clear line between a prince and an infante in Spain and Portugal; only the heirs to the throne were princes or princesses (Asturias, Girona, Viana, Portugal, and Brazil) and all the other sons were infantes. In the articles of Spanish infantes it is clearly infantes and never princes, see Category:Spanish infantes. So why do some of the articles of Category:Portuguese infantes listed as princes? --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 03:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Historically infante has often been translated as "prince". For instance, until I read Wikipedia, I had never heard any other reference in English for the renowned Portuguese explorer than "Prince Henry the Navigator". However I agree that "infante/infanta" has become a more precise term in English for "Spanish/Portuguese prince". An infante is a kind of prince just as a king is, i.e. in the generic sense of being a male member of a ruling family. But "prince" should neither be translated as nor substituted for infante as a specific title (Note however, that the French equivalent fils de France is never used in English as a term for "prince", nor is it acceptable at Wikipedia to translate it as such {although other reputable sources often do so}. Rather it is usually left untranslated or dropped altogether). FactStraight (talk) 15:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Braganzas should probably always be referred to as infantes and infantas. I'm much less certain about members of earlier Portuguese dynasties, who are much more frequently going to just be called princes and princesses in English, and who come from a time when royal titulature was much less formalized. john k (talk) 21:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Echoing Surtsnica and John's remarks, infantes are princes, it's just that the word implies, in English, specifically Spanish and Portuguese princes and is, therefore, actually used as the "English" title for these princes. An interesting note, when I read German publications more frequently than I do now, I would see members of the Spanish royal house as Prinz von Spanien and Prinzessin von Spanien. Sometimes in other languages as well (French). Seven Letters 21:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
With German offering the Fürst/Prinz distinction, it's less of an issue. The Prince of Brazil or Prince of Asturias are Fürsten, which allows infantes to be Prinzen without confusion. john k (talk) 04:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't see where the confusion would be... One title is of Spain and the other of the Asturias. I always did like the German distinction though, it is rather handy for princely families. Seven Letters 17:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
What I mean is that, if in English you translated both "Principe" and "Infante" as "Prince," (as is sometimes done) you lose the distinction. In German you can translate "Principe" as "Fürst" and "Infante" as "Prinz," so you still have two terms. john k (talk) 00:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
But this is not the German wikipedia. Infante is use to refer to Spanish and Portuguese princes and Principe is the title used by the only the heir apparent of both kingdoms. I don't see why we can't use non English title. What about all the forms of Marquess that exists on wikipedia?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 04:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
It's not that we cannot or should not, it just that Infante means something else as well, even if it is not as usual. Technically, there are Princes and Princesses of Spain, in the pure English sense, where Spanish itself makes the distinction. One could, I guess, think of Juan Carlos before his ascension as "Fürst von Spanien" rather than "Prinz". Seven Letters 05:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Juan Carlos was created Prince of Spain (Furst von Spanien) before his ascension to the throne by Franco, his son was Infante (Prinz) Felipe.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 23:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Henry is always going to be "the Navigator" and no one say Prince of Asturias are infantes. As a matter of fact the Prince of Asturias, Girona, Viana, Portugal, and Brazil are the only "Principes" in the Iberian kingdoms. Infante denotes any other sons other than the heir.
I would use the term infante, just as I would use the term "count" rather than earl. TFD (talk) 19:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Earl and count, I believe, developed in English separately. It was only later that they were seen to be equivalent. Seven Letters 05:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Princes of Braganza

Does the Portuguese ever actually refer to the descendants of Miguel, Duke of Braganza as prnces or princesses or infantes and infantas? --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 00:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I think they were generally called Infantes and Infantas, although this was never recognized by the Portuguese government. john k (talk) 02:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

RfC: United Kingdom Peerage titles

There is currently discussion going on over the titles for the people in the UK who have been given a peerage. Currently a large swathe of articles have the name of the person and then the title afterwards. This is the case even if the person is clearly better known without the title.

I would like to generate some discussion regarding what is deemed the most appropriate article name.

I personally believe the person’s name and then a disambiguation such as (British politician) is used afterwards, if necessary. This is because the person is known not for being a peer but for being a politician in general or a person which is notable outside of politics who then receives a peerage such as Floella Benjamin is still better known as Floella Benjamin and not Baroness Benjamin of Beckenham. The additional title is confusing to those who are not known by the title Alan Sugar is still Alan Sugar and not Baron Sugar of Clapton. I believe the additional peerage title needs removing from all articles where the person is not commonly referred to by that title. --Lucy-marie (talk) 22:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Where is the current "discussion going on over the titles for the people in the UK who have been given a peerage"? -- PBS (talk) 09:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
(ec) I tend to agree with all of this - I think at some point in the past some people in the peerage project decided that (nearly) all life peers ought to have their peerage titles in the article titles, and started renaming articles accordingly, even though the editors who know these people as politicians (or whatever - rather than as peers) tend to prefer the simpler titles. The simpler titles are in accordance with Wikipedia's article titling practices generally; and in most of the cases where disambiguation is required, I think an ordinary bracketed disambiguator like "(politician)" would work better than the peerage title, since it would have more meaning to more people. The argument has been made that the long titles are in accordance with what other works of reference do, but in my view the "titles" used by other works of reference correspond not to Wikipedia's article titles, but to the boldface name with which we begin the text of our articles. (Cf. Bill Clinton and Tony Blair.) --Kotniski (talk) 09:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Clarification - The original discussion was taking place on a requested move of the British politician Ann Taylor--Lucy-marie (talk) 11:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Ironically, I'm not sure I'd agree with you on that particular case: disambiguation is needed, Ann Taylor held her most important posts as Baroness Taylor, and women (unlike the Barons) are actually commonly referred to as Baroness X, so the current title there seems quite reasonable.--Kotniski (talk) 11:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I have to disagree on that point as she is better known as an MP but that is a discussion fer that talk page and not here.--Lucy-marie (talk) 12:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Common name is part of Wikipedia policy. Where as naming convetions are only guidelines. The use of google is also not a good way of claiming a common name. To though say " the person will be better known in the future under this title" is absurd lunacy and crystal ball gazing and is a bogus way of naming articles.--Lucy-marie (talk) 22:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Since Jimbo Wales didn't say "the person will be better known in the future under this title", suggesting instead "that much or most coverage going forward is likely" to use a person's newly-conferred peerage title, as has indeed typically become usage -- a factor relevant to Wikipedia naming conventions -- perhaps you'll want to re-consider labeling his opinion in this matter "absurd lunacy and crystal ball gazing". Then again, probably not. But I have read his observations here on use of titles dating back considerably longer than most others who track the evolution of these issues on Wikipedia, have usually found those observations to be sound, and once again find I agree with his succinct assessment, so I stand by it. FactStraight (talk) 23:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I simply referred to the central point of the argument put forward as "absurd lunacy and crystal ball gazing" and did so to demonstrate where the deficiencies in the argument were. You are also entitled to stand by whatever opinions you like and simply producing more opinions stating the same thing does not address the points raised above in my response to the original argument. This is as you quite correctly point out another stage in the "evolution" of this topic. Would you though agree that the full formal title is rarely if ever used outside of a full formal setting and almost never in common society.--Lucy-marie (talk) 22:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
What does "common society" have to do with anything? We should be looking at reliable sources. The prestige press, as far as I can tell, generally does use formal titles for life peers, at least in first references. (Also, it's not generally wise to dismiss the opinion of the founder of wikipedia as "absurd lunacy and crystal ball gazing")john k (talk) 16:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Firstly, let's be clear: this is about disambiguation. Talking about WP:COMMONNAME is beside the point here, because, for example, Ann Taylor is not available to title the article on the British politician. In cases where the most common name is ambiguous and the person in question is not a primary topic, disambiguation is required. Most life peers whose names are unambiguous are already placed at locations not using their peerage title. For British peers, it generally makes sense to use the peerage title, because peers will commonly be referred to by that name after being made peers. For Taylor her official parliament webpage refers to her as "Baroness Taylor of Bolton." This isn't like disambiguating based on an unknown middle name or middle initial. What is the supposed advantage of Ann Taylor (British politician)? john k (talk) 12:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
It refers to her entire career as a politician and not just her being a peer. She is more likely to be known as a politician in general and as an MP than she is as a peer. The formal title is also never used outside of highly formal settings. Alan sugar is refered to in the media as Lord Sugar or Sir Alan but never Lord Sugar of Clapton. Ann taylor is the same she is never refered to as Baroness Tayor of Bolotn she is more commonly refered to as Ann Taylor or just Baroness Taylor. Nobody uses the full formal title to address someone so it is not the common usage and it creates confusion.--Lucy-marie (talk) 12:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Talking about WP:COMMONNAME is clearly not besides the point. After some search engine testing, I find that Ann Taylor is the most WP:COMMONNAME for this person. She is very rarely referred to by her title. As Ann Taylor is a disambig page the next policy that comes into play is WP:Precision, which would dictate the use of the title Ann Taylor (British politician). This is the policy appropriate name.
The only way Ann Taylor, Baroness Taylor of Bolton would be appropriate, is if this person was often or usually referred to with her title. In that case WP:NCROY & WP:COMMONNAME would call for Ann Taylor, Baroness Taylor of Bolton. NickCT (talk) 12:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
And she is commonly referred to as "Ann Taylor (British politician)"? When the common name is ambiguous, we are always using a name which is not the common name. That one form of disambiguation uses a comma, and the other a parenthesis, does not seem very dispositive to me. john k (talk) 13:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
@john k - I do appreciate your position. I've actually argued for a point similar to yours (i.e. stricter observance of WP:NCROY) on Elizabeth II. But I really think when naming articles one starts by asking; 1) What is the WP:COMMONNAME for this person/subject? In our case, answer "Ann Taylor" - 2) Is Ann Taylor available? If not, move to WP:Precision.
My sentiment is that WP:NCROY only comes into play if the answer to question 1 is "Baroness Taylor" or "Baroness Ann Taylor".
I do have to admit though that WP:NCROY isn't super explicit and it's sometimes difficult to figure out how to apply it. I'm respectful of those who hold opinions on this contrary to mine on this matter. NickCT (talk) 14:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Surely Ann Taylor, Baroness Taylor of Bolton is more precise than Ann Taylor (British politician)? john k (talk) 15:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
More percise maybe, but not more WP:Precise! If you read the policy, you'll note that WP:Percision comes into play only after WP:COMMONNAME has been decided on. WP:Precision basicly calls for Wikipedia:Disambiguation. NickCT (talk) 17:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Again, this is a tough subject, but having been in a number of debate surrounding titling I'm of the opinion that WP:COMMONNAME is primal in deciding titles. I think Wikipedia:Article titles supports me in that.
And frankly, even if we were going to ignore all rules I still think I'd lean towards "Ann Taylor (British politician)" as being less verbose than "Ann Taylor, Baroness Taylor of Bolton". NickCT (talk) 17:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand your point here. The common name, "Ann Taylor" is included in both versions of the title. ", Baroness Taylor of Bolton" and " (British politician)" are both forms of disambiguation to clarify which Ann Taylor is meant. I don't understand what makes you think that the one that is less precise fits better with WP:PRECISION. john k (talk) 21:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
john k - It doesn't matter that "Ann Taylor" is included in both titles. What matters is the "Ann Taylor" IS the WP:COMMONNAME; hence, the name of the article should be "Ann Taylor". In the event that the WP:COMMONNAME is not available (which in this case it is not), we follow guidelines set out by WP:PRECISION and Wikipedia:Disambiguation.
Re "is less precise fits better with WP:PRECISION" - WP:PRECISION doesn't dictate that the title of the article be percise, but rather that the WP:COMMONNAME be percise. NickCT (talk) 16:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
I still don't understand your point. There is absolutely nothing in WP:PRECISION which says we should prefer Ann Taylor (British politician) to Ann Taylor, Baroness Taylor of Bolton. WP:PRECISION gives very little guidance as to what form should be used for disambiguation, which has to be decided on a case-by-case basis. john k (talk) 17:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
WP:PRECISION only comes into play after you've decided on a WP:COMMONNAME (which in this case is "Ann Taylor"). WP:PRECISION tells us to disambiguate "Ann Taylor" by adding "(British Politician)".
Note that there's nothing in WP:PRECISION that tells us to refer to WP:NCROY, which is basically what you're doing. NickCT (talk) 23:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Why can't we disambiguate "Anne Taylor" by adding ", Baroness Taylor of Bolton"? There is simply nothing in WP:PRECISION which tells us how to disambiguate. That is a matter to be decided at individual articles. The whole point of WP:NCROY is to provide guidance for how to title and disambiguate articles in the particular circumstance of people with noble and royal titles. By your interpretation, it is never applicable, which can't possibly be right. john k (talk) 06:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm... That might make sense, but I don't think the intent of WP:NCROY was disambiguation. I think WP:NCROY exists solely for use when the WP:COMMONNAME includes a tittle (i.e. Baroness/Queen/Prince). For instance Diana was most commonly known as "Princess Diana". In that case we then refer to WP:NCROY to get Diana, Princess of Wales. "Ann Taylor" was not most commonly "Baroness Taylor", therefore we ought to typical rules to disambiguate. I think typical rules would call for (British Politician). NickCT (talk) 04:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Where do typical rules call for that? WP:PRECISION says nothing about this. WP:NCDAB is the place to go on this issue. It specificallys says, "When there is another term or more complete name (such as Heavy metal music instead of Heavy metal) that is equally clear and is unambiguous, that may be used." This is exactly the case here, an the relevant policy indicates that Ann Taylor, Baroness Taylor of Bolton is acceptable, although it doesn't mandate it. That page also specifically notes that more specific naming guidelines will give guidance for particular topics. It mentions specifically WP:NCP, which itself refers us to WP:NCROY for articles on members of royalty and nobility. I don't think you have any ground to stand on here. john k (talk) 14:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
john k - I think the idea of using WP:NCROY to disambiguate is interesting, but it wasn't the primary intent of WP:NCROY. Disambiguating people is almost ALWAYS done in the following format - "Name of Person" (qualifier). See WP:QUALIFIER for more details.
Furthermore I'd be a little cautious about using "Baroness Taylor of Bolton" to disambiguate because it doesn't seem to me as though it would be the most "common qualifier". In that I mean, do more people know Ann Taylor as the "Baroness of Bolton" or do more people know her as a "British Politician"? I'm guessing the latter rather than the former. NickCT (talk) 21:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

(left) If disambiguation of people is almost always done with parentheses, then we are doing things badly. What WP:PRECISION actually says is that if there is a natural form of disambiguation in standard English, like Cato the Elder and Cato the Younger use it instead of parentheses. "Baroness Taylor of Bolton" is standard English and does distinguish her from all other Taylors - as it is intended to. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:12, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

We can use it, it doesn't mean we have to. If we followed that principle consistently, we would be disambiguating most people not with parentheticals, but with middle names or initials, even if little known. Which would not be to readers' benefit, as (a) they wouldn't know so readily who the article is about, and (b) they wouldn't see the distinction between people whose middle initials normallly are used and those where they aren't. --Kotniski (talk) 09:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Another (perhaps more clear-cut) case we could be considering is that of Michael Martin, Baron Martin of Springburn. I think I was reluctantly convinced in the end that he's not the primary topic for Michael Martin - but now, what's the best way to disambiguate him: the present title, or something like Michael Martin (Commons speaker)? I would argue that in his case (possibly unlike the case of Taylor) the peerage title is an inferior disambiguator - it helps far fewer people to recognize who the article is about.--Kotniski (talk) 13:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The disambiguator (British politican) works best for Michael Martin as it describes him accuratly as what he is and that is a British Politician and coveres him being an MP, Speaker, and now a Peer. I wholly agree the formal title is a clearly inferior and confusing title.--Lucy-marie (talk) 14:46, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
"Commons speaker" seems clearly better to me. Why go for a vague description when there's a more precise one available? I wouldn't strongly oppose moving that article precisely because Michael Martin (Commons speaker) is almost certainly more recognizable and just as precise as the current title. Michael Martin (British politician) I don't like at all; perhaps there are no other notable British politicians named "Michael Martin" but the name is generic enough that I think the extra precision brought by giving his actual specific highest office is the best way to go. I don't really find the argument against it coherent - why does the disambiguator need to cover someone's entire career? john k (talk) 15:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
The reason is so that the largest number of people possible have the least amount of confusion with regards to the title. Also Michael Martin is not the House of Commons Sepaker it is John Bercow. So having the disambiguator (Commons Speaker) is out of date and misleading as it implies he is currently the Commons Speaker.--Lucy-marie (talk) 21:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
It implies no such thing. john k (talk) 14:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
It clearly does to an outsider who is unfamilair with the subject mater. Thus creating confusion.--Lucy-marie (talk) 20:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Nonsense. You can't simply assert such things without any evidence. Obviously outsiders unfamiliar with the subject matter are familiar with the fact that there has not been one speaker of the house of commons throughout all history. As such, there'd be no reason to think that somebody disambiguated as a "Commons speaker" is the current one - just that it is somebody who is most famous for being a speaker of the house of commons. Note William Bromley (speaker), or any number of other articles. john k (talk) 21:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Willam Bromley is speaker of what, is the first thing I have thought upon reading that as I do not know who William Bromley is/was. The disambiguation to that is confusing as I have demonstrated a situation where it would most likely be confusing. Simply stating they must know that there has not only been one Speaker is also not true. Also they are Commons speaker for where the Canadian House of Commons or the UK House of Commons. The title does not make that clear to an outsider. The title needs to be clear and concise to a person with little to zero knowledge of the subject matter at hand. The disambiguation is confusing as he may well be well known in the UK but is most likely never been head of in India or the USA, so they would not fully understand the title. Simply retorting “they are unlikely to view the page” is nonsense because there is a chance they will and the article needs to be easily accessible to all who read it, regardless of prior knowledge of the subject,--Lucy-marie (talk) 22:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Look, obviously we can't assume that any given person knows anything, but at a certain point you can take that to ridiculous lengths. The purpose of an article title isn't to explain who a person is, it's to briefly identify them. If multiple persons have the same name, the article must clarify which person of that name is being referred to. That's all. It is not the title's job to explain exactly who the person is. john k (talk) 04:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
When clarifying who that person is though confusion must be avoided and the examples you have listed have created additional confusion with the clarification chosen as demonstrated above. The clarification needs to be clear and easy to understand universally form people of all knowledge levels and if that is not done then it is a poor article title and needs updating to reflect the deficiencies in the title. There are two well know House of Commons Chambers and there are speakers for many many parliaments around the world so confusion being created is not that far from being easily done with the above titles.--Lucy-marie (talk) 13:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Could you explain the process by which someone might become confused? If someone types in "Michael Martin" and reaches the disambiguation page, that page explains who each of the different Michael Martins is. You seem to be imagining some sort of scenario that leads to confusion, but I can't really figure out what it might be. john k (talk) 16:27, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
For another example, see John Smith (Labour Party leader). Not only is he no longer leader of the Labour Party, but there are Labour or Labor parties in many other countries besides Britain! People might become confused!! Except that that's nonsense, and his name is so common that John Smith (British politician) would still be highly ambiguous. (John Smith (Chancellor of the Exchequer) also isn't chancellor anymore! The horror!). Your position here just seems nonsensical to me. john k (talk) 16:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
  • RFC Comment I think that the overall goal is a clear and usable encyclopedia so the descriptor should be decided on a case by case basis, based on what WP:RS most commonly refer to the person as. Someone may be referred to exclusively as a British politician whereas someone else, even a politician, may be predominantly referred to by his peerage title. The latter case is probably rarer, but I wouldn't foreclose it based on a discussion we have in this kind of RFC. --Dailycare (talk) 20:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
  • The convention is what it is. Even under the loosey-goosey standard we have now, the title is "useful for disambiguation. The example given is Chris Smith, Baron Smith of Finsbury. There is no conflict with "Chris Smith (British politician)", Smith was a minister, and was sent to the Lords in 2005. What reason is there, exactly, for deviating? The case for her article including the title is even stronger than for Smith because she was a government minister in the Lords for the last two-and-a-half years of the Labour government. Frankly, I find Lucy-marie's argument that people will be confused by the peerage being noted in the article title either insulting or disingenuous, and I'm not really sure which is the more charitable. If you are searching for something about her after reading that she was a government minister 10 years ago, are you actually going to be shocked that she might have been granted a peerage? Are people going to say, hmmm, that's not right, maybe it was Ann Taylor (poet), Ann Taylor (newscaster), or Ann Taylor (clothing retailer) I wanted? Hardly. As the convention stands now, the current title is the correct one. What's more, there is no compelling reason to change the convention; the disambiguation rule makes sense, and not using peerage titles to disambiguate could cause actual confusion, especially for people aware of the naming convention in general, as opposed to the manufactured theoretical confusion we've been warned about. -Rrius (talk) 23:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I object to disambiguating where unnecessary, but when it is necessary a title is a perfectly good way to do it. The newspapers and TV will usually refer to non-entities by their title. It's only the famous, who are already at Margaret Thatcher, James Callaghan, Harold Macmillan, and so on, who shouldn't be referred to by their titles, and aren't. Just this once, I am in agreement with these guidelines. I shall relish the moment! Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
If they're nonentities, the papers and TV won't refer to them at all. I don't understand this distinction between famous and non-famous, except with the famous ones it's more obvious to everyone what the right thing to do is. Regardless of how famous someone is, if they received a title at the end of their career, then they'll continue to be better known and recognized by their personal name, and it's highly likely that a descriptive disambiguator (if needed) will be more helpful to readers than a title (which most readers who've heard of the person can't be expected to know). If someone is better known by their title (as is the case with law lords, for example), then their article title should reflect the name by which they are universally known - which in the case of men will be "Lord X" and not "Baron X".--Kotniski (talk) 06:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Totally agree. Nobody is every referred to in common usage as Baron X of (place) Y There are is they are better know referred to a Lord X. The place is never used excpet in highly formalised and rare circumsatnes.--Lucy-marie (talk) 20:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
None of that answers the fact that the convention, as written, leads to using her title. The convention excepts politician who receive peerages on retirement. Taylor though has served on the frontbench for most of her time in the Lords, meaning she doesn't really fit that exception. Her notoriety as Ann Taylor is rather out of date, but her time as a Defence minister in the Lords runs right up to May. -Rrius (talk) 07:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Also, a lot of your argument is based on the premise that COMMONNAME trumps the naming convention. That is assbackwards, as reading WP:Article titles will tell you. What's more, that Baron X of Y is "rarely" used undercuts your argument further. That argument only works if you are trying to blow up the entire naming convention. Once the naming convention is established, it is absurd to object to following it for a single title based on an argument that applies to the the entire convention. -Rrius (talk) 07:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
The reason Baron is used is to maintain consistency. Most peers can be called Lord X but since all other peers are listed as Viscount X or Earl of X to use Lord X for barons alone would be to create an special exception. It would also create confusion between Scottish Lordships which aren't barons and English/Irish/British peers who are. Garlicplanting (talk) 14:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Or alternatively, it's absurd to keep trying to force the "convention" on people when it's clear from multiple discussions that editors in general don't agree with it. We should go back to what we apparently once did, and title life peers by their personal names by default, only adding the title if it happens to be the best disambiguator (which it might be in this case, but this case is fairly exceptional).--Kotniski (talk) 08:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
That hardly helps when many LPs are known - if they are widely known at all - by their titles and people would struggle to recognise them by their names which in some cases were superseded by their title 40-50 yrs previously.Garlicplanting (talk) 14:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, those that are better known by their titles should be named according to those titles. (But in most cases "Lord" rather than "Baron" - it's perverse to choose a particular title for the purpose of making someone more recognizable, and then immediately mutate it into a form which will be entirely unrecognizable).--Kotniski (talk) 14:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
You don't address the first post - choosing Lord breaks with the naming for all other peers for the unsubstanciated claim that it is unrecognizable. Trying to stay consistent within catagories is desirable. The idea that John Smith, Lord Smith is clear but John Smith, Baron Smith will send people looking for other Smiths in confusion is not credible. Garlicplanting (talk) 15:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but I live in the real world. Barons (those that are known by their titles) are known as "Lord X", not "Baron X". If you want their articles to have recognizable titles, call them "Lord X". If not, call them what you like, but don't claim you're doing anything for recognizability.--Kotniski (talk) 15:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
You made the argument on recognizability not me - I suggested only the different of Lord/baron was marginal and it was simply undemonstrated that this was a source of real confusion. Something you've not shown any evidence to dispute. So for an unproven gain you want us to break the naming rules/consistency between: peers of different ranks, peers of different parts of the UK, peers of different sexes. We need a much better reason that vague assertion to create such a mess. Garlicplanting (talk) 13:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
There is nothing to demonstrate - everyone who reads the British newspapers knows that Barons are referred to (if by their noble title) as "Lord", around the proverbial 99 times out of 100. The mess is created when people in one little corner of Wikipedia try to use article titles for a completely different purpose than that which prevails almost everywhere else. Our readers are used to finding common names in the article title ("Tony Blair") and full formal names in bold at the start of the article. Abandon that principle for people who happen to have been "raised" to the peerage and you've got immediate inconsistency and potential for confusion.--Kotniski (talk) 14:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Again no evidence offered to prove any confusion. You simply created a straw man. The forename/surname is there whichever form of the title is used both in the body and title of the article. As to supposed 'usage' Princess Diana might be most common but we have her at Diana, Princess of Wales because that is correct. As to the little corner - nice assertion no evidence - using titles is perfectly normal across major encyclopaedias/whosewho and the like. Randomly opening a Britannica page I find John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton, 1st Baron Acton as the title Garlicplanting (talk) 15:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Please stop asking for evidence for things which are very obvious (if you don't have experience of British political reporting or of Wikipedia titling practice, then at least trust the word of those who do). Yes, of course using full names and titles is normal in other reference works, and it is in Wikipedia too - but we put them in bold at the start of the article body, not in what we call the "article title", which is used for the common name, helpfully disambiguated if necessary. Look up Blair in Britannica and compare with his Wikipedia article, and you'll see what I mean.--Kotniski (talk) 15:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment there is another point here which is that there are under currents and overtones to the use of titles in British society (That titles are still coveted among Brits can be seen over the Cash for honours scandal where labour party supporters allegedly were promised titles for cash). Old Labour politicians who no longer want to be in the Commons but who do not yet want to retire from public life and cronies of a Labour party leaders are often given titles so that they can sit in the Lords and continue to support the good old cause. But being good socialists they do not believe in the elitism that titles in Britain confer, hence the embarrassment of using their noble title and hence the glee of politically motivated commentators and mischievous fun of journalists who use a Labour peer's title. Equally one of the best tools a Conservative leader has is the patronage that come from the ability to confer knight hoods on his back benchers (the modern meaning of knights of the shires) and titles on the great and the good of his party. It would be interesting to see the by political affiliation the distribution of these naming debate by membership of political parties. I suspect that without being aware of it editors debating this issue are in fact debating by proxy the never ending British obsession with class as mocked by John Cleese, Ronnie Barker and Ronnie Corbett. -- PBS (talk) 01:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment --
  1. I think this issue mainly arises with (1) life peers (2) living hereditary peers who have decided not to use their title. In common parlance Ann Taylor may be referred to as Lady Taylor or Baroness Taylor. Either of these is ambiguous, becuase there are several Lords Taylor, whose wives are also entitled to this (correct) style as peers' wives. The press may refer to her as Baroness Ann Taylor or as Lady Ann Taylor, but neither of these is strictly correct and the latter would imply that she was the daughter of an earl or above: Ann, Lady Taylor. In this particular case there is a further difficulty: Ann Taylor is a disambiguation page. It might be legitimate to move that to Ann Taylor (disambiguation) and the article on the life peeress to "Ann Taylor", adding an {{otherpersons}} hatnote, this being another way of dealing with disambuation issues. However, in order to do that, it must be established that this Ann Taylor is the primary subject for "Ann Taylor", rather than the other three or four people named. If it cannot be established that Lady Taylor is the primary subject for "Ann Taylor", it would be necessary to have a disambiguator; and I would suggest that the present set-up with a DAB page with a link to her full title is a better solution than Ann Taylor (politician). Peterkingiron (talk) 13:57, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
  2. More generally with life peers, it is true that they were commonly more famous under their preceding name. In that case, it seems to me that it is legitimate for the article to be at that name, BUT it is vital that an article with the person's name in the WP standard form should also exist: if the article is at their old name, the WP standard form should exist as a redirect to it. I think this has been done with Catherine Ashton, who stopped using her title on becoming an EU Commissioner. It has also been done for the author Adam Nicolson, who inherited a peerage and then had his article moved to his new title; a user (believed to be himself) immediately moved it back.
  3. With hereditaries, the practice has been that they should be shown with the highest title they achieved, except in the case of prime ministers. However in lists of officeholders, MPs, etc the name piped should be the name in use at the time they hold the office.

In summary, I see no reason why the guideline should not be changed, provided that (1) the WP standard-form article-title redirects to it (2) there are no disambiguation issues. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:57, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

People with titles of nobility should be treated the same as other subjects, with a few mostly historical exceptions. E.g., "John Smith" not "John Smith, Lord Smith of X". TFD (talk) 17:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
There have been some 3,000 peerages (UK) + thousands of subsequent holders. The idea there are just a 'few' is not realistic. Even the modern life peers produce obvious problems. Alun Gwynne Jones has been known as Lord Chalfont since 1964! Garlicplanting (talk) 15:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Contrary to what Four Deuces thinks this si not a small problem. WP has a long established standard format for the holders of peerages and baronetcies. We used only to allow an exception for Prime Ministers. As indicated above, a further exception has crept in recently for those with titles who do not use them. The issue is the extent of the new exception and how to handle it. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Monarchs, revisted

With the recently closed page move for Victoria, we now have Stephen, King of England; John, King of England; Anne of Great Britain; Queen Victoria; Elizabeth II; and a bunch of people named like Richard I of England. I don't know that there is a compelling reason for Victoria not to be Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom, but even assuming she and "Her Present Majesty" are sui generis, there is something wrong with this naming convention. We have one convention for unnumbered monarchs and another for ones with numerals. (I'm assuming Anne is an oversight.) One format is to add "of [Place]" after the name, which is not an entirely common usage outside Wikipedia. The other, ", King/Queen of [Place]" has the virtue of being a simple form of the correct style (omitting the "By grace of God" and the like). If we were developing a naming convention from scratch, it is hard to imagine that we would ever come up with "of [Place]". I think it's time we consider the royalty part of the naming convention more or less from scratch. We need to answer a few questions:

  1. Should we have a naming convention at all? If so, why?
  2. What benefits should a proposed naming convention provide?
  3. Do aesthetics matter for the article title (i.e., do we care which of John of England; John, King of England; or John (English king) looks better)?
  4. Does consistency with the nobility portion, which also applies to sovereign dukes and princes matter?
  5. Should titles be preemptively disambiguated (Edward VIII v. Edward VIII, King of the United Kingdom)?
  6. How do we handle Queen Victoria and Elizabeth II? Do we try to pull one or both back within the ambit of a new naming convention? Do we allow them to stand alone? Do we attempt to fashion an exception or exceptions that would encompass them?

I hope these questions will provide a starting place for a thoughtful discussion that will help settle things down. Otherwise, I think we are doomed to forever repeat the sort of pushing and pulling that saw the move to Elizabeth II last for months. -Rrius (talk) 08:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I think we reached a temporary compromise, whereby the convention for numbered monarchs would remain as it was (allowing, as it does, the possibility of exceptions in individual cases like Liz and Napoleon), but unnumbered monarchs (for many of whom the pre-existing convention was entirely inappropriate) would be decided on a case-by-case basis. It might be best to wait and see how that works in practice before reopening the whole discussion again.--Kotniski (talk) 08:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Talking of which, I've just started a move discussion at Talk:Anne of Great Britain.--Kotniski (talk) 08:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I believe we should have a naming convention to aid clarity, although any convention should allow for case-by-case exceptions. From my reading of authoritative sources, the John, King of England and Edward I, King of England format is pretty standard. --Bermicourt (talk) 10:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
The new convention for monarchs without ordinals is another reason we need to move to ",King of Kingland" rather than "of Kingland" for monarchs with ambiguous names. Placing a title like this is already the coventions for dukes, counts, abbots, and so on ... it's nearly a WP:NAME level convention. I'd really plea with PBS, Deb, Pat Gallacher and the other traditional upholders of the "of Kingland" form to relent and help us build a consensus for a new convention. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm flabergasted that we've now got a Queen Victoria title for that article. When was Queen ever her first name? GoodDay (talk) 14:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Never - why does that matter? --Kotniski (talk) 15:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
It does matter 'cuz of these articles Queen Latifah & King Clancy (for example). GoodDay (talk) 15:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I can't see what was wrong with the original convention at all. It was consistent. I say the subject dictates the name and not the other way around for those who think a king like "John of England" would imply being a consort or anything like that. Seven Letters 15:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
It was consistent to the point of stupidity. "The subject dictates the name" - what does that mean? English usage dictates the name, and King John isn't called "John of England" in English.--Kotniski (talk) 15:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
So we should just have an article named "King John"? Maria Theresa is erroneously called Empress of Austria often... Should we call her this too? My previous statement was that some detractors of the current convention say it confuses consorts and monarchs of the first name without ordinals which I think is silly. Seven Letters 16:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
(e/c) It has a number of problems that the proposed form doesn't. For instance, the WP:COMMONNAME for Henry, Earl of Northumbria is Henry of Scotland. Sticking with the same family, Matilda of Scotland is definitely the COMMON NAME for the queen of Henry I of England, not a queen of Scotland. Likewise, Hugh I, Count of Vermandois is commonly known as Hugh of France (which, ironically, is NOT how wikipedia's Hugh Capet is commonly known). These are just some problems.
To me, one of the biggest problems is that forms like Victoria of the United Kingdom or Louis IX of France are just bad English. It is clumsy and you just wouldn't do that in speech without somehow indicating, by context or by direct assertion, that the person you were mentioning was actually a ruler. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC) . Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Really, does it have to be exactly what is said in conversation? If that's the case, let's have Princess Diana. Seven Letters 16:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
It has to be clear English, as in Diana, Princess of Wales rather than Diana of Wales [where the connection with Wales is entirely left to guesswork]. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I respect Konitski's opinion that we've reached a temporary compromise, but it is temporary, and people are deeply dissatisfied with it. As it stands, there is no consensus in favour of a specific proposal to change, but there is no consensus in favour of keeping the existing standard as is. One of the most obvious problems is that the convention is not providing what people expect naming conventions to provide: consistency. I had hoped people would address the questions I asked before rehearsing the old arguments about why the old style is horrible and why it isn't so bad. My hope is that if we think about the convention as though we were writing a new one by thinking about why we want one and what it should do, we will arrive at a convention that will achieve consensus. -Rrius (talk) 18:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

This is clear and very simple to follow. The only thing I can't decide on is whether to insist on ordinals between names and nicknames, as common usage often does ... e.g. William Rufus or William II Rufus. Currently, wikipedia is confused on this: c/f Bolesław III Wrymouth but William the Conqueror. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
This seems to me to be preferring a certain result, but what I'm hoping to do is put that aside for a moment and start over since no one is convincing anyone. -Rrius (talk) 18:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, this is not a football team who I would support for the sake of it. I prefer this because I, and many others, have already been 'thinking about why we want one and what it should do'. Convincing everyone is impossible; convincing most people can take time and patience ... but it's already been done; we just don't have a full consensus yet. However, declaring 'no one is convincing anyone' helps no-one I would suggest, and is counter-productive. :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
As I'm sure I've said before, I agree with Deacon's proposal here. I'm not sure what "starting over" would even mean. john k (talk) 04:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
I never said my proposal would result in everyone agreeing on a single convention. The situation now, though, is that we have no consensus in favour of any given proposal, including the status quo. While people have been thinking about this for a while, there is little evidence that much of the thinking has been bottom-up thinking about why a convention exists and what best suits those reasons. Rather, much of the thinking is about irrelevancies. Most of these discussions get bogged down in debates about COMMONNAME, when each of the three main proposals, "Of PLACE", "King of PLACE", and "(King of PLACE)" have some claim. They also traipse through which fits the way other articles are named without ever addressing why that is important for a specific naming convention or why it is more important than aesthetics. We generally never get to whether any choice actually does a better job of serving editors. If we did, perhaps we'd go for the parenthetical form, especially for numbered monarchs, because it aids pipe linking. As I've said, starting afresh could lead enough people to rethink why they support what they support to generate consensus. Having a deeper discussion would help to flush out why people really support what they support, challenge their assumptions, and perhaps lead to consensus. -Rrius (talk) 14:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I'd have no probs with starting over. Things have become a tad confusing, with no one proposal getting a consensus. GoodDay (talk) 20:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
To make the points that would normally be made by the defenders of the present convention (who seem to have gone uncharacteristiclaly quiet), the current style of "Henry I of England" for numbered monarchs does have the advantage of providing natural, relatively concise, unobjectionable titles for the vast majority of the articles to which it applies. I don't know if it's necessarily worth giving that up in favour of longer titles just to gain a more universal consistency. --Kotniski (talk) 14:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

German wiki style

The Victoria article should've bee moved to Victoria (United Kingdom). -- GoodDay (talk) 15:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you really mean these suggestions (you made a similar one at the discussion about Anne)? Sorry if I'm missing a joke, but if these are serious proposals, they're absolutely absurd titles for articles. That one sounds like a rail station if anything.--Kotniski (talk) 15:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
We shouldn't have articles titles like Queen Victoria or Queen Anne for monarchs. We've got Queen Latifah & King Clancy (for example). GoodDay (talk) 15:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
The name doesn't dictate the subject (it doesn't make Latifah a queen, for instance). Those two examples are outside of the convention. Seven Letters 16:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
What on earth do you mean by that? --Kotniski (talk) 15:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
This proposal has it's merits, but is not likely to be considered. (and it has always lacked support in the past)
Please, GoodDay, please can you concentrate for now on whether or not you prefer the styles 'Victoria, Queen of GB' or 'Victoria of GB' ... for the moment anyway. Complicating the discussion will just kill all discussion and waste all of our time. :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
'Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom' would suffice. GoodDay (talk) 15:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
What do we do for states where there was a count, prince and duke, or margrave, elector and grand duke of the same name? Seven Letters 16:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Such as? john k (talk) 04:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the problem with Victoria (United Kingdom) is that, like Victoria of the United Kingdom, it doesn't specify the relationship between Victoria and the United Kingdom. -Rrius (talk) 18:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

It is the name of the person. The article goes into the relationship. Many, many (the majority) of biographies here don't indicate anything about the person in the title other than their name. Seven Letters 18:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Would not Victoria (United Kingdom) apply equally well to Victoria, Princess Royal or Princess Victoria of the United Kingdom? And it's hard to argue against that that "Victoria (United Kingdom)" is primary usage for Queen Victoria. john k (talk) 04:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
It sounds like a place, as in Victoria (Australia). DrKiernan (talk) 07:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, whatever convention we may come up with for monarchs in general (and I must say I'm not particularly fussed between Henry VIII, Henry VIII of England and Henry VIII, King of England, though the first seems to be in accordance with the natural Wikipedia style when it's a primary topic), we must acknowledge the obvious fact which the creators of the original convention seem to have overlooked and then stubbornly refused to admit for a long time - that when there's no numeral and no generally used cognomen, then we must have the word "King" or "Queen" in the title somewhere, otherwise it becomes meaningless.--Kotniski (talk) 08:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Returning to Victoria and the like, I think the reason why we appear to have 2 conventions is that where there was only one sovereign of the name - and hence no numeral - it is not obvious we are talking about royalty unless we use the convention Queen Victoria, hence that is commonly used in the sources. It's also less of a mouthful than Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom although I'm sure that would be used in an index or where there might be confusion. Where there were 2 or more monarchs of the same name, the numeral indicates royal status, King George I, and the "King" prefix may be superfluous. In both cases there's a short title where the context is clear - Queen Victoria or George I - and a long title where it might not be - Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom and George I, King of Great Britain. Neither is wrong. My sense is that even on Wikipedia Queen Victoria is okay because there is no other of that name. In other words, there are 2 conventions used in the sources and both have 2 options that depend on context. Wikipedia could usefully follow the same line and there would be both logic and precedent, viz:

--Bermicourt (talk) 11:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that (with possible tweaks of detail) seems to me to be close to an optimum solution. It provides consistency with general Wikipedia article naming practice, while doing disambiguation (where required) in a consistent way.--Kotniski (talk) 12:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
This is mostly my opinion. We should have John Balliol rather than John, King of Scotland, though. I see that we already have John Balliol, King of Scotland, which seems fine to me. john k (talk) 12:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
If by fine you mean acceptable, then I agree. After all, it's certainly not wrong. But all these discussions are not really about right and wrong. I don't see how anyone can say that the title Robert of Naples was wrong, after all a recent monograph uses that to refer to him in its title. Would not both John, King of Scotland and John Balliol be acceptable? Why then combine them, redundantly? If we're going to do that once, why not go to William the Conqueror, King of England or Hugh Capet, King of France? Maybe I just have an eye for inconsistency, but let me assure you that when I read Robert of Anjou, King of Naples, my first thought was, "Why do have the ‘of Anjou’ for him and not for Charles I?" Srnec (talk) 03:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Whatever system we adopt, there should always be room for us to agree exceptions - William the Conqueror and Henry the Lion spring to mind - where they are overwhelmingly referred to by a name that is at odds with that convention. The advantage of a convention is that there is a standard default setting for editors that provides consistency - something any good encyclopaedia should strive for. --Bermicourt (talk) 05:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer, William I, King of England, William I, King of Scotland, Mary I, Queen of Scotland, etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 14:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm willing to consider that royalty, unlike clergy or nobility, are truly a special case that needs to be treated differently. However, if we go for proper disambiguation, I agree that Victoria (United Kingdom) is not the way to go, and that we should opt for a system than includes the title in the disambiguation, i.e. Victoria (Queen of the United Kingdom), Albert II (King of Belgium), Henry IV (King of France) and Charles V (Holy Roman Emperor). We could even combine this with another group that only has a first name, Leo III (Roman Catholic Pope) (since we also have Leo III, King of Armenia, who would then become Leo III (King of Armenia)). It's a perfectly understandable means of disambiguating, including sufficient info to separate homonymous monarchs and the like. Fram (talk) 14:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Howabout 'Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom', 'Albert II, King of the Belgians, 'Henry IV, King of France', etc etc. Afterall, we've already got Albert II, Prince of Monaco, Henri, Grand Duke of Luxembourg etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 14:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
If you look outside the "box" of royalty and look at Wikipedia as a whole, then these are the exception, not the rule. Any reason why we wouldn't apply the general rule to this class of articles? Fram (talk) 19:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Aint a whole lotta difference between 'Albert II (King of the Belgians)' & 'Albert II, King of the Belgians'. GoodDay (talk) 22:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Except that the reliable sources generally use the comma version, not the brackets. And it's part of their title, not just a disambiguator. --Bermicourt (talk) 05:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course they don't use the brackets, the brackets are a Wikipedia-only addition, not a reflection of what is used in sources. The part outside the brackets is the part from the reliable sources. Since these sources generally only agree on the name, but have different methods to fill the rest (hence the discussions, difference in use across Wikipedia, etcetera), we are better of sticking to the one fixed part of the name (e.g. Victoria), and adding the rest as a Wikipedia-only disambiguator, just like we do for all other articles. There are probably no reliable sources that mention John Smith (Labour Party leader), but there will be plenty that discuss John Smith, the Labour Party leader. Victoria (mythology) is the Wikipedia way of doing such things, not Goddess Victoria. And like you say, it's part of their title, not part of their name. Article titles are the subject's name, with anything necessary for disambiguation added in brackets. Since Victoria or Leo III are not sufficient for identification, we add a disambiguator in brackets. Fram (talk) 06:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
How do you distinguish "title" and "name"? For me, a name is something by which someone/something is called - if people call people things like Queen Victoria, Pope Benedict XVI, Cardinal Richelieu, Alfred the Great, then there is no reason not to allow the "Queen", "Pope", "Cardinal", "the Great" to be included in our article titles, if it helps readers to recognize the subject and understand how they're normally referred to in a particular context. I mean, is "III" really part of Leo's "name" in your strict sense?--Kotniski (talk) 07:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I know, that's why in my first post I acknowledged that royalty and the like may truly be a special case. It's all a bit blurred, with the numerals, the name changes throughout one's life (e.g. from prince to king), etcetera. First, the general rule for people who are truly and clearly best known is to use that nickname / pseudonym / ... Hergé, not Georges Rémi, and Alfred the Great instead of whatever it would otherwise be. No discussion from me there. But e.g. Louis XIV is usually known as Louis XIV, not as Louis XIV of France or Louis XIV, King of France. In his and similar cases, I would support having that page at Louis XIV, without any addition or disambiguator (I wasn't perhaps clear above, but my insistence on disambiguators is only in those cases where disambiguation is needed). But for e.g. Henry II, things aren't that clear, there is no clear "primary topic", and in those cases, I would prefer Wikipedia-style disambiguation instead of any of the other proposed solutions, as it follows our general guidelines, and avoids any of the above disputes of what method of address is correct. Leopold I of Belgium or Leopold I, King of Belgium or King Leopold I of Belgium or Leopold I, King of the Belgians? Just use Leopold I (King of Belgium), it's simple, elegant, and a wikiwide style. Fram (talk) 08:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Or, in shorter bullet style:
  • If someone is universally known by a nickname, use that as the article's title: Alexander the Great, not Alexander III of Macedon or any other form
  • If someone is the clear primary topic of his Name or Name-Numeral combination, use that as the article's title: Louis XIV, not Louis XIV of France or any other form
  • If neither of the two first cases apply, then use the standard Wikipedia disambiguation: Leopold I (King of Belgium), not any other form of Leopold I of Belgium. Fram (talk) 08:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I think we're in total agreement, except I would prefer the comma version for the reasons stated above and because it is in harmony with the convention for lesser nobles. But I wouldn't die in a ditch about it - either way, the overall logic is entirely sound and easy to apply and the result is clear. --Bermicourt (talk) 12:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Bermicourt, more or less. I'd prefer commas to parentheses, but I'd probably prefer either to the current system. john k (talk) 19:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I would prefer parentheses if we are going to remove disambiguators, like "of France", from article titles where name and numeral alone are (mostly) unambiguous, like "Louis XIV". I like going Henry VII (King of England) → Henry VIII rather than Henry VII, King of England → Henry VIII. I would say that the comma is more elegant, but the parentheses look more like disambiguation and makes it more obvious (to me) why Henry VII has it and Henry VII doesn't, whereas in the case of the comma, if Henry VIII isn't to have "[King] of England" included, it just appears inconsistent.
But it should be remembered that this raises further issues: should "king" be capitalised? How accurate must the title be ("King of Greece" or "King of the Hellenes")? And leaves others unsolved, such as consistency of anglicisation and primary usage/ambiguity (such as of George I), which will probably need to be solved case by case. Srnec (talk) 06:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
"King of Greece" or "King of the Hellenes"? "Use the forcesources, Luke". No reason not to have specific guidance on caps and Anglicisation and primary usage/ambiguity which complement and explain the more general naming policy and guidelines. The only 2 specific areas I see as a problem and may need further work is is it "James I ..." or "James I and VI" and how much we make allowances systemic bias in the favouring English Kings and Queens in English language sources. For example there is clearly only one primary meaning in English for the term William of Orange and the chances are that kings like Charles I -- if we extract common names from English language sources -- will be for the English monarch (It part of the national identity, (and nation building) that nations tend to study their own history more than that of other nations). -- PBS (talk) 22:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Whilst the parenths may seem more wiki-normal and allow for the pipe trick, they're gonna be awkward in a few cases too. Some occasions will want [[Henry VIII (King of England)|]] to provide Henry VIII, other occasions (such as when not talking pticly about English history) may want to refer to him as [[Henry VIII, King of England]], in order to end up with Henry VIII, King of England. Neither situation is perfect, but we already use the comma convention for rulers who aren't kings (see my post below), so it makes sense (to me) to extrapolate that further rather than extend the parenths syntax. If we're gonna be using a pipe to remove the disambiguator in any case, losing the ability to use the pipe trick seems like a small sacrifice in order to gain the ability not to have to pipe the longer form when the disambiguator is required.
Fwiw, I agree with PBS over demonymic kingdom titles — surely we pick one (I don't honestly care which) and redirect from the other? :o) — OwenBlacker (Talk) 13:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
The pipe trick works on commas just like it works on brackers. so [[Henry VIII, King of England|]] will be see as Henry VIII -- PBS (talk) 18:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
German wiki convention fails singularly (i.e. with singular force) with Victoria, who, together with the Latin for "Victory", had so many places and things named after her. As one user said, Victoria (United Kingdom) looks like a railway station. See Victoria (disambiguation), Victoria (geographical disambiguation) and List of places named after Victoria of the United Kingdom. How would the average reader distinguish Victoria (United Kingdom) or Victoria, United Kingdom from Victoria (Australia); Victoria (British Columbia); Victoria, Seychelles; Victoria, Hong Kong; Victoria, Malta; Victoria, Texas etc.? —— Shakescene (talk) 22:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
There's also the comparative convention used for other nobles — some of whom were heads of "state" in the Holy Roman Empire, for example, where secular princes are (almost) universally in comma format:
He was König in Preußen. Whether that should be translated "King in Prussia" or "King of Prussia" is debatable. The rulers of Bavaria before it became a kingdom were called Herzog in Bayern, but this is pretty much always translated "Duke of Bavaria." The same title when used by a cadet branch of the family after 1805 are called Dukes in Bavaria. I see no reason why it would be incorrect to translate the title as "King of Prussia," as was generally done in English at the time, and as is generally still done in English when one is not being pedantic or specifically explaining the nuance. john k (talk) 05:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Personally, I much prefer this format, but it does have its problems — particularly around Prussia in the 1700s, around the Kings of the Belgians (and the French, the English, the Scots, the Hellenes etc). But I think this format is probably the most easily workable as a standard, partly because we already use it for lower nobles. (I'd also like to see it extended to the spiritual princes of the HRE, but that's a wider discussing that doesn't need to be held here and now). just my €0,02 — OwenBlacker (Talk) 12:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and I forgot to mention. Whilst the format John of England is alien in the English language, with and ordinal it's pretty standard: Louis XIV of France, for example. And, despite everything I said about comma format, I could definitely live with Fram's suggestion of more verbose parentheses, such as Louis XIV (King of France) and John (King of England). — OwenBlacker (Talk) 12:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I should like to make note here of the guideline followed for western bishops (WP:NCWC), which is paranthetical disambiguation by profession i.e. John Smith (bishop), and, then, if there are two John Smith (bishop)s, they are dab'd by: John Smith (bishop of Ely) and John Smith (bishop of Chelmsford). I personally favour retaining "Forename X of Place" (although I would happily wear "Forename X, Title of Place") for the most part. However, for monarchs who are the only one of their name in their country, I would support the use of "Forename, Title of Place" when deemed prudent (case-by-case), with few exceptions (such as Queen Victoria and Elizabeth II) DBD 19:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Bad English?

I quote from the discussion above: such titles as...Louis IX of France are just bad English.

Really, what gives you that idea? Let's have a citation that Louis IX of France, which is also in the title of severl of his biographies, and that of the only actual secondary English source in his depreassing article, is bad English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Consensus?

So are we finally converging on a consensus for a convention here? Something like:

  1. No numeral, short version, context clear: Queen Victoria
  2. No numeral, long version: John, King of England, John, King of Scotland
  3. Numeral, short version, context clear, no contenders: Elizabeth I
  4. Numeral, long version: George I, King of Great Britain, George I, King of the Hellenes
  5. Notable exceptions agreed case-by-case: William the Conqueror, Henry the Lion --Bermicourt (talk) 18:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Same for all monarchs, ordinal or not. Whether that's Name (Ordinal) of Place or Name (Ordinal), Title of Place, it should be consistent. Seven Letters 19:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I think most us agree on points 3 and 5. For 2 and 4, it is still not clear whether the preference is for John of England; John, king of England; or John (King of England). I am not certain if 1 has any consensus, or if people prefer to treat 1 (Queen Victoria) like 2 and 4 (so any variation of Victoria (Queen of whatever she was queen of, UK, GB, BE, ...)). Fram (talk) 20:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
2, 3 & 4 are acceptable. 1 & 5 aren't. GoodDay (talk) 20:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I concur with 2, 4, and 5 - but not 1 and 3. I'm not seeing any significant consensus among participants in this discussion. Noel S McFerran (talk) 21:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I concur with 2 and 5, but dissent from 1, 3 and 4. I agree with Noel S McFerran that I do not see consensus in this discussion. However, I have perceived consensus in recent past discussions on 2. FactStraight (talk) 21:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
It seems to me that Queen Victoria is an instance of 5 ("notable exceptions agreed case-by-case") and not a separate category—I'm not convinced that all numberless, non-ambiguous monarchs should be so treated. I would agree on points 2, 3, 4 and 5. Alkari (?), 28 October 2010, 23:54 UTC
I'm with Alkari. I would say, though, that there doesn't seem to be anything close to a consensus on any of these points. john k (talk) 05:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Let's forget it then and go write some more articles - it's more productive use of our time than prolonging this debate. --Bermicourt (talk) 06:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I don't think there's much sign of a consensus at the moment, or any pressing need to change anything, now that common sense seems to be prevailing over attempts to enforce the strict letter of the convention in cases where it's clealy inappropriate. Since I don't seem even able to convince people that such obvious cases as Queen Anne and King John are primary topics, I doubt there'll be another case like Queen Victoria - I suggest that one be treated as an exception rather than an example of any rule (so 1 is actually part of 5). Point 2 seems to be becoming accepted as the right convention for the numberless monarchs who don't have any other convenient title, so I think that could be written up. Point 3 is the old question of whether to mention the realm when it's not needed for disambiguation - we'll never reach agreement about that on this page, we'll have to have a wider RfC sometime to settle it. Point 4, as I mentioned above, is about conciseness versus consistency - do we prefer shorter titles (Henry I of England) or longer ones that have a more consistent form with the numberless ones and other titled people (Henry I, King of England); again it's probably going to take outside input to settle (I must say that, at least looked at in isolation, I much prefer the shorter version that we use at the moment).--Kotniski (talk) 09:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with point 2, and suggest move requests for the handful of monarchs involved; this should be done case by case, however, because there may be exceptions where the form is not idiomatic; John, King of Scotland comes to mind. At least we should amend the convention to say that John, King of England is a possible form, so that the move requests do not fail out of hand. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
It already says that; but perhaps it should be further amended to say that this is the usual form, to be used unless there is a more idiomatic alternative.--Kotniski (talk) 14:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Not until it is the more usual form, please. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
With all the confusion lately, I'm moving closer to preferring things the way they were: 'Monarch X of country'. GoodDay (talk) 14:15, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
What about those where the formal titles don't correspond to what we presently call the articles? E.g. George VI (formally King of GB and Ireland, but we call him "of the United Kingdom"), various kings we call "of Belgium", "of Greece", "of Scotland", "of England" etc. when they were formally "of the Belgians", "of the Hellenes", "of the Scots", "of the English"?--Kotniski (talk) 12:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
I thought we had settled on using the normal English form of the title, such as "of the Hellenes". I do not think the title has ever been King of the English (except possibly in the very distant past), so that one does not arise. We settled on Louis Philippe, King of the French (becsaue that was the title he used).
Let us settle on a solution to this long running discussion, and then deal with the exceptions later. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Is it reasonable to say there is general support for 2, 4 and possibly 5? If so, does that take us any further forward? In other words can we bite these off one-by-one? --Bermicourt (talk) 18:16, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

No, there is no general support for 4; it is unuseful wordiness; and King of the Hellenes is pedantry, not common usage. 5 is what we do now, and what the present wording supports. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:08, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I have just done a poll based on the above comments and the results (as far as I can tell) are (For-Against):

  1. 4 – 8 (For: Kotniski, me, OwenBlacker, Celestial City; Against: GoodDay, Noel S McFerran, Seven Letters and Factstraight, Angus McLellan, John K, Srnec, Deb)
  2. 13 – 1 (For: GoodDay, Noel S McFerran, Factstraight, Alkari, John K, Kotniski, Septentrionalis, me, Seven Letters, Peterkingiron, Angus McLellan, OwenBlacker, Celestial City; Against: none, Deb)
  3. 7 – 5 (For: GoodDay, Alkari, John K, me, Angus McLellan, OwenBlacker, Celestial City; Against: Noel S McFerran, Factstraight, Seven Letters, Srnec, Deb)
  4. 10 – 3 (For: GoodDay, Noel S McFerran, Alkari, John K, me, Seven Letters, Peterkingiron, Angus McLellan, OwenBlacker, Celestial City; Against: Factstraight, Septentrionalis, Deb)
  5. 12 – 2 (For: Fram, Noel S McFerran, Factstraight, Alkari, John K, me, Seven Letters, Peterkingiron, Angus McLellan, Srnec, OwenBlacker, Celestial City; Against: GoodDay, Deb)

If I have misunderstood you or missed you out (because I wasn't clear which way you were leaning) please feel free to amend your entry, and perhaps we can draw some conclusions. E.g. at the moment 2 and 5 seem to have almost total support. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:11, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you distinguishing between "general support" and "consensus"? If so, how? Otherwise, I'd say there is consensus for 2 and 5 now. 4 would require changes to so many articles that a thorough discussion of ramifications and strong consensus should be built before including it in the guideline. Also, there seems to be a little confusion over which proposals are which, so explicit numbering of each would help. FactStraight (talk) 20:20, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
2, 4 and 5 for me. Against 1 and 3. Seven Letters 20:43, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
@ FactStraight. I'm just summarising whether folk indicated they were in favour of a proposal or not to see where we stand. The proposals are numbered so I'm not sure what more you would like to see. @ Seven Letters. I've added your votes in above. --Bermicourt (talk) 07:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
I have not been counted above: I also support 2, 4, and 5. I can provide weak support also for 1 and 3, but they should only be used in very clear cases of non-ambiguity, such as Elizabeth II. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:33, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Like Peterkingiron, I don't see my name there. Support 2, 3, 4 and 5, don't like 1. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:01, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
I added Angus and Peter's votes to the tally. I didn't put in a vote for Peter on 1 or 3, since he seems relatively indifferent to those two. I also added an oppose vote for myself to proposal 1. It seems like we have something very close to consensus for 2 & 5, not much support at all for 1, and pretty strong support for 4, with a narrow majority for 3. I would add that, personally, I only really support 4 if we also go with 3 - going for longer titles is a hard pill to swallow if we have to have Louis XIV, King of France for no apparent reason. 5, I should note, is basically already in the conventions, so there's no real need for modification. I think the results so far suggest that 2 has enough support to warrant rewording the convention. 3 and 4 warrant further discussion, and, especially seeking of additional input from people who don't usually read this page. Perhaps an RFC and/or a note at the Village Pump would be in order? john k (talk) 00:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I oppose 1 and 3, but support 5. When a title should be used (as in Queen Victoria) or no disambiguation is needed (as in Elizabeth II), these should fall under 5 as "notable exceptions agreed case-by-case", which in fact they are: both of those examples are as they are because of RMs which succeeded. There is no reason to put anything in the guideline to prejudice the discussions at particular talk pages.
2 and 4 are, to me, a bit more difficult. I don't mind the present system, but I do concede that titles like John of England are not the best. And I like consistence, so favouring 2 and opposing 4 leads to an unacceptable situation in which we jump from Richard I of England to John, King of England to Henry III of England. I am therefore undecided, but I would prefer titles in parentheses (as opposed to following a comma) if we are to adopt both 2 and 4.
I should add that I oppose "King of Scots" or "King of the Hellenes" in article titles, and there are far more than just those titles that would create controversies. And I also think these discussion focus far too much on British monarchs and recent monarchs. If anything, British monarchs at the English Wikipedia are generally an exception to the guidelines, because they are well-known, whereas medieval Navarrese monarchs, say, are not. Srnec (talk) 03:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC) I've added your votes for 1, 3 and 5. --Bermicourt (talk) 17:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I've started a move request at Talk:Louis XIV of France to gauge support for Proposal 3. john k (talk) 16:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt, I oppose all the above proposals. Deb (talk) 20:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
You oppose determining notable exceptions case by case? john k (talk) 23:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Support all five proposals. Fwiw. I'm not a big fan of #1, but I can live with it for the sake of consensus, and I have no preference for demonymic titles (like George I, King of the Hellenes). And if it matters, I strongly favour commas (which can provide natural English in some circumstances, at least) over parenths (which are a Wikipedia thing only, and redundant as the pipe trick works with commas too (thanks, PBS!) — OwenBlacker (Talk) 11:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey I didn't know that! About the commas, I mean. Thanks! --Bermicourt (talk) 12:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I've added the last three votes (Deb, OwenBlacker and The Celestial City) to the scores above. --Bermicourt (talk) 06:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

So is this consensus?

  • Comment -- I think we now have a consensus (though not unanimity). The Denonyms should be used only where there is clear evidence that the normal form of the title involved them: France of Louis Philippe and Greece after they expelled their first King of Greece and had a King of the Hellenes from a new dynasty. Their may be a few more: Mary, Queen of Scots is always so named, to distinguish her from Bloody Mary (of England). Can an admin, please close by amending the convention and putting in a mass rename request (or just doing it). This discussion has gone on far too long: AFD and CFD are closed after a week. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  • For a long time, several years now, more people have been in favor of this way than any other. Whether that's "consensus" or not ... who's to say?! Wikipedians use this word to mean something unrecognizable to the rest of the English speaking community ... and frankly I'm not even sure what it means after 5 years in this place. Probably its de facto meaning is something like "if no powerful person is willing AND able to do anything to stop x, then x has consensus". So, basically, continue the survey for a while and, should it be going the same way, start moving all the pages and wait and see if anyone does anything about it. If they don't, there's "consensus". Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) What do you mean by "this way"? Some things seem to be pretty much decided, while other questions remain outstanding. My reading is: (1) "King/Queen X" is not liked as a general form of title (i.e. "Queen Victoria" could be an exception, but not a rule); (2) "X, King of Y" is the new preferred form for monarchs without numerals; (3) there's a slight majority (apparently confirmed at the Louis XIV discussion) for dropping the realm/title on numbered monarchs which don't need disambiguation; (4) there's quite a clear majority for using "Henry I, King of England" rather than "Henry I of England" (though this is the one that's going to lead to the most page moves, so I think we have to make sure it's really what we want - I think I'd add my vote on the "oppose" side on this one if that makes any difference); (5) we're all agreed there should be allowance for exceptions. I'm not seeing much by way of decision as concerns the Greece/Hellenes question. So the outstanding questions are:

  • A. When mentioning the realm is redundant, should it be e.g. just Louis XIV, or should the title include "France"?
  • B. Should the standard title form for numbered monarchs be Henry IV, King of England or Henry IV of England?
  • C. When the "real" title includes a demonym (like "Hellenes") rather than a country (like "Greece"), do we follow?

Perhaps we should create different sections to continue to discuss these matters?--Kotniski (talk) 12:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The Queen Victoria article title stinks, big time. It ougtta be just Victoria. We can worry about the potential future Swedish monarch, latter. GoodDay (talk) 16:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Why would we need to worry about any potential monarchs, when we'd already have an Australian state, a London rail station and multiple other things to worry about?--Kotniski (talk) 16:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
'Cuz, the heiress-apparent to the Swedish throne, is named Victoria. GoodDay (talk) 16:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
So are all the other things I mentioned.--Kotniski (talk) 17:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
My point is, when Vicky of Sweden becomes Queen of Sweden, we can then have Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom & Victoria, Queen of Sweden. GoodDay (talk) 19:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I highly doubt that the future Queen of Sweden will supplant the British monarch as the primary meaning of "Queen Victoria" in English. If she does, we can look at changing the page names then. For the time being, at least, the subject of this article is overwhelmingly known as "Queen Victoria". Why should that article be called anything else? (I rather suspect that the monarch isn't the primary meaning of "Victoria", though that probably varies from place to place—I'm quite positive that's not the case, e.g., in Australia.) Alkari (?), 11 November 2010, 01:57 UTC
We should not have Queen Victoria, as Queen isn't a part of her name. Where King/Queen is a part of one's name? King Clancy & Queen Latifah. -- GoodDay (talk) 22:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
  • On the demonyms, I think "King of the Belgians," "King of the Hellenes," and "King of Scots" are used in English (as also "King of the French," but the title is redundant in his case and he's already at "Louis Philippe I"). Most of the rest generally aren't, and in those cases we should ignore the demonym. Certainly this is true for early Medieval monarchs where the demonym is used in Latin. I'm not really sure about the other Balkan monarchies. "King of the Hellenes" is frequently used in English. I'm not sure "King of the Romanians," "Tsar of the Bulgarians," or "King of the Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes" really ever have been. john k (talk) 02:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Support If this is supposed to go somewhere above, I give permission to move it. Anyway, I'm not thrilled with the fractured convention, but it is better than than the alternatives at the moment. -Rrius (talk) 04:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Can you clarify what it is you're supporting?--Kotniski (talk) 11:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
  • As regards what seems to be the majority position on the main questions (A and B), my objection is that on one hand we'd be removing information (the redundant realms) on the grounds that it serves no disambiguating purpose but is put there only for consistency, while in the other set of cases we'd be adding information (", King" or ", Queen") which... serves no disambiguating purpose but would be put there only for consistency. Can someone persuade me that this makes rational sense?--Kotniski (talk) 11:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
    There are two different issues here. First, should we disambiguate pre-emptively? Second, how should we disambiguate? The idea is that instead of disambiguating pre-emptively with a form that is unclear for many monarchs, we do not disambiguate pre-emptively, but use a longer form of disambiguation to insure consistency of disambiguated forms. A system where we have John, King of England, George VI, and Henry VII of England seems rather unnecessarily inconsistent. john k (talk) 14:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
My understanding of the proposal was that we would not disambiguate pre-emptively and that disambiguations would be afterwards with commas. So John, King of England, George VI (with a redirect from George VI, King of the United Kingdom) and Henry VII, King of England, to use your three examples. Fwiw, I can completely live with always disambiguating, but many other people had objections to that. To Kotniski's point, part of the problem I thought we were addressing (for example) was potential confusion with queens consort (Catherine of Aragon was not queen regnant of Aragon but rather queen consort of England); also, it provides consistency with heads of states other than kingdoms, such as William I, German Emperor, John Sigismund, Elector of Brandenburg and Philip I, Landgrave of Hesse — OwenBlacker (Talk) 14:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I understand the consistency argument (though for me it's outweighed by the conciseness and naturalness arguments as set out by PMA below), but I don't think there's any confusion with queen consorts here - we're talking about monarchs with numerals at this stage, so the numeral tells us it's not a consort.--Kotniski (talk) 18:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Very strongly oppose Henry IV, King of France; adopting this style will mean moving every article covered by this part of the convention, to no benefit to the encyclopedia; the proposed title is longer, less natural (as linking text), and probably less common. I observe that there has been so little demand for this form that it is not even (as I type) a redirect. It won't even settle the matter; I predict we will have a dispute within six months over whether WP:LOWERCASE requires Henry IV, king of France (I doubt it, but I won't be defending this proposal). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Whilst I understand your point, I don't see why a mass move is necessarily a reason not to do something sensible (whether it is sensible or not is, of course, yet to be determined) and I definitely don't see why
Amongst others, they approached Henry IV, King of France, for funding.
is really any less natural from
Amongst others, they approached Henry IV of France for funding.
, in the same way that
Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, invited Protestants to the Augsburg Diet to present their views.
and
Emperor Charles V, invited Protestants to the Augsburg Diet to present their views.
are pretty much the same. All princely titles apart from king, queen and pope are postfixed to the names; I don't see why king and queen can't be. I can see your point about WP:LOWERCASE (and my cynical side thinks you might be right), but we can cross (or annihilate) that bridge when we come to it. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 21:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I've had it with all these exception here/there etc stuff. I'm going back to supporting the old way it was, Victoria of the United Kingdom, Louis XIV of France, Mary I of Scotland, Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom etc etc. Also supporting Gustav II Adolph of Sweden, William I of England etc etc. Enough is enough. GoodDay (talk) 22:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Let's not go around the buoy for the nth time. The results of the discussion seem to be as follows:

Serial Proposal Example Votes (For-Against)
1. No numeral, short version, context clear Queen Victoria 4 – 8 Opposed
2. No numeral, long version John, King of England 13 – 1 Strongly supported
3. Numeral, short version, context clear, no significant contenders Elizabeth I 7 – 5 Inconclusive, no change
4. Numeral, long version George I, King of Great Britain 10 – 3 Strongly supported
5. Notable exceptions agreed case-by-case William the Conqueror 12 – 2 Strongly supported

Apart from 3 the results are pretty clear. Can we now reflect this please and move on??? --Bermicourt (talk) 07:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, in view of the large number of page moves that would result (particularly from 4), I think this is a decision which really needs to be made by more than just 13 people saying "like/dislike". I also wonder if we really want to go ahead with 4 without 3. It seems that when people from the "outside" are asked (for example, at Talk:Louis XIV at the moment) there's much clearer support for dropping the realm when it's not needed, which is proposal 3. I could stomach 4 (I note my opposition to it hasn't been recorded in the numbers) if it were accompanied by 3, but if it's going to mean extending names that are already redundantly long (Henry VIII of England etc.) to make them even more so (Henry VIII, King of England), and in some cases even more "incorrect" (George VI, King of the United Kingdom, which is a true description, but not his actual title), then I think we really need to make sure that this is something the wider community supports.--Kotniski (talk) 11:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Which would make the tally (with GoodDay's change of !vote immediately above) 8-5. If 7-5 is inconclusive, what is this? (This is why we need a wider discussion to act; the "strong support" has dissolved in a day.)
But it does seem that John, King of England is resolved, which is progress. Let Deb make a case against that specific change (if she wants to) before tweaking, but we have always been uncomfortable with John of England. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Put me down with Kotniski in that my support for proposal 4 is contingent on the adoption of proposal 3. Given the number of pages that would have to be moved, I think it would be a really bad idea to move ahead with that one. We do seem to have something approaching consensus on proposal 2, though. john k (talk) 22:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

D'we need another, slightly different poll?

Not wanting to change my vote at all, but my understanding that all five parts above were a single policy proposal, with examples, as those five categories are the five kinds of titles we have to deal with. At a guess, then, that means we need alternative suggestions for the ones out of favour. Here's my suggestions, for discussion as a poll to take wider / highlight all over monarchs' pages / throw to Village Pump / whatever. People could cast their vote by putting their username in the appropriate cell, once per column; obviously we could split this into several lists for ease of voting, if people preferred, but the table probably makes it easier to see whilst we discuss it here. I've deliberately put a handful of suggested formats down the left, all with examples using Queen Victoria and Louis XIV, and examples of each category across the top, for clarity's sake. I've put what this would mean into each cell, for us to see more clearly, but I would anticipate only having these as comments in each cell if a table were used for voting.

Option \ Category 1: No cognomen, no numeral, unambiguous territory
eg Victoria of the United Kingdom 		2: No cognomen, no numeral, disambiguate territory
eg John of England 		3: No cognomen, numeral, unambiguous territory
eg Louis XIV of France 		4: No cognomen, numeral, disambiguate territory
eg Henry III of France 		5: Cognomen widely known
eg William the Conqueror,
Louis the Fat
Name #
Victoria
Louis XIV 		Ambiguous Ambiguous Louis XIV Ambiguous May often be ambiguous
Title Name #
Queen Victoria
King Louis XIV 		Queen Victoria Ambiguous King Louis XIV Ambiguous May often be ambiguous
Name # of Place
Victoria of the United Kingdom
Louis XIV of France 		Victoria of the United Kingdom John of England Louis XIV of France Henry III of France William I of England,
Louis VI of France
Title Name # of Place
Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom
King Louis XIV of France 		Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom King John of England King Louis XIV of France King Henry III of France King William I of England,
King Louis VI of France
Name #, Title of Place
Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom
Louis XIV, King of France 		Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom John, King of England Louis XIV, King of France Henry III, King of France William I, King of England,
Louis VI, King of France
Name with cognomen
No cognomen
Louis the Sun King 		No cognomen No cognomen No cognomen No cognomen William the Conqueror,
Louis the Fat

Thoughts? In particular, are there any options I should've put down the left and haven't or categories I should've put across the top and haven't? And who should I use rather than a high-numbered Louis (a) to avoid it only having English monarchs and (b) to avoid it being someone with a widely-known cognomen? — OwenBlacker (Talk) 16:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I know you've done a lot of work, but I don't understand your conclusions. Deb (talk) 08:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I also don't quite understand. I don't think it needs to be that complicated - the previous discussion seemed to show that there were two main outstanding thorny questions, relating to numbered monarchs: (a) do we include the realm when not needed for disambiguation? (b) do we prefer Henry I of England or Henry I, King of England? I think we should be preparing an RfC on those two questions together, and nothing else. The question of unnumbered monarchs seems to be essentially settled, and potentially exceptional cases like Queen Victoria and William the Conqueror (and I suppose the question of Greece vs. Hellenes etc.) can be handled case-by-case.--Kotniski (talk) 11:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, the point I was trying to make is that we seem to be treating the earlier poll as several unrelated polls, whereas I think we need to work out a policy for each of the categories across the top of the table and each of those is related to each other. That said, I can see you're point, Kotniski. Perhaps we just need to consider all the possible options for column 3 of the table, so we can have a decent poll, in the context of having effectively agreed all the other forms already? — OwenBlacker (Talk) 16:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Closing time

It seems this discussion has resulted in no-consensus on anything. GoodDay (talk) 00:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

There seems pretty strong consensus on the John, King of England format. john k (talk) 04:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
That's disapointing, for consistancy. What's even worst is a recent trend of RMs at what was Victoria of the United Kingdom, Robert I of Scotland. GoodDay (talk) 04:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I'd say we have strong support for cognomens and X #, King of Y format and unresolved when the territory does not need disambiguation. Surely that suggests that we just need to standardise on X #, King of Y and open a new poll on potential solutions for unambiguous monarchs, where the territory name is potentially unnecessary? I'd hate to leave that unresolved, given the amount of effort everyone's put into getting us this far. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 17:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't think there is consensus on proposal 4. Several of us only like it in conjunction with #3, so I think the numbers there are a bit misleading. john k (talk) 03:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

You're right; that's a fair point that I had overlooked. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 13:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Any chance of resolution? (More discussion)

I'd really like to get this resolved definitively, though (even if we end up with a convention I hate, it's better than there being the semi-organised chaos it feels like we have now). So… what do we need to resolve? My understanding is that we have five categories of monarch and we need a standard that works for all five; several categories may share a standard, but don't need to:

  1. No cognomen, no numeral, unambiguous territory, eg Victoria of the United Kingdom
  2. No cognomen, no numeral, disambiguate territory, eg John of England
  3. No cognomen, numeral, unambiguous territory, eg Louis XIV of France
  4. No cognomen, numeral, disambiguate territory, eg Henry III of France
  5. Cognomen widely known, eg William I of England

The obvious suggestions I can see are the following:

  1. All standardise to Name # of Territory (the current status quo, with exceptions)
  2. All standardise to Name #, Title of Territory
  3. All standardise to Name # of Territory, except for categories 1 and 3, where we use Title Name #
  4. All standardise to Name #, Title of Territory, except for categories 1 and 3, where we use Title Name #
  5. All standardise to Name # of Territory, except for categories 1, where we use Title Name, and 3, where we use Name #
  6. All standardise to Name #, Title of Territory, except for categories 1, where we use Title Name, and 3, where we use Name #

All of these can have exceptions for cognomens (and potentially further exceptions).

Have I missed out any obvious suggestions? Or is everyone apart from me happy with the status quo, with its myriad exceptions? — OwenBlacker (Talk) 13:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Are there myriad exceptions? The status quo allows for the possibility of exceptions, certainly, as it should do (since real-world usage doesn't follow uniform patterns). Other than those cases where people decide there should be exceptions, we have pretty clear rules. I (and most people) would still prefer to change those rules in certain ways (to drop the redundant countries, and/or to insert "comma King" and "comma Queen"), but I don't see that as connected with reducing the number of exceptions. --Kotniski (talk) 13:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
I'd say let's go back to the way things were 'Monarch # of country'.GoodDay (talk) 13:53, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
That's still how they are.--Kotniski (talk) 14:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
There's been some RMs recently, that have disrupted the flow. Most notably John, King of England, Mary, Queen of Scots, Robert the Bruce, Queen Victoria, Elizabeth II (which I 'now' regrettably supported), etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 14:34, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
These are just perfectly valid exceptions to a rule which it would be absurd to apply without exceptions. --Kotniski (talk) 14:41, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
It kills the flow. GoodDay (talk) 14:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. Most people would be confused by Mary I of Scotland and Robert I. Mary, Queen of Scots and Robert the Bruce don't leave anyone in doubt as to their identities.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:46, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
They must be brought back into the fold. I await their next RMs. GoodDay (talk) 16:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why we're still debating this. The results were clear progress. The majority clearly favour "X, King of Y" and "X #, King of Y" (over "X of Y" and "X # of Y" which beg the question "X, what of Y?") and also approved notable exceptions like "William the Conqueror". They did not much like "King X" and there was no consensus for "X #". So let's accept the result and update the convention, then at least the majority will be happy and we will gain the prize of improved consistency. --Bermicourt (talk) 17:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Those 'common name' articles upset the consitancy. GoodDay (talk) 18:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Because we don't work by majority vote; until there is consensus to change practice we don't. Since at this point, abandoning any effort at consistency and moving apparently unambiguous rulers (such as Elizabeth I of England) to Elizabeth I, is 6-6 (which should be 6-7; I oppose it) and moving George III of England to George III, King of England is 7-3-3 or so, the majority is not so clear.
We now have a consistent system, which could be better explained:
  • Use Name # of Place for monarchs with numbers
  • Use Name, King of Place when there are no numbers
  • Use Name, Title of Place for lesser nobles.
All these are usage, and they provide a consistent choice among usage. Other systems might be just as good; but I am not persuaded any is better. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
George III of England? GoodDay (talk) 18:32, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
That's what I get for doing cut-and-paste. Lege of the United Kingdom, twice; but observe that they are both redirects. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:24, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
My experience is that we do work on majority vote and even "consensus" means general agreement, not unanimity. If we waited for the latter, Wikipedia would never agree anything, as this discussion is proving! --Bermicourt (talk) 07:18, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm certainly happy to codify the standard as per Septentrionalis supra, though I'd prefer Name #, Title of Place for case 1, if there's consensus on that. I'd suggest we codify as per Septentrionalis (with an explicit proviso for common names and cognomens as we already have, such as Robert the Bruce, Elizabeth I (and II) and Mary, Queen of Scots) and mention that no pages should be moved to the first format (Name # of Place) until the insertion of , Title is approved or rejected?

Or is that just me being bloody awkward? :o) — OwenBlacker (Talk) 10:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that's basically what the guideline already says - it just needs tidying up. (Except the bit about "no pages should be moved to..." - if there's consensus to move a page, then it will be moved, but in any case that issue is not likely to arise, since the articles generally are in the form Name # of Place already, except where there's been consensus to do something different.)--Kotniski (talk) 10:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm against those past RMs, but you're correct, the guideline doesn't prevent such RMs. GoodDay (talk) 15:19, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Queen Victoria

Alright, point #4 of this naming convention is already adopted: John, King of England, Anne, Queen of Great Britain etc etc; this I can live with (as if I had a choice). However, whatabout point #1? we're suppose avoid having King/Queen/Emperor as a pretex in the article title. Queen Victoria should be (according to #4) Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom. -- GoodDay (talk) 16:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I suppose Wikipedians like brevity in their titles and, since there is no other Queen Victoria (of any note) and she is rather well-known having given her name to an era, I presume that's why it's ended up as "Queen Victoria". It would be interesting to see how she is indexed in authoritative sources on European history... The Oxford History of Britain by Morgan refers to her in the index as "Victoria, Queen", and likewise with other British monarchs, except for non-British ones where the country is specified e.g. "Henry II, King of France". But you'd expect that. --Bermicourt (talk) 18:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Seeing as Swedish monarchs tend to have longevity on their side, it's gonna be quite awhile before Victoria, Crown Princess of Sweden, gives us a new problem. GoodDay (talk) 19:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
There is, however, this Queen Victoria of Sweden. Who is surely of some note, although Queen Victoria of the UK is a primary topic. john k (talk) 17:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
That's because the non-consensus discussion was improperly closed by a non-neutral non-admin, not unknown to this talk page. The move should be reversed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, as Queen isn't her first name & 7-4 in favour of the move, was hardly a consensus. GoodDay (talk) 04:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Your first point isn't really a point but I agree now that it ought to be moved. Seven Letters 05:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Queen Latifah & King Clancy are 2 examples of why I oppose the title 'Queen Victoria'. GoodDay (talk) 05:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Apples and oranges. Some titles are even otherwise identical for very different things. Moving on... Seven Letters 05:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes. In fact I'm genuinely puzzled as to why this article title arouses so much aversion (rarely any actual arguments, but a lot of negative emotion, certainly). Of course it could be moved to Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom, which would still be a great improvement over the title it used to have, but for me, Queen Victoria is one of the most obvious titles we could give to any article on Wikipedia - it's short, sweet, it's what the subject is called, and a term for which the subject is undoubtedly the primary topic. There simply doesn't seem to be any reason even to look for another title. --Kotniski (talk) 09:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
It was also RMd rather quickly, with only 11 editors having participated in it & a weak 7-4 support. GoodDay (talk) 14:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

We could just do an RM to Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom, and see what comes of it. john k (talk) 17:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I go along with that, as it would comply with point #4. GoodDay (talk) 18:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Move requested. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Should WP:NCROY conform better with WP:TITLE/WP:COMMONNAME?

Hello,

I know there is a lot of history and tradition in this guideline, and much of it for good reason that applies to many if not most members of royalty that have unclear or ambiguous names, but I don't understand the insistence here, and in the few remaining (and thankfully decreasing) other guidelines that do so, for conformance with a particular naming convention pattern even when the most common name of the subject is unique (or is the primary use) and could be used instead. For example, other than following this convention for the sake of following this convention, what is the benefit in moving Queen Victoria to Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom, as is currently proposed?

It is true that one of the general naming criteria listed at WP:TITLE is "consistency", which recommends following patterns often found in specific-topic guidelines (like this one), but it also states that those guidelines "ideally indicate titles that are in accordance with the principal criteria above." That principal naming criteria is recognizability, naturalness, precision (only as precise as necessary for disambiguation) and conciseness, all of which titles like Queen Victoria meet better than do less recognizable, less natural, more precise than necessary, and less concise titles like Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom do.

So, how about incorporating into this guideline wording that allows for better conformance with the general naming criteria listed at WP:TITLE? I suggest all that will be required is a statement that when the most common name for a member of royalty is unique or primary, it should be used as the title of the article; that the naming conventions specified here apply only when the most common name is not obvious, or is unknown or unavailable, and so disambiguation is required.--Born2cycle (talk) 01:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and most of that history consists of silly claims about this page oot xomplying with WP:TITLE, by a handful of editors who hold extreme views about the importance of WP:COMMONNAME.
Having read and maintained this page, and written much of WP:AT, I know that any claim of inconsistency between them is at best a misreading.
Or to be shorter: No, it isn't. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry. I didn't realize we had to take your word for it. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Queen Latifah & King Clancy are good reasons to move Queen Victoria. -- GoodDay (talk) 01:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
What does Queen Victoria have to do with Queen Latifah? Perhaps we should move Chevy Chase to Chevy Chase, American comedian, writer, and television and film actor because of Chevy and Chevy Chase, Maryland???

Are you suggesting that it's important that all articles about royalty be titled according to a pattern that makes it obvious it's a royalty article from looking at the title alone? If so, since when is "article type identification" (for lack of a better term) a requirement or purpose of article titles, much less a higher priority criteria than WP:COMMONNAME? --Born2cycle (talk) 02:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

A monarchs name doesn't begin with his/her title or position. We don't have Prince Albert II (for Monaco's monarch), Grand Duke Henry (for Luxembourg's monarch) or King Albert II (for Belgium's monarch). Even non-monarchial bios don't go with President Barack Obama or Prime Minister Stephen Harper GoodDay (talk) 02:25, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
That depends on how broad your definition of "name" is. Regardless of whether the title is part of someone's "name", they may or may not be known best with that title. Per WP:COMMONNAME, if they are, then we should use it in the article title; if not, then not. By the same reasoning famous people who are best known by first name only are at the first name rather than at Firstname Surname (disambiguated as necessary): Cher, Madonna (entertainer), Usher (entertainer), and Common (entertainer). That is, our titles reflect how the subject is most commonly referred. In the case of Queen Victoria, there sure are a lot of biographies about her named "Queen Victoria"... [1]. I suggest this aspect of Wikipedia article naming is missed by the current revision of this guideline, and is one of the reasons it could conform better with WP:TITLE and WP:COMMONNAME. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
You're not going to make me change my stance on this issue. GoodDay (talk) 03:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm not trying to make you change your stance. I'm trying to understand whether your position is based on policy-based argument or is a variant of WP:JDLI. Am I wrong to presume you're trying to achieve the same with respect to my position? After all, our personal opinions are irrelevant, so if we're just going to share that, what's the point? --Born2cycle (talk) 03:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm siding with NCROY. GoodDay (talk) 04:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, like I said, "I know there is a lot of history and tradition in this guideline...". I do wish those heavily involved in these articles would go up in elevation a ways and take a good look at how WP:NCROY article titles conform with the conventions used by most non-royalty articles at Wikipedia. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:48, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
You obviously have very strong views on these matters. It would be more helpful in achieving consensus if you were to desist from your habit of posing as an independent party in order to close discussions and impose the solution you personally prefer. Deb (talk) 12:25, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Vanity edit

The above effort to gain attention should be dealt with by being ignored. If Born2Cycle has any points he hasn't already repeated ad nasueam, he's welcome to list them is a separate section. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The section heading above is designed to get attention for that discussion, not for me. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:42, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
We've attended to that discussion; we've done little else for several months now. The proper way to gain attention to it is to have some new arguments, since the old ones are as unlikely to gain general agreement - after all, they haven't done so before now. The techniques suitable to a debating society should stay in debating society - one purpose of such societies is to acquaint their members with common rhetorical fallacies. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

To quote the actual and long-standing language of the policy:

Wikipedia has many naming conventions relating to specific subject domains (as listed in the box at the top of this page). Sometimes these recommend the use of titles that are not strictly the common name (as in the case of the conventions for flora and medicine).

In short, Born2cycle's section title above not only begs the question of whether this guideline complies with policy; it distorts policy. I would appreciate it if this were not repeated. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Life peers

Since 50 new life peers are on the point of being created (see WT:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage#Article titles), I think now would be a good time to return to our other perennial point of contention, and try to determine under what circumstances a life peer should have their peerage title included in their article title. Preliminary thoughts welcome (maybe at the discussion I just linked to).--Kotniski (talk) 09:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

We already have a convention with other nobility that a) we use their highest-ranking title and b) it follows the format "XXX, Duke of YYY", unless there is an exceptional reason not to (e.g. Henry the Lion). By extension, then, my feeling is that it would be entirely logical to follow the same format for most of these peers, e.g.
This is currently what we have, except that we seem to repeat the surname for some reason e.g. Alfred Allen, Baron Allen of Fallowfield or Ruth Henig, Baroness Henig which appears to be superfluous. --Bermicourt (talk) 12:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Yah, some of us feel that the whole peerage title is often superfluous (since in most cases these are people who are known better by their ordinary names than by their titles, are not famous primarily for being peers, and - if disambiguation of the ordinary name is required - are often more recognizably disambiguated by some other method than giving the noble title). --Kotniski (talk) 13:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
(Oh and the other thing is that the men, at least, are - if known by their title - much more commonly called "Lord X" than the "Baron X" Wikipedia insists on. Women life peers are actually called Baroness, I presume as a way of distinguishing them from the "Lady X"'s who are merely wives of lords, though I believe both titles apply in both cases.)--Kotniski (talk) 13:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
It's only repetitious for those life peers who use their surname as their title; not all do. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
I strongly support that we follow our usual convention on all these new peers, and name all of them except for the handful who fall into the "very famous" category (which, in the current list, is basically none of them, to be clear) in accordance with our usual guideline. Kotniski, you call this "our other perennial point of contention" but I think it is more accurate to say that it is your perennial point of contention. There's broad consensus to follow the existing guideline.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, that's what you always tell us, but then when actual discussions arise about particular cases, involving ordinary editors rather than peerage buffs (Chris Patten is one that springs to mind, but there have been others), it usually turns out that the alleged "broad consensus" is nowhere apparent. Instead of claiming consensus where there is none, can you (or anyone else) answer my substantial objections to following the "usual convention"? --Kotniski (talk) 15:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Is there a specific set of standardisation options anyone would like to propose? My understanding of life peers is that their usual long form is Joe Bloggs, Baron Bloggs of Foo, hence the duplication of surname. Personally, I'd be quite happy to see them all listed as their pre-Lords name (eg Chris Patten, Margaret Thatcher), with the long-form title emboldened in the lead para, but I'm particularly easily persuasible on this issue ;o) — OwenBlacker (Talk) 18:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

My proposal would be to follow our usual policies - i.e. use the commonest name (which in some cases will be the pre-Lords name, in others "Lord X" or "Baroness Y") and disambiguate it (if necessary) in the most helpful way possible, case by case. However, such simplicity tends to be frowned on round here - people demand RULES - so I'd be interested to hear any new ideas on how to word the guideline.--Kotniski (talk) 18:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that, for most peers (not "most living peers") there are several legitimate and about equally recognizable forms; choosing between them arbitrarily will render the articles much less useful.

  • I could see making life peers John X, Lord X, or even John X - although some of the prospective peers are probably looking forward to seeing the new form everywhere. The real problem is that it tends to suggest that they are a sixth order, beneath hereditary barons, and they aren't.
  • Calling hereditary barons 3rd Lord X will be confusing; the combination isn't idiom, but we need the disambiguation: Some families have very little imagination in the way of Christian names. Considerthese five peers with two names between them - and there are many worse.
  • Calling viscounts, earls and marquesses 3rd Lord X will make distinguishing the repeated creations of a title with the same honor even more of a problem than it already is - and consider Marquess of Ailsa: every eldest son has been Archibald Kennedy since 1734.
  • Calling dukes Lord X is wrong. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I don't propose changing anything in the way we treat hereditary peers (except to make greater use of exceptions for Lords Palmerston and Byron and the like). It's mainly the life peers that cause friction. --Kotniski (talk) 19:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
I wonder, with whom does this cause friction? Seven Letters 19:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Normally with people who have no particular interest in the peerage, but expect articles on politicians to be titled in accordance with normal principles of common, concise and recognizable names (of the Tony Blair type), and don't see why we should turn things on their head just because someone's been given one of these titles. (See the inconclusive #RfC: United Kingdom Peerage titles above for an example, although the "friction" usually occurs at individual article talk pages, particularly when an article has been renamed unilaterally by a peerage buff.)--Kotniski (talk) 06:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with Kotniski here. Certainly, I'd be entirely happy for life peerages to be ignored in article titles but emphasised in the lead para — which is what we appear to do as standard with people's middle names (eg Roque Santa Cruz). Certainly, I would expect to see Margaret Thatcher and Chris Patten at precisely those article titles, despite that they have life peerages. Given that this is precisely what we do in these two cases, can we not just define that as the standard? — OwenBlacker (Talk) 18:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I do find it odd that we usually name historical figures by their title but modern figures by the name we've most often read in the newspapers. In 50 years time I suspect our successors will be adding the titles back in and wondering why we didn't do that. WP:COMMONNAME has a lot to answer for including the rather chaotic titling of many articles! --Bermicourt (talk) 07:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
No, I think it's the other way round - in 50 years time few will call Margaret Thatcher "Baroness", whereas in the newspapers now she's very often called that. (And the same for lesser known personages who were raised to the peerage at the end of their careers). In the future people will tend to call people by the name they were known by when they did the things they were most notable for, just as we do (we refer to Disraeli rather than Beaconsfield, Lord North rather than Guilford, and so on). I'm far from confident that Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon will become known to history by that name, but in her case Wikipedia seems to have decided that her titles will fall out of use, the reverse of what you're suggesting.--Kotniski (talk) 11:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, only time will tell and we can meet up for a friendly beer and discuss it then! --Bermicourt (talk) 17:37, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I also generally agree with Kotniski. Life peers should by default be listed at their pre-peerage name, and only in exceptional cases be listed under their after-peerage name. So Melvyn Bragg or Catherine Ashton should stay as such, just like Stijn Coninx or Eddy Merckx in Belgium; and Norman Foster, Baron Foster of Thames Bank should be moved to Norman Foster (architect), since he is known as an architect, not as a baron. Fram (talk) 20:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Non-British practice (Belgium doesn't have non-hereditary noble titles) is irrelevant to the topic under discussion, the handling of British life peers. Most life peers are not "known" to the general public at all. Most life peers are known for expertise or distinction in a particular field, many only becoming more broadly known (and deemed "notable") upon receipt of their peerage (indeed, that is part of the Crown's intent in conferring a peerage; other honours are acknowledged officially on paper or at a one-time event, or used in abbreviation as suffixes -- only peerage titles are widely and continuously used instead of the honouree's name). The media begin referring to most peerage recipients by their titles immediately upon elevation, and gradually use that term more than the pre-peerage name. The minority who are famous enough that the media continue to refer to them more by birth name than title can have that name proposed as the article's title under our exception guideline, where it can be defended as such. FactStraight (talk) 21:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
I was just reading about Baroness Nicholson (who appears to use that form herself); it also appears to be idiomaric to call her Lady Nicholson. Mrs Thatcher is a special case and should be treated as such; we already have a special case for the retirement honors of Prime Ministers, which are indeed largely forgotten. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Factstraight, contrary to what you say, Belgium does have, just like the UK, non-hereditary nobility. Most of the titles granted by the King each year are non-hereditary, only a few aren't. Fram (talk) 22:16, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
I can't say my experience supports what FactStraight claims - certainly in some cases people become better known under their peerage title, but in other cases people who weren't particularly famous before receiving their peerage remain not particularly famous (or even less famous) after it, and will become known to history (if at all) by their original personal names. I don't know which group is larger, but in any case, these people ought to be handled on a case-by-case basis. Remember that it's not only the media that talk about these people - there will be biographies and memoirs (not necessarily the subjects' own) which will more often refer to them by the names they used throughout their active careers. And of course it's patently not true that the media ever refer to male life peers by their titles (if you mean the titles that Wikipedia gives them) - you virtually never see them called Baron, except ironically. Nor do we see them referred to in the weird double form (Mary Pock, Baroness Pock) that we use. Nor does it make sense to mix informal forms of personal names with hyperformal forms of titles (we used to have Chris Patten, Baron Patten of Barnes - at least if you're going to be formal, then call him Christopher, but then we move even further away from Wikipedia's normal article naming practices). And there's the point made above about people like Norman Foster, who ought to be disambiguated according to what they're known for, not some obscure title.--Kotniski (talk) 08:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
The "weird double form" we use is the standard form for peers' names in indexes and encyclopedias. And "Baron" is used, it's just pronounced "/lɔrd/" (i.e. "Lord" is just an automatic substitution for "Baron" for all but the most formal usages). john k (talk) 17:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
A rather bizarre claim (the second one, I mean; we've been through the first one before) - presumably you'd have to claim not just that Baron is pronouced "/lɔrd/", but also that it's spelt <Lord>. (OK, what you write in parentheses makes more sense, but it still seems to support my position - Wikipedia article titles are not among the most formal usages, witness Tony Blair, Bill Clinton et very many al.)--Kotniski (talk) 13:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
  • We are all getting far to hot under the collar about this. This is about life peers, so that the question of herditaries hardly arises - there are a handful of peers who renounced their hereditary title and were then granted a life peerage. Lady Jones may refer to the wife of a knight or of a peer, so that it is imprecise. The form Lord John Jones has recently come into use, but is strictly incorrect save for the sons of Dukes and Marquesses. I think we can argue out on a case by case basis which form is most appropriate in each case, whether Barbara Jones, Baroness Jones or just Barbara Jones, but in every case where the full form of the type "Barbara Jones, Baroness Jones" is not used for the article, it should exist as a redirect. If a disambiguator is necessary, because "Barbara Jones" is a dabpage or another Barbara Jones is the primary subject, then the article should be at the full form of the title. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
I wholly agree that the common name of an individual must take precedence or else there is zero value in the common name policy. If formal names are used in this context exclusively then it is saying that we ignore WP:CRYSTAL and that the naming convention supersedes the common name policy of Wikipedia. Just because someone has been ennobled doesn’t mean that they get called something other then what they were called before they were ennobled by the general public and the general media. Formal titles are rarely used outside of a political context and if individual have been known well before they were ennobled then it is unlikely that they will be referred to by their ennobled title at all in life or in death.--Lucy-marie (talk) 09:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
A number of life peers are now up for renaming including Dee Doocey, Fiona Shackleton, James Chichester-Clarke and Susan Kramer. Interesting that three of them are women. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I am not sure what the gender of the subjects has to do with this issue.--Lucy-marie (talk) 13:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Misattributed titles

I have run into a peculiar category of articles:

People like William Alexander, Lord Stirling and Elizabeth Southwell, Lady Cromwell who
  • claimed a British peerage;
  • used it all their lives, and were (and are) usually called by it
  • were not, by reliable authority, entitled to it.

We cannot call Alexander William Alexander, 6th Earl of Stirling; the House of Lords decided he wasn't, and if there ever is a 6th earl, our numbering will become unintelligible. Should we establish the convention of calling these people Lord or Lady X? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

If that's what sources call them, then yes (though it doesn't need a new convention - it's just an application of common name).--Kotniski (talk) 09:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
It's one of the things sources call them; but in these cases our standard solution of "6th Earl of Stirling" isn't one of those things, so we have to chose again. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I had a long look at the case of Lord Stirling. In common parlance, a peer (except a duke) is called "Lord Foo" not "Earl of Foo". If that is what some one called himself, that is how the article should be titled. However the person should not be listed as if he had the title, but cross-referenced in the peerage article. That is what has been done with William Alexander, Lord Stirling and it seems appropriate. However the article should clearly indicate that he only claimed a peerage and was not entitled to one. "Rayment" has a long account of the peerage claim at the foot of his page where the peerage is dealt with. This could usefully be used to expand the article. A case analogous to Elizabeth Southwell, Lady Cromwell exists - on the death of the last Sutton, Baron Dudley, the eldest of co-heiresses (to whom certain estates descended) though the title was in abeyance between her and her sisters until called out of abeyance for one of her descendants. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
As for Lord Stirling, The British House of Lords refused to recognize his claim without proof of descent, but he continued to style himself Earl of Stirling all his life long seems clear enough that the claim failed; but it would be worth checking whether the House of Lords also declined to recognize a claim of a collateral descendant of the grantee - although they have recognized one in the Earl of Devon case and some others (even without specific special remainder). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Juan Carlos I

There's funny things happening on the 'pedia, it seems. The article Juan Carlos I of Spain was moved to Juan Carlos I, without a consensus. The RMs for moving away from Monarch # of country, are sorta getting a tad arrogant & overly frequent. GoodDay (talk) 04:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps they would be subjected to better scrutiny if those opposing them provided reasoning as to why they might be inappropriate, instead of just saying "oppose because I'm opposed", which type of comment will justifiably be ignored when consensus is assessed.--Kotniski (talk) 08:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
The last RM (November 2010), was ruled as 'no consensus. So again, why was this article moved, when there was no consensus to do so. In meantime, I shall revert the move. GoodDay (talk) 12:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
You're reading it wrong - the last RM was not about dropping "of Spain", it was about dropping "I" (and because there was no consensus on that point, the "I" remains). The RM before that was about dropping "of Spain", and that was ruled (perhaps controversially, but less so when you look at the genuine irrelevance of some of the oppose arguments) as consensus to move to Juan Carlos I.--Kotniski (talk) 12:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I realize that now. Where in the August/September 2010 RM, is there a consensus to move to Juan Carlos I? Yes, I understand nobody's complained about the move since then (until now), but understand how it looks. Whenever any page is moved with a majority saying oppose, there should be a darn good explanation (not just a 'we don't like the reasons, given by opposers). GoodDay (talk) 12:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I suggest this be discussed in one place, not two - I've replied at the article's talk page.--Kotniski (talk) 12:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
The suffix "of Spain" is in the nature of a disambiguator. WE had a long discussion over many months as to whether to drop "Of United Kingdom" from Elizabeth II with the eventual conclusion after a formal vote that we should. Since Juan Carlos I is not ambiguous, there is no need to add "of Spain". Peterkingiron (talk) 16:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I just wasn't impressed with the hastiness of the RM ruling & subsiquent page move. IMHO, there was no consensus for it at the time. Anyways, nobody else has complained about it, so it's a moot point, now. GoodDay (talk) 16:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

It was moved at Juan Carlos I of Spain#Requested move (August 2010); closed by a certain very involved non-admin, after a 5-3 discussion; that is not proper, and certainly not consensus. I have restored it until a neutral admin finds consensus to move. (Since there is no consensus, a RM back is likely to fail; but this would reward improper unilateral action. The proper placement until consensus can be reached is where the article was for years.) If this is reverted, or this practice of improper closure continues, we should ask for remedies through dispute resolution. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

William I of Scotland

I had to revert the move of this article from William the Lion, as there was no consensus for its move. Infact, the RM in question (in 2008) was ruled as no move to William the Lion. GoodDay (talk) 23:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I find there's been quite a few 'page moves' to nicknames, with very little support for them. Ivan IV of Russia to Ivan the Terrible, Robert I of Scotland to Robert the Bruce for examples. Atleast at Catherine II of Russia, that RM isn't being treated the same way. GoodDay (talk) 23:31, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

William the Lion has been stable at that name for nearly half a year. You'll need to hold a WP:RM for William I of Scotland, an almost unused name for this monarch. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Atleast tell us who moved the article to William the Lion, contrary to the RM. Also, is there a way for an editor to know when these RMs occur? having hundreds of pages on one's watchlist would be daunting. GoodDay (talk) 00:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I revuew the WP:RM list at least every few days. That's why it's there. --Born2cycle (talk) 09:28, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

"Ivan the Terrible" and "Robert the Bruce" both went through proper move discussions. PatGallacher (talk) 13:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Very little particpation (6 in the former, 5 in the latter) & so certainly no consensus. GoodDay (talk) 13:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
That's quite good for a move request, particularly since there was unanimous agreement. Look at WP:RM, pages are getting retitled all the time, often with only one or two comments. Not every local decision has to be turned into a wikiwide drama. --Kotniski (talk) 13:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Though I dislike the way it's headed, the RM at Catherine II of Russia is being held properly. Nobody closed it down early & moved it hastily. Same with when Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom was moved to Elizabeth II. -- GoodDay (talk) 13:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Ironic that in the last two days you yourself have made two hasty moves of monarch articles, knowing them to be controversial, without even bothering to start a move discussion. If you look at WP:RM again, not only will you find a convenient list of ongoing move discussions to which you can add your unfailingly incisive arguments wherever you may wish to do so, you will also find instructions for starting a move request in the proper manner. It's very easy, and takes virtually no more time than it takes to type your reasoning for the change. (But then, it's so much easier just to move the page unilaterally and let someone else set up the discussion, isn't it?)--Kotniski (talk) 13:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Those 2 reversion were of RMs ruled improperly (no consensus) & respective articles move improperly (again non consensus). GoodDay (talk) 14:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I support your actions. Deb (talk) 18:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Wherever the article is, the important thing is that any obvious alternative names exist as redirects. Perhaps some one can place a notice on this page about such RMs to get more participation. The very long-running debate over Elizabeth II has given us a precedent for dropping the "of kingdom", where there is no ambiguity, but this has not been followed up by wholesale renaming. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

In that RM, many preferred dropping the of the United Kingdom because it allegedly gave the impression the UK was above the other commonwealth realms. GoodDay (talk) 20:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, GoodDay? Follow proper procedure like everybody else and do a proper move request. Unilaterally reverting every already-archived move discussion that you don't agree with on the grounds of "no-consensus in my opinion" is extremely counter-productive. Put it back to what it was and lodge an RM. Weren't you and Pmanderson just told that this was not the way to do things not two weeks ago? Nightw 07:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

There never was a consensus to change to William the Lion, as there was for changing to Catherine the Great. That's why I protested the former & not the latter. Check the article's last RM, it was ruled as no consensus. PS: Nobody told me such a thing 2 weeks ago (that I can recall). GoodDay (talk) 07:33, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

In the case of William the Lion GoodDay has gotten annoyed about the move to nicknames across Wikipedia, spotted that this article had been moved 4 months ago without an RM, and moved it to its old obscure name William I of Scotland. I reverted and PatGallacher has also reverted twice on the matter, calling for a WP:RM. Even though it is well known that for RM purposes an article's location is regarded as stable having been there for 1 to 3 months, he is insisting in the edit summaries that there is consensus at this here page that the article should move to its old name rather than the most recent stable one. I regard this really as quite disgraceful, as these norms are being violated purely in pursuit of some WP:RM advantage; they know this is the only way they will avoid getting the nickname. Please can someone move it back to William the Lion and protect the article until this is resolved. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 08:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Deacon, please stop this. We all know that you have strong views on naming conventions, but you are an admin now; you know better. You knew that the move you made in October was contentious because you knew that there had previously been a discussion on the subject and you knew that there had been no consensus for a move. Your action in moving the article without going through RM is what was "disgraceful". Please don't ever do anything like this again. Deb (talk) 09:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Actually, there's nothing wrong with moving a page, per WP:BRD and if it was so 'contentious', it would have been reverted. In GoodDay/Pat's case the article was reverted, but they are trying to force it on the community through edit-warring. And Deb, it's a bit much for you to accuse anyone of having strong views on naming, let alone myself, given that you pretty much don't do anything else. It's your own side who have been disrupting this article, and lots of other articles in pursuit of a minority POV. I am happy for an RM, so long as everyone acts properly. This is what you, Pat and GoodDay are failing to do. This dirty tricks campaign is quite a short-sighted 'strategy' too, and if I were to guess, it will back-fire for you. I suggest you do the proper thing and restore the article before an uninvolved admin does. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I've replied to these offensive comments on your talk page. Deb (talk) 15:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Making minor amendments to the wording of your offensive comments and deleting my response on your talk page won't alter the fact that you made them. Deb (talk) 15:27, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, I thought in hindsight that 'tag team' was strong and refactored it with 'side'. Is this wrong on my part too? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Polticial POV, isn't why I challenged your page move Deacon. There's quite a few articles moved to nicknames via successful RMs, which I haven't reverted. GoodDay (talk) 16:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I've lodged a move request in order to establish a community consensus of where this article should be. This would have been done whatever the outcome of this "moving war". Nightw 10:33, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
That is a sensible move. Deb (talk) 14:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Deacon, we'd need clarification for what you're stating at the related RM. Not sure if I was accurate, about your post. GoodDay (talk) 15:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Cognomens

Why do I opposes these in RM? cognomens are rarely (if at all) NPoV based, which goes against Wikipedia's spirit. They tend to be post-humously placed on a monarch by admirers or detractors. Name # of country is more NPoV. GoodDay (talk) 16:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The same goes for most names (who could be more admiring than the givers of most of our names - our own parents?) But once these names come into general currency, it becomes pointy not to use them. (And # and country can also have neutrality issues in some cases, as we've seen.)--Kotniski (talk) 07:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Is it "pointy"? I don't think so. If it was, we'd call the article "Princess Diana" instead of the correct "Diana, Princess of Wales". Deb (talk) 12:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree. On the same note, I doubt any impartial mind is going to challenge our naming of LL Cool J on the grounds that coolness is a matter of opinion. Nightw 12:54, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Ya'll haven't convinced me. GoodDay (talk) 13:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I hadn't expected to. In my experience, when a Wikipedian has stuck to a preference for such a long period of time, he is almost never able to be persuaded to adopt the opposite. Nightw 13:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

@GoodDay, the name 'Donald' supposedly comes from Celtic Dumno-vallos, world ruler (Old Gaelic Domnall). I guess whoever coined it may have had big ideas about the person being described, but it's just Donald today. Most English speakers don't even think about names, hence why nicknames like 'Rufus', 'Beauclerc' and 'Canmore' stick when most people who use 'em don't speak the languages they were coined in. If a name is how someone is known, we just have to accept it (and it is not our job to change such things). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not convinced by those PoV nicknames (cognomens). As I mentioned at the RM for William the Lion, thank goodness his nickname wasn't William the Farter or worst. GoodDay (talk) 14:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what I'm saying, they aren't 'PoV'; and even if they were it has nothing to do with us. Who are we to say William Rufus shouldn't be called this because 'redness' is 'PoV'? This is only Wikipedia ... Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Those cognomens can be used in the article intro & content. But shouldn't be in the article title, as most of them aren't NPoV. Thus my reason for opposing such RMs. GoodDay (talk) 14:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
That doesn't make any sense at all. What's the difference supposed to be? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
The Article title is the most prominant item in the article. GoodDay (talk) 15:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
This doesn't indicate what the difference is. You realise don't you that this kind of objection has nothing to do with Wikipedia policy or guidelines? Names such as William Rufus (or even 'Alfred the Great') have nothing to do with WP:NPOV, and are determined by usage outside Wikipedia. Objections to renames on this basis will carry no weight anywhere and will be ignored. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I'll leave that up to the respective RM closers. GoodDay (talk) 15:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
It is stretching it a bit to say that cognomens are POV. Cognomens are used because people in history are well known by that name. And the fact that we call someone "XXX the Great" can hardly be construed to mean that we all think he's great today! I'm afraid it's a rather weak argument to prop up a particular stance on naming. Any such stance is POV unless supported by authoritative sources, which is actually where our debate should be centred. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
My stance hasn't changed on cognomens. GoodDay (talk) 20:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Baron Ernst Gideon von Laudon

There is currently a move request on this page for the reason "We don't generally use titles of European nobility in article names, per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)#Other_cases." Noel S McFerran (talk) 14:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Pedro I of Brazil

We've got Peter I of Portugal, Peter II of Portugal, Peter III of Portugal & Peter V of Portugal (currently going through an RM). I see no reason why we can't have Peter IV of Portugal mentioned in the Pedro I of Brazil article, for example in the Infobox heading 'underneath' Pedro I of Brazil? GoodDay (talk) 23:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

We should give both Peter and Pedro, but I see no reason why he should be referred to as "Pedro" for Brazil and "Peter" for Portugal. And we ought to have Pedro V of Portugal. john k (talk) 06:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Further as to cognomens.

I don't particularly like the current language, because I don't think it is supported by consensus in terms of how actual move votes go, and because it's used to limit our discretion for no clear reason I can discern. Specifically, we have the following:

But there must be consensus among the reliable sources so strong that it would be surprising to omit the epithet

Why? Why do we demand such strong consensus? Why not just say that if the cognomen is the most common way to refer to the person, we can use it, and leave it up to individual discussions as to which form might be more common? This requirement is already frequently violated in practice; it is not surprising to see William the Conqueror referred to as "William I"; in fact, that is how other encyclopedias do it. Until that move actually occurred, many editors were, in fact, noting this, and opposed the move on these very grounds. In practice, it is "not surprising" to not encounter the cognomen exactly until a majority of users decides to move the article to the cognomen. Then it becomes "surprising" not to. None of these articles ever get moved back; the process is entirely one way, but glacially slow. Why not just say that the cognomen can be used if reliable sources use it, and that the precise balance should be determined at individual pages? What valid purpose is being served by the current language except to insure that our usage of cognomens is wildly inconsistent? If we want to discourage "Richard the Lionheart" and the like, I think there's a lot of other arguments that can be used against that form; most importantly, that there's no clear orthographical dominance for any one of the various ways that cognomen can be written. Similarly, we wouldn't use Louis the Prudent, simply because that is not actually the most common way to refer to him. I'm not sure why we need any particular special rules on this matter, especially special rules that are frequently ignored. john k (talk) 17:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I think I see what you are getting at. There's something in that. Deb (talk) 18:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
There has been a RM to cognomens trend of late. I fear it's a matter a time before we do end up with Louis the Prudent, Richard the Lionheart, Louis the Fat, Edward Longshanks, etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 19:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Actually, Louis the Fat (and Richie probably) should fall with the current trend, not with a new one. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Current trend, new trend? what do ya mean? GoodDay (talk) 22:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Interesting, I think, that French wikipedia is happy with Louis VI de France, and in the introduction to that article you will find that he was called "le Gros ou le Batailleur", ie. he had two nicknames, only one of which we are choosing to focus on. And I daresay there would be takers on English wikipedia for "Louis le Gras". Deb (talk) 12:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree that the sentence quoted at the start of the thread doesn't really sum up the state of consensus (in so far as there is one). I don't think anyone would be literally "surprised" to see the Conqueror referred to as William I, whether in a reliable source, or in a Wikipedia article title (I'm not sure which of those two meanings is intended). I would just say something like "much better known by the cognomen" - in fact I wouldn't say cognomen, just "other name" - "than by the form with the numeral". Notice it's not unknown either to combine a numeral with a cognomen/surname, as in John III Sobieski.--Kotniski (talk) 13:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
For once, we're in agreement! :-) I don't think the term "cognomen" is at all helpful here. Deb (talk) 18:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
@GoodDay, I'd say Louis the Fat in English is more like William the Conqueror than John Lackland, so don't think it's a good example. Louis VI should definitely be at Louis the Fat if WP:COGNOMEN is respected. Richard the Lionheart isn't a good example either as this nickname is far more common than Lackland. I think the WP:COGNOMEN as it currently stands demands moves for William Rufus and Richard the Lionheart (ignoring the controversial use of this example in the text), but no other post-conquest monarchs; at least, when these are moved the WP:COGNOMEN move proposals will probably end permanently. As an incidental observation, the Yale English monarchs series has nicknames in titles for William the Conqueror, William Rufus, and Edward the Confessor, but not Richard the Lionheart, so the latter's eventual location there might not be certain. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I still frown on cognomens in article titles. But I'm acceptable of those in the pre-conquest era. GoodDay (talk) 20:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, that's a step in the right direction. There seems to be some general agreement that the current phrasing is unsatisfactory. How should we reword? Should we simply remove the "surprise" standard entirely? Or should we replace it with something else to limit such moves? john k (talk) 20:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Cognomens should be discouraged when the monarch alternatively has a regnal number. Catherine the Great should be at Catherine II of Russia as there was a Catherine I of Russia; I'll accept William the Lion, merely 'cuz William II of Scotland is under the title William III of England. Meanwhile, Alfred the Great is alright, as there's no Alfred II of England. If there's no regnal number, I find cognomens more acceptable (even though they're not NPoV based). GoodDay (talk) 21:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Absolutely. This is the norm as far as I'm concerned. Deb (talk) 21:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately there are a lot of folk who don't prefer numbers to (common) cognomens. The majority in fact, as our earlier survey indicated. --Bermicourt (talk) 22:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I don't think we can lay down any precise rules - it's just a question of how well known the monarch is with the numeral, compared with how well known he/she is with the alternative name. If they're about equal, people would probably go with the numeral, but once the alternative name becomes significantly (or some other equally vague adverb) better known, people are going to support switching to that. --Kotniski (talk) 22:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The current wording is from a number of years ago before we changed the policy to use reliable sources -- in those good old days a popular name such as Bloody Mary would be far more common than the frequently used in name in reliable sources. Now that survey and base our page name on the frequency of use in reliable sources (instead of frequency of use in all sources) there is no reason why the wording of this sentence should not be changed to reflect that. Perhaps along the lines of "use the standard format, unless the cognomens is the more common usage".-- PBS (talk) 23:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

But the current policy doesn't follow reliable sources either, most of which use "XXX I, King of YYY", not "XXX I of YYY". I do prefer the words "unless the cognomen is the more common usage" though to the current "If a monarch or prince is overwhelmingly known, in English, by a cognomen, it may be used" which is hyperbolic. --Bermicourt (talk) 08:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
We all seem to be pretty much agreed, then, that the wording needs changing to bring it in line with practice; I've had a go at doing so.--Kotniski (talk) 10:08, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I like the rewrite. john k (talk) 20:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
D'accord. Good amendment. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Baron according to modern doctrine, but who was never so styled

Please see WT:PEERAGE#Baron according to modern doctrine, but who was never so styled and to keep the conversation in one place if you have an opinion about how such articles should be named please express it there. -- PBS (talk) 02:30, 8 February 2011‎ (UTC)

Lulach to Lulach, King of Scotland

If I'm understanding point#4 of the Sovereign section, that article should be at Lulach, King of Scotland. GoodDay (talk) 18:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

See Monarchies which use a completely different namestock, such as Lithuania and that of the Merovingians, need not follow this convention; there is no disambiguation to pre-empt. K Scottish monarchs before the 12th century, like English ones before the 11th, have completely different names from other European rulers; disambiguation is not necessary for Lulach and there is no other notable person with the name. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I just wanna be certain, 'cuz of the article Macbeth, King of Scotland. -- GoodDay (talk) 18:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
That's not pre-emptive. See the Scottish Play. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Whatcha mean? GoodDay (talk) 03:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
The play by Shakespeare has the same name as the historic figure and is much more widely spoken of. Therefore we need real disambiguation - for which we have a standard form. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
So Lulach doesn't need to be moved to Lulach, King of Scotland. GoodDay (talk) 04:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

David I of Scotland & Alexander I of Scotland infoboxes

The Malcolm III of Scotland & Malcolm IV of Scotland articles are being pipe-linked in gaelic at those 2 articles 'only'. Why? GoodDay (talk) 16:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Alphabetization of family cats

Mrrow!
That having been said, contributors to this page may be interested in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Peerage_and_Baronetage#sorting_in_a_family_category, which deals with the question of how we alphabetize within Category:Grey family.Please comment there, until we have an agreement; we may then want to amend the guideline. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

English idiom for anglicised titles

The convention reads:

The British peer and his wife are Marquess and Marchioness; modern idiom is for Continental nobles to be Marquis and Marquise, even when the local title is Markgraf or Marchese.

I agree almost completely, except that Markgraf is usually translated to Margrave (similarly Landgrave, Wildgrave, Raugrave). Should the convention not reflect this as an exception to the sentence above? — OwenBlacker (Talk) 22:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree even that much. I think I'd find it slightly odd for a Spanish "Marques" (or "Marqués") to be described as a "Marquis", and extremely odd for a Spanish "Marquesa" to be described as a "Marquise" (which, to me, is definitely a French word and not just a generic "Continental-sounding" one). Proteus (Talk) 00:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I can see what you mean, and I think I'd describe Marquesa Foo, but I think I'd also write Foo, Marquis of Somewherespanish. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 13:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree: "Marquis" is like "Count": the generic term in English for Continental equivalents to "Marquess" and "Earl". I also agree that this does not apply to Markgraf, a title far more frequently borne by reigning princes than by noblemen, as the title "Marquis" was. I also concur that "Marquise" has not been adopted into English as the feminine of "Marquis", except when speaking French. That suggests that when both male and female are mentioned, the feminine should be in the original language (never "Marchioness" which has aan exclusively British connotation in English) and the masculine should be in the same language. When only the male version is used however, "Marquis" is the correct English translation and should be used. FactStraight (talk) 03:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
And of course "margravine" is the feminine of the (Germanic) title "margrave". Presumably "-ine" is the feminine of all similar titles i.e. "landgravine". --Bermicourt (talk) 06:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
This might be an instance where other style guides might be helpful as models, although it sounds like nobody disagrees too much. john k (talk) 04:16, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Surnames for peeresses

In most articles for peeresses, we include a surname, as Georgiana Cavendish, Duchess of Devonshire. Although not strictly correct, this is convenient for the reader; but I have been noticing more and more cases in which the surname chosen is the maiden name, not the married name. Except for cases like Bess of Hardwick, where the maiden name is an established usage (and we don't use a title), this makes little sense: when the beautiful Georgiana was Duchess, she was a Cavendish, not a Spencer. (Modern Peeresses who keep their maiden name - and royalty - would be other exceptions.)

Should we write something in? Are there comments on how to word it? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Sounds to be worth including, as another point in the "British nobility" section. "Peeresses by marriage [is that what we call them?] have article titles in the form 'Married name, Title', as in Georgiana Cavendish, Duchess of Devonshire." Or something like that. Followed by the exceptions. --Kotniski (talk) 10:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Peeresses by marriage should be the technical term; but Wives of peers is the same set of articles. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Hugh O'Neill, 2nd Earl of Tyrone

The problem here is that he is just as often known as 3rd Earl of Tyrone. (He had an elder brother who was de jure Earl of Tyrone for three years, between their grandfather's death and his own assassination. The elder brother may not have been of age.) Should we move to 3rd Earl, to make room for the elder brother's article (not yet written), or to Hugh O'Neill, Earl of Tyrone, which is unambiguous: this is one of the Earls who left Ireland in 1607, and the title is forfeit.

Advice would be welcome; I would rather adjust this guideline to the problem, and then request a move. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest that, if Hugh O'Neill, Earl of Tyrone is unambiguous, then that's probably the most appropriate article title; then the ambiguity of numbering can be explained in the lead. Imho ;o) — OwenBlacker (Talk) 21:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Certainly primary usage. There was a Hugh O'Neill, the grand-nephew of this Hugh, who claimed to be Earl of Tyrone, despite the forfeiture of the title and his grandfather's illegitimacy; but (setting all that aside) he is certainly infinitely less known than the subject. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, it seems problematic from the point of view of consistency. He was either the 2nd or the 3rd, he certainly wasn't the only. I think the number matters and has to be included. I'm not 100% sure of what the right answer here but I suppose the answer is: we have to follow the best sources.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
It is a slight variation from consistency, because the best sources are not consistent. ODNB uses 2nd; Complete Peerage uses 3rd; each is reasonable from its own point of view - one is writing about who was historically Earl, the other about rights of inheritance.
Do remember that the chief reason we include numbers at all (most reliable sources don't) is to be ready to disambiguate peers of the same name, or whose names are disputable (is the 3rd Baron X "Roger" or "Robert"? may be something sources differ on, especially when the only evidence of his existence is a handful of records, none of them written by him). Here the men and names are certain (allowing for the difference between Gaelic and English); the number debatable.
But if you prefer 3rd Earl come and comment. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Well since there have been three creations of this particular title, "Xth Earl of Tyrone" is problematic anyway. Hugh O'Neill certainly was the 2nd (or 3rd) in history to hold the title, but George de La Poer Beresford, 2nd Earl of Tyrone, while indeed the 2nd of his line, was technically the 7th (or 8th)... For the reader this is either confusing (in trying to distinguish the different lineages from one another) or helpful (...in trying to distinguish the different lineages from one another). But given this complication in the O'Neill creation's chronology, I'd suggest swiping the numbers from all holders' article names. Having just the one article without and the rest with causes a great deal more confusion. Nightw 21:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

When are peers unnecessarily disambiguated?

Regarding this edit by Kotniski, removing this statement:

Titles of articles about members of the British Peerage reflect the most common name used to refer to that person when possible. When disambiguation is required, other factors are considered.

with this summary comment: "we can't honestly say it's the case as yet (some discussions go one way, some the other)".

Does anyone know of any relevantly recent WP:RM decisions in which a title with peer information was preferred over the more concise most common name used to refer to that person in a case where that more concise name was available for use as the title? An example of a decision going the other way, consistent with the statement removed by Kotniski, is at Talk:David_Owen#Requested_move. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, Talk:Helena Kennedy, Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws has one (though there have been more recent ones - I don't remember all of them). And for one reason or another (usually that someone from the peerage project has changed the title unilaterally), most life peer articles include the peerage title, even though it's normally not necessary for (or the best method of) disambiguation, so it would be rather misleading to write into the guideline something that is so much at variance with the truth - even if it seems to us far more sensible than the alternative practice.--Kotniski (talk) 14:17, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon

People watching this page may be interested in this requested move: Talk:Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon#Requested move. Based on discussion on that talk page, I have proposed we move the article to "Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother" as that is what she is most commonly known as. (Please keep all discussion on that page, not here.) --Tango (talk) 12:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

There was no Kingdom of Germany before 1871?!?

Perhaps someone here can explain this to the German high school student who is insisting on it at Talk:Kingdom of Germany. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

There was Kingdom of Germany before 1871, but there wasn't after 1871. GoodDay (talk) 04:20, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Adding to the exceptions for peers

With this edit I tried again to explain the fact that some peers have their articles titled with just their personal names even though they don't literally meet any of the other exceptions. It might be worded slightly differently, but it seems clear to me there needs to be an addition like this - in many move discussions (like the ones in the examples I refer to) consensus is certainly not to use the personal+peerage title, even though the subject wasn't literally "retired" when they were ennobled, and isn't "almost exclusively" known by the personal name. --Kotniski (talk) 16:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

That's not true; Fellowes is certainly almost exclusively known without the title and is exactly the sort of person the exception was designed for. -Rrius (talk) 07:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
And David Owen? Roy Jenkins? Shirley Williams? and other similar ones? These people had not literally "retired" when they got their peerages (they remained active in public life afterwards), and they were fairly often known by their peerage title (just as Thatcher is), but still Wikipedia titles such articles using the person's most common name. To try to keep this information out of the guideline, and then use this guideline as an argument in other discussions claiming that its precise wording represents consensus, is more than just misleading - it's plain dishonest.--Kotniski (talk) 09:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Archduke Karl of Austria

Why is this guy's article titled as though there's a Austrian monarchy? while his father is titled as Otto von Habsburg. -- GoodDay (talk) 04:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Good point. The fictitious part "of Austria" is certainly offensive to many Austrians. See the title of the corresponding article on the German Wikipedia. It is interesting that the word Erzherzog (archduke) does not even appear in the German article except for his ancestors. Nobility fetishism appears to be much less popular among German-speaking editors than among English-speaking editors.
Karl Habsburg-Lothringen is Austrian, but he was born in Germany and his mother was German, so he is probably also German, in which case it's hard to tell what his legal German name is. It could be "Karl von Habsburg", "Karl von Österreich", "Erzherzog Karl von Habsburg", "Erzherzog Karl von Österreich" or even "Kaiser Karl von Österreich". But it appears that his first passport was an Austrian passport which he received from the Austrian consulate in Munich (Germany), and which was explicitly not valid for Austria. Someone on the German talk page claimed without proof that he has Austrian, German and Swiss nationalities.
There is a law of constitutional status which forbids specifically any used of Habsburg titles, but it doesn't seem to regulate penalties in case of infractions. The general law against use of titles of nobility stipulates a fine of 20,000 Kronen or an equivalent prison sentence of 6 months. After conversion that's 15 Euro cents, but it appears that in practice the authorities are more likely to ask for something like 190 Euros. [2] (Not sure on what basis. I guess that some laws adjusted the sums, but not to an extent sufficient to keep the balance between the fine and the prison sentence.)
To summarise:
  • "Karl Habsburg-Lothringen" is his legal name as an Austrian citizen. He resides in Austria, and he iswas a member of the European parliament under this name.
  • It appears that he is also Swiss and German, but I have no reliable source for this claim and I have no reliable source for his legal name as a Swiss or German citizen.
  • Using any name that sounds more like nobility than a plain "Habsburg-Lothringen" would be criminal for him in his country of residence.
Per WP:COMMONNAME, "Karl Habsburg-Lothringen" seems to be the correct title. But this move will be controversial, so we need to use WP:RM. Hans Adler 08:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
A move proposal has been made, so I suspect further discussion should take place at the article talk page. --Kotniski (talk) 10:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, perhaps there is something to be discussed here after all, since some weird wikilawyering in that discussion is claiming that this guideline instructs us to title articles on pretenders to abolished titles as if they actually held those titles, regardless of actual usage. I'm pretty sure this guideline was never intended to mean that - we have it explicitly stated in the "Other cases" section that we "follow English usage" in such cases (followed by a general observation on what English usage tends to be). Can we reword things a little to make this clear? --Kotniski (talk) 09:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

We don't need to invent additional rules. For strange cases we can just use the general policy. DrKiernan (talk) 10:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Added the usual boilerplate about "independent reliable secondary sources in English". In this case, that should be Karl von Habsburg, Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I created his wife's article at Francesca von Habsburg as that is how she is known in English. I maybe would have supported Karl von Habsburg/Archduke Karl von Habsurg (which a form also used so I think the title is not completely redundant) but sadly its not on offer. - dwc lr (talk) 14:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I already said at the move discussion that I have no problem with "Karl von Habsburg". However, he is not the number clear 1 Karl von Habsburg. He would have to be disambiguated from his numerous more notable relatives by a birth year or something. Hans Adler 14:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes (b 1961) or something needs to be added to whatever the title is, Archduke Karl of Austria, Karl von Habsburg, Karl Habsburg-Lothringen. - dwc lr (talk) 14:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
For "Karl Habsburg-Lothringen" it's not quite as necessary as under this name there is only he, his uncle Carl Ludwig and his grandfather who actually reigned. Among these he is the primary meaning for that particular name, even though less notable than his grandfather. Hans Adler 15:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Charles von Habsburg (b. 1961) or Karl von Habsburg (b. 1961) should suffice, though I prefer the former. GoodDay (talk) 15:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Can we move the comments about Karl over to the page with the move discussion? And continue that discussion there?--Kotniski (talk) 15:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Another backlogged move discussion requiring input

See Talk:Infanta Isabella Clara Eugenia of Spain#Requested move. --Kotniski (talk) 11:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Now closed. (Though Talk:Kingdom of Sardinia#Requested move is still open if anyone's looking around for an argument.)--Kotniski (talk) 15:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Infoboxes of Pretenders 'present & past'

I've noticed in some of these pretenders infoboxes, the word reign describing their tenure as Head of the House..., see the Hanoverian pretenders -for example-. Is their a way to change reign, with tenure or anything else? GoodDay (talk) 13:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you can use the "reign-type" parameter to define alternate wording. DrKiernan (talk) 14:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Ah hah, thanks. GoodDay (talk) 14:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Ancient Earldoms

One of our recurring problems is that, while numbering peers is traditional and helpful, it creates more problems than it solves when the numbering is itself disputed.

This particularly happens with English Earldoms before there was a Parliament, and with the seven ancient Socts Earldoms: the numbering varies because sources differ on the date of creation, and so on which members of the family were Earls. On WT:PEER, this has come up with Earl of Surrey. In part this is because the 11th century is poorly documented, but much of it is Victorian efforts to make our family, or our county, go back to the Conqueror, when it doesn't.

Should we amend to remove the numbers for these Earldoms? It's largely been done for the Scots anyway. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm in broad philosophical agreement, but practically speaking, it makes disambiguation for, e.g., the 4 Earls of Arundel and Sussex named William de Albini or d'Aubigny rather more clunky. Choess (talk) 23:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
And the four William de Warennes, earls of Surrey. Doesn't seem like a practical proposal. Malleus Fatuorum 23:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
I prefer to say "Williams de Warenne". Otherwise, why not "Earl of Surreys"? —Tamfang (talk) 20:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
The peerage number system is completely add odds with the needs of the articles you talk about, besides being complete anachronistic nonsense. The Scottish "earls" (they are not actually earls save by modern convention) are not named in this way anyway, and never have been, with the exception of Sutherland (and here it's problematic too since Sutherland is so poorly recorded that we don't know how many of the Kenneths and Williams of the 13th/14th century are duplicates or separate people); but the English ones are. For Scotland no pre-13th century "earldom" is attested well enough to confidently decide a number for them like this, and most modern historians will entitle them as "Joe I" or "Joe II"; so it'd be ludicrous to move them to such names. Anyway, even though England is a better recorded, we have the same problem in some places. I.e. Ranulf le Meschin, 3rd Earl of Chester is no longer thought to be "3rd earl" (nor his predecessors 2nd and 1sr), owing to realization of Gerbod the Fleming's existence: he could be renamed Ranulf I, Earl of Chester or just Ranulf le Meschin (this works for Chester earls, who all have nicknames, but not others). You have to work out where you draw the line. The modern peerage people have this "creation" concept--which I've never quite figured out--which is supposed to reset numbering, but it is a completely foreign concept to the era and its application to English earls of this period could lead to much contradictory numberings ... i.e. Ranulf le Meschin would actually be Ranulf, 1st Earl of Chester if this was applied, and indeed many other earls would be since the English earldoms were often treated more like offices than hereditary titles in early Norman England. But this is a problem around the edges, and probably the system can be tolerated for disambiguation purposes: I would prefer to avoid it when not necessary however and not have crap like "1st Earl of Lincoln" when there is only one holder or when it was a "creation" just a few years after the last holder. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps an alternative might be to name the articles something like William de Warenne (1119–1148)? I've found the various creations to be very confusing in the past, particularly with Ranulf, and it does seem rather arbitrary. The various 6th vs 7th earl claims and so on can then be discussed in the article if they're important. Malleus Fatuorum 02:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm. On aesthetic grounds, I prefer to keep that kind of disambiguation as a last resort. (Not to mention the uncertainty of those dates for many of the noblemen in question.) I don't think there's anything wrong with the kind of disambiguation PMAnderson and Deacon are proposing, I just don't want to completely foreclose the possibility of using 1st, 2nd, 3rd disambiguation for some of the ancient earls for whom it's the most straightforward option. Choess (talk) 03:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
The ODNB seems to be quite happy with that naming, why aren't you? Malleus Fatuorum 03:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Choess that there is no problem with 1st, 2nd, 3rd when the numbering is certain and necessary. I don't think dates are a particulars good idea (ODNB gives them for everybody, but they are not part of the title; they don't require unique titles): Dates of birth for 11th century non-royals are usually unknown, and dates of death often are; so there are often several sets of dates (all of them reasonable and modern conjectures) for the same man. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
So how do you propose dealing with the first, second ... creation nonsense? Malleus Fatuorum 04:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Creations are not nonsense in England (or Ireland); each grant to someone who is not heir to the earldom is a new creation (grants to heirs are often restorations; but the remainder matters). I suspect they are not actually nonsense in Scotland, aside from some questions of fake genealogy, although the possibility of a voluntary transfer with the consent of the Crown makes the definition a little fuzzy.)
But, when we can possibly avoid it, we don't use creations for titles; so it rarely matters. Also most of the Earls for which this is a problem are "first creation" anyway; whether a mormaership was "created" is not a problem we really have to solve. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

@PMA, creations are a nonsense for the period you specified. An earl is England is more a job than a title, and indeed the precise titles of earldoms are rarely mentioned in sources. Earls are not numbered in the modern peerage way, and there is thus no room for reseting numbering except in the general way that people are numbered by descent independently of a title. In any case the king appoints successors for earldoms either way. And forget about your Scotland suspicions too. There is no similarity between the Scottish position and the English one, except their names in modern sources. A Scottish earl is generally the ruler of a sub-"state" (chieftancy may be better) and there is no evidence the king had any natural right to appoint a mormaer in this period. Before the 14th century no existing earldom is ever given to a new dynasty by the king (though new earldoms do come into existence). The Scottish mormaer is more like a French territorial count than an English earl or German graf.

@Malleus, William I de Warrene, Earl of Surrey and the like would work too: indeed, ODNB offers that as an alternative. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 09:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

For the period before Edward I, at the least, the more normal usage in prosopography is to use the construction "William I de Warrene", "William II de Warrrene", or just with no numbering system whatsoever. That's certainly an option. And I have to agree with Deacon to some extent here - unless we pick one authority and stick with their numbering system for 1st, 2nd, 3rd Earl etc, we're likely to run into this issue more and more. The simplest method would be to use death dates, and that's a method allowed by Wikipedia policy. The least favored option by me is the current system for say before 1300 or 1400, when grants become easier to disentangle. Or we can go with the CP numbering system or some other authority, but we need to recognize that there are competing numbering systems. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
For England, the beginning of Parliamentary writs around 1265 seems a reasonable line. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
  • @Malleus (ec): Agreed; it's more a job than a title - although it becomes a sinecure not long after the Conquest. But in a feudal society it's a lifetime job unless the king quarrels with you (and that risk lasts down through the seventeenth century), and it is inherited. So much for England.
I agree that Scotland is different; but a label of "first creation" to distinguish the ancient lords of Atholl from the present Earl and Duke of Atholl is a harmless convention. In any case, those articles aren't 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Earl now. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I think this problem mainly arises for the de Warenne family. I suspect that there are no many cases where there is a conflict between sources on numbering; perhaps this is one that needs to be sorted out by particular cases - perhaps by moving articles to a form without the perage title in the article title, or even leaving behind a dab page (explainign the conflict over numbering rather than a redirect. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:03, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Duke of Wellington

Is primary usage here the title, or the Iron Duke?

This has been raised here; I think the proposed solution (to move the title to Dukedom of Wellington) is unnecessary, but can we consider some solution as Duke of Wellington (title), for cases like this, where one holder of a peerage is much better known than all the others and the peerage itself, put together? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Fully agree. We just need to agree an accepted form of disambiguation such as "Dukes of Foo", "Duke of Foo (title)" or "Duke of Foo (disambiguation)". --Bermicourt (talk) 16:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't see how there can be the slightest doubt about what the primary topic is in this case - the search term "Duke of Wellington" should most definitely take readers to the article on the first Duke, there's no justification at all for leaving the minority-interest article on the Dukedom and its various holders at that title. No strong opinion about which of the proposed alternative titles should be used instead ("Dukedom..." would best indicate what the article is about, but "Duke... (title)" would be more consistent with the other "Duke of..." articles).--Kotniski (talk) 07:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I would favour Duke of Wellington and Dukedom of Wellington. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I like "Dukes"; every title article does list multiple bearers. But that implies moving several hundred articles for consistency, so let's go with "Duke...(title)" as the least drastic change. —Tamfang (talk) 06:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Duke of Wellington (for the victor at Waterloo), and Dukes of Wellington (for his family) seem a tad close for two quite different articles. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The issues for Duke of Marlborough are similar, so I have opened a move discussion here Kauffner (talk) 11:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Consorts: Married or maiden name?

Should a consort be put under her married name, her maiden name, or some combination thereof? The issue has come up in several current page move discussions:

I think an article should be named however the person is/was best known. However, in ancestry tables, I think the maiden name is better (it may require piping to do that). --Auntof6 (talk) 20:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Please look at similiar cases such as Talk:Margaret of Burgundy, Duchess of Bavaria, Talk:Mary of Austria, Queen of Hungary and Talk:Maria of Austria, Holy Roman Empress and many other articles, where moves like these have been discussed over and over again. We need to establish a rule for consorts that share maiden names with other people? --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 23:24, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
So your first choice is the maiden name, and if that isn't suitable for whatever reason, you support a maiden-and-married double name? Is there any reference that follows this style? I fear that it is creating a set of names in a style that is unique to Wiki. In addition, a focus on maiden names at the expense of common names is a style more suitable for a genealogical resource than for an encyclopedia. Kauffner (talk) 10:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
The principle stated in the guideline is that we use the name by which the person is (or is expected to be) best known. In practice there are probably more cases where the maiden name is used, partly because there are some people who are under the impression that "that's the rule", but there's no reason it has to be that way when it goes against usage.--Kotniski (talk) 11:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I would avoid using a maiden surname with a married title. But epithets are not surnames, and are so used: consider Isabeau of Bavaria, Queen of France. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Her article title is Isabeau of Bavaria. We don't have even have a redirect for Isabeau of Bavaria, Queen of France. Kauffner (talk) 01:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

A consort should be put under the most common name. That often happens to be the maiden name. Who would really want to see Catherine of Aragon and Anne Boleyn under Queen Catherine of England and Queen Anne of England, two ambigious and uncommon titles? Who would want to see Marie de' Medici under Queen Marie of France, Elizabeth of Bosnia under Queen Elizabeth of Hungary, etc?

Sometimes the maiden name is the most common name, yet it's ambigious enough to require disambiguation. In that case, the combination of the most common name (the maiden name) and a disambiguator (the marital title) is naturally a much better option than using only the marital title which is not only uncommon but also often ambigious because consorts have no ordinals.

Yet sometimes, the marital name is the most common one. That is the case with Elizabeth of Bohemia, Mary of Austria, Queen of Hungary (whose most common name is Mary of Hungary and whose article should be titled Mary of Hungary (governor) because of the ambiguity of her common name) and a few others.

I don't get what all the fuss is about. Isn't it simple? Use the most common name where possible. Where it is not, use it with a disambiguator. Surtsicna (talk) 18:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

You talk common name, but it seems that you can almost always find a reason not to use the married name. "Mary of Austria" is a maiden name. Her married name would be Queen Mary of Hungary. Kauffner (talk) 01:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't think you quite understand the purpose of the convention. The maiden name is normally the same as the common name, simply because that is how written sources normally disambiguate between queen consorts - who tend to have a small range of first names and cannot be disambiguated by a numeral as monarchs can. Deb (talk) 07:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
If a woman never did anything notable as consort, then she'll be known by her maiden name. What kind of source are you looking at? Not an encyclopedia, that's for sure. Does Complete Peerage do it that way? Kauffner (talk) 10:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
It is impossible to predict how a person will be known. What counts as "notable"? Isabella of France did a lot of notable stuff as Queen of England - being a regent, for example. Yet all the sources call her Isabella of France, not Isabella of England. We are looking first and foremost for biographies of the subject. Anyway, I don't think you understood my point about common name (which most often, but not always, happens to be the maiden name). Surtsicna (talk) 22:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Oic. You put the title under the maiden because you don't know how to figure out which name is more notable. It's a big mystery, isn't it? Kauffner (talk) 02:57, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
It seems odd to refer to a name as being "notable". What exactly do you mean by that? Deb (talk) 18:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't quite agree. The best name for an article is not always the common name. Sometimes the common name (eg. Princess Diana) is either wrong or unhelpful. But in most of the cases you've mentioned above, you have explained it pretty well. Deb (talk) 20:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, of course, if the common name is factually correct, we should not use it. Surtsicna (talk) 22:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Application to non-royals and non-nobles

Royalty and nobility are a question of legal fact. I suppose the rules in this article are not to be applied for those who are not royal nor noble. This is the case for all living members of the Habsburg family, for example. --peyerk (talk) 21:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Counterexample: Emperor Norton. If there's significant sourcing that establishes a certain Habsburg is called "Archduke So-and-So," we should document that; if not, not. If people's use of that name runs counter to Austrian law and tender republican sensibilities, well, too bad for them. Choess (talk) 04:28, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
This is actually not a matter of "tender republican sensibilities". Austrians are extremely attached to titles and to authority. The entire French dynasty had to be killed during the French revolution to prevent the monarchy from returning very soon. (But the idea of a monarchy was still rooted in the population, and they soon got a dynasty of Napoleons that also had to be overturned.) In the 20th century it had become unthinkable that a republic would besmirch itself in this way at its birth, and in fact such an atrocity might have torn it apart. The Habsburg law and the abolishment of titles of nobility were the best substitute available, but unfortunately not sufficient against the Habsburgs' apparent long-term strategy:
  • Otto von Habsburg, the eldest son of the last king, in 1961 gave the guarantee required by the Habsburg law in order to get a normal Austrian passport. (He had one that said it was valid for all countries but Austria.) But in apparent contradiction to his declaration he remained head of the House of Habsburg. He became a member of the European Parliament (for Germany) and was extremely active in the extension of the European Union to Eastern European countries – many of which were countries of the former Habsburg empire.
  • Karl Habsburg-Lothringen, the eldest son of Otto von Habsburg (after 5 daughters), moved to Austria as a student. It is not known whether he had to make a similar declaration. In any case he side-stepped any issues related to the Habsburg law by becoming a member of the European Parliament for Austria. When he got involved in a financial scandal, he left politics – presumably to protect the reputation of his family.
  • de:Ulrich Habsburg-Lothringen, a descendant of Leopold II, wants to run for President of Austria on a Green party ticket. This is a wedge for abolishing the Habsburg law by testing whether it is consistent with European Union law. If he is allowed to run, one can expect a respectable result due to the unusual, populist combination of left- and right-wing interests.
The situation is very much analogous to the Austrians' relation to Nazism. Unlike Germany they have a law that outlaws it directly, the Verbotsgesetz. Yet the FPÖ is the strongest party in Austria. It uses Nazi symbolism and Nazi language to the full extent to which they can get away with it (e.g. I received Stürmer-style election propaganda for the Vienna mayor elections), and its individual politicians regularly ask for the abolishment of the Verbotsgesetz, do not vote for removing honorary citizenship of Hitler, etc.
In other words, the Austrian state is unstable. It is under constant pressure to become another Nazi dictatorship (see Waldheim Affair, and there are similar tendencies in Hungary, e.g. see this). And it is under similar, though weaker, pressure to become a monarchy. In this situation it's unconscionable to push monarchist claims by using abolished Habsburg titles, and in fact that is not general usage in English sources. Hans Adler 07:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
I disagree partly but this is not the point. I simply want to know if these naming conventions are applicable to royals and nobles only. If this is not the case, these conventions are a mere waste of characters because any person goes under their terms regardless their royal or noble nature. If the contrary, we must carefully consider the rules that make a person royal or noble.
(Hungary under pressure to become a monarchy? Needs sources to discuss.
--peyerk (talk) 09:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
The guideline does give some advice on what to do about "pretenders" to royal and noble titles (it more or less says to follow English usage, which is what we would do anyway if they weren't subject to this guideline).--Kotniski (talk) 09:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Habsburgs are not "pretenders", they do not use titles themselves. It is some fairy-tale-nostalgy-monarchysts in the Wikipedia who use these titles. On the other hand, "English usage" is far from being a clear definition. Wikipedia is not about common sense and popular fallacy, rather it is about established knowledge. So determining "English usage" is not simply a googles search. --peyerk (talk) 17:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
There is no distinction in NCROY made between ‘reigning’ and ‘non reigning’ royalty, non reigning royalty are known by and given titles regularly in books, media sources and so on. If they weren’t royalty they would not get any coverage and wouldn’t be notable enough for a Wikipedia article. - dwc lr (talk) 15:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I like the Habsburgs well enough and I think Otto would have made a fine head of state (certainly better than Waldheim). But they are not in fact regnant and their articles should not be titled as if they were. The titles that were being used represented somebody's genealogical fantasy. Kauffner (talk) 07:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Titles for them can actually be sourced, in some cases "non reigning" royalty are only known by titles. - dwc lr (talk) 15:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
You must know that that the non-titled versions can be sourced as well. The sources for the titles are genealogical works, Almanach de Gotha and similar material. The non-titled forms can be found in press reports. Kauffner (talk) 15:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Actually a lot of press reports I see generally use titles so it is not restricted to genealogical works. - dwc lr (talk) 15:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The convention seems to be that pretenders to royal titles are not given their titles, but pretenders to aristocratic titles are given them. It is claimed that this is the normal convention in English. Whether this convention is accurate or helpful may require clarifiction and discussion. PatGallacher (talk) 15:43, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Mary Boleyn

Was Mary Boleyn ever styled Lady Mary Stafford? Did her father's elevation to the rank of an earl affect make her Lady Mary Carey or did she remain Mary, Lady Carey? Please see the article Mary Boleyn. Surtsicna (talk) 12:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

She is called Lady Mary Stafford here. I believe the question to be largely anachronistic anyway; the distinction is a modern (i.e. eighteenth-century) convention, retrojected on the Tudors, who normally used "Lady Mary" (as opposed to "Lady Greystoke") of royalty. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Lists of spouses

This has been troubling me for some time and this page seems to be the only place where one can raise attention. I am talking about a large number of pointless articles created by User:Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy, such as, for example, List of consorts of Schwarzburg. Please notice that we don't even have a List of rulers of Schwarzburg while we do have a list of their spouses. We only have articles about a few of those men and even fewer articles about their wives. The list serves no purpose but it's hardly the only such list. See Category:Lists of countesses, Category:Lists of duchesses, Category:Lists of princesses, etc. Those categories are full of such articles. But it gets sillier: we have lists of wives of men who held a courtesy title (Princess of Orange, Princess of Girona, Princess of Portugal, Princess Royal of Portugal, etc)! These lists give undue weight to the importance of these women, leading the reader to believe that their authority was greater than it really was; how much authority did the Countess of Foix have? It's even worse when these lists are more detailed than the lists of the actual rulers (see Count of Flanders and Countess of Flanders) or when the list mixes suo iure female holders with wives of male holders (see Princess of Portugal). I believe it's gone way too far. What do you think? Surtsicna (talk) 11:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Up to a point, I agree. Lists became semi-redundant when categories were introduced (a long time ago now) but they can be useful in some cases, and they have the added advantage of stopping articles getting clogged up with a mass of category references. So I tend to live and let live, unless the list is very short and/or incomplete. Deb (talk) 11:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
These lists are either short or incomplete, simply because all of these women were either not notable at all or not notable for being wives of minor rulers. Surtsicna (talk) 12:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
You don't know even half of this problem. There was a huge discussion about this already: WP:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_consorts_of_X. The relevant guidelines are WP:NOTDIRECTORY (Wikipedia articles are not Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as...persons.) and WP:NOTINHERITED (Inherited notability alone is not necessarily enough notability.). This comment is pretty brutal. The closer thought the consort lists should be merged with the corresponding titleholder lists. I'm not volunteering. Kauffner (talk) 14:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
There's something to be said for that idea. I had a look at some of the lists and they didn't seem to be incomplete - but any that are should be deleted. (Point me to an appropriate article name and I'll nominate it.) If the individuals don't have their own articles, however, that in itself is a reason for them to be included in a list rather than a category. Deb (talk) 17:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, first thing first, List of consorts of Schwarzburg is itself incomplete. So are List of consorts of Montpensier, List of consorts of Lippe, List of Rhenish consorts, etc. Surtsicna (talk) 18:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I personally don't care anymore. You can discuss some of the obscure ones and unimportant ones like List of consorts of Montpensier or List of consorts of Schwarzburg, which I reached a dead end on because there is no corresponding List of rulers of Schwarzburg I could refer to other than info from the German Wiki and geneaological sources. But as for the more notable ones Orleans, Bourbon, Rhenish and many other one, leave them alone, they are important.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 21:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
If any agreement is reached on deleting these articles or not. Rather than deleting the articles, please move them to User:Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy/Sandbox/title.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 21:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Is this a request? Deb (talk) 11:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
No not really. It probably won't be long before someone request it though. Let just wait for that.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 15:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
If you are not going to do anything with the incomplete ones, I will put a Prod warning on them. Deb (talk) 16:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
If any of these are incomplete or missing but exist on German Wiki I am happy to copy and translate them. But not if they then get prodded. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Obviously I won't prod them if someone is working on them. I don't have any strong feelings on this matter, I am just trying to help to resolve it. Deb (talk) 20:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Tatiana von Metternich-Winneburg

I was advised to ask here for the proper English article title for Tatiana von Metternich-Winneburg, perhaps also the lead/her titles, as I am normally not into nobility topics, not even in German, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

sorting by family name or title?

I am wondering whether to sort individuals who hold a title by their family name or by the title. The reason is Category:Flight of the Earls where the first holder of the title is listed as O'Donnell while his son is listed as Earl of Tyrconnell. Thanks --FJS15 (talk) 14:32, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

"British peers are sorted by name of the title rather than surname" WP:NAMESORT. Do I ever know this. Kauffner (talk) 12:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. That would have been the last place I would have looked. --FJS15 (talk) 12:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Canmore

An move discussion here to make Canmore, Alberta, primary usage is involved in arguments that Malcolm III is a member of some Scottish noble family. This decision may be better informed if someone involved knew better, or had read WP:PRIMARYUSAGE. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Svein, King of Norway

There is a dicussion of this man's article title and his status as King at Talk:Svein, King of Norway. If interested please join in the discussion.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 04:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Before anyone starts yawning, you should know this is Sweno from Macbeth. Kauffner (talk) 13:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't think anyone was yawning. This man was a Viking king of Norway, more important than the fact that he was in Macbeth (I've never even seen the play)...Well anyway I wanted to everyone looking on this page. What is the consensus on using paranthesis with the relation of the royal to another royal ie. (son of Cnut the Great), in article titles when their is an alternative of a patronym? Is it like dates in parenthesis?...We don't use it unless there is no other option.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 09:17, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Same person red linked under different names

I keep coming across people who are linked under different names in different articles (sometimes even within a single article) where the links are red. I've been making such links match, even though they are red, so that links to an individual can be found if desired. Does this group have any guidance on which version of a name to pick in a case like this? Occasionally I find an actual article about the person, and I use the article title. I've also looked at WP:NCROY, but I didn't find what I was looking for. If you want an example of what I'm talking about, here is a list of some that need resolving. In particular, look at the research I've put here for the entries on Catherine; in different places, the same person is called Catherine of Lorraine, Catherine of Guise, and Catherine of Mayenne. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

We default to an anglicized name (Margaret, not Margrete) and of, not de or von, "Lord of" is undesirable, unless it is clear English usage (Lord of the Isles); with Mecklenburg, it could be any of a half-dozen titles.
The best thing to do is to find out who is meant (and if it is the same person), and see what English sources call her. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Sometimes I've made the changes to use whichever version of the name is used that most here on Wikipedia (mostly to make less work for myself!). Even if that ends up not being the preferred name, at least they will match and be easier to find if/when someone wants to change them to whatever is preferred. Don't worry, I'm being very careful to make sure the references are for the same person (same birth/death dates, same relatives, etc.). --Auntof6 (talk) 21:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Latin (French, Italian, Spanish) royalty and nobility are difficult because they often have both names and titles, history uses both, and their rules for usage were weakly adhered to and evolving -- much more so than their British, German or Russian counterparts. Catherine de Lorraine is wrong because the Duchy of Lorraine was a sovereign entity, and the titles of a ruler's children are generally translated into English (i.e. "Catherine of Lorraine"). Catherine the daughter of a Duc de Mayenne is more difficult: She descends in male line from some past ruler of Lorraine. But in Lorraine (as in France and Britain) after the first generation from the monarch, the descendants of cadet princes take their territorial designation from the cadet's main appanage, e.g. Princess Eugenie of York (not "of the United Kingdom" nor "Windsor") and Louise Adélaïde d'Orléans (not "Princess" because, although dynasts of France & Lorraine rank as princes/princesses, they did not use that prefix; nor "of France" because they are not children of the King or the Dauphin). Although these cadet descendants held the legal surname "d'Orleans", "of Orleans" is an oft-encountered variant in English translation and should be used when it is more prevalent than the untranslated version). Catherine de Mayenne is difficult because the Ducs de Mayenne were a cadet branch of the House of Guise, which was a cadet branch of the sovereign Dukes of Lorraine. There were many such branches and it was common to refer to their members by any of several suffixes, e.g. "de Guise", "de Mayenne", "de Lorraine-Mayenne", although their legal name in France (where they had become naturalised) was "de Lorraine". We can't impose a single usage in Wikipedia because history did not confine them to a single usage (if no usage predominates in English, I'd use "de Lorraine-Mayenne" for clarity). FactStraight (talk) 20:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm not trying to impose a particular usage, just make references to a given person the same in different places. You have given me an idea, though. Where the person is redlinked but is mentioned in an article on a parent, I could link to the section of the parent's article that mentions him or her. OTOH, that would eliminate the red link that might be helpful in determining that an article might be needed. I'll give that some thought. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
If there are frequent enough redlinks to a person (and you are sure that they are the same person), another answer is to create a stub article, and link all references to it, with appropriate piping, so that you do not alter the text of the articles. If it is an English peer, the form in the article in the article on his peerage is a good starting point (but open it for editting as what appears may be piped. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:00, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Dynasties in the Isles

There seem to be two competing regularization drives about the dynasties of the Anglo-Saxons and points northwest, between X dynasty and House of X. Do we care? Which is preferable? See

The last seems particularly easy, since there was no such person as Wuffing; but we should come up with a general approach. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

We should use what reliable sources use, so the last one should be Wuffingas unless I'm missing something. No idea on the Normans. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Wuffings (as the article text says); we are not written in Anglo-Saxon. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
The most reliable sources use Wuffingas: that's what we should use--though Wiki's dynamic means we'll most likely be stuck with an article that sounds like it is about a mansion filled with very loud dogs. We should always go with ASNC |(Anglo-Saxon Norse and Celtic [studies]) conventions unless there is overwhelming popular usage. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
There's a move request at Talk:Tudor dynasty related to this. Nightw 16:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
No, Deacon, we are intended for lay readers, not for specialists. Any editor who can't be bothered to modernize Anglo-Saxon isn't serving Wikipedia; those who can't explain what they are talking about don't understand it. Aesthetics cuts both ways: better loud hounds than loud flatulent hounds. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:37, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
PMA, you do the 'Pedia and yourself a disservice by drawing this distinction. The "layman" doesn't know "House of Wuffing" from Wuffingas -- he knows neither -- but all the decent sources will call it Wuffingas. It's not more obscure ... your version has an extra morpheme along with an anachronism. So why would you rather the "layman" have "house of Wuffing"? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't. I support Wuffings (or, come to think it, a merge with Kingdom of East Anglia). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
There's also an old move request still open at Talk:Tudor dynasty.--Kotniski (talk) 10:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

"Wuffings" is not in either of the "regularized forms". I suggest "House of Wuffa." A "House of XYZ" article should be about the extended royal family, their genealogy and bios. An "XYZ dynasty" article should be about the historical period when the nation was ruled by the XYZ kings, as in Eighteenth dynasty of Egypt Kauffner (talk) 05:10, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

  • I would regard Wuffingas as better. I do not recollect seeing anything else in modern academic sources. This should refer to all descendatnts (probably in the male line only) of a mythical Wuffa. House of Wuffa is to apply a form used by historians largely for post-1066 kings. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:07, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Some initial information - members of the House of Lords study

I've finally semi-finished my project looking at the naming conventions of articles on peers. I'm also looking at infoboxes to think about bringing in some consistency there as well, but I'll discuss that at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage after I compile some statistics on that.

What I have so far: the project took a long time, so the list I was working from may have changed during the process - this may mean that the number is not a comprehensive number for various reasons - I was more interested in getting statistics and looking for outliaders.

797 peers, 685 of them are at their title, 112 of them are not. So that is 85.95% and 14.05%, respectively.

Some impressions. If you are a sport figure or entertainment industry (including popular authors) figure, it is more likely that Wikipedia will not use your title. If you are more famous for any reason at all, it is more likely that Wikipedia will not use your title. This is particularly true if you are famous outside the UK, even for politics. There appears to be a rough (but only rough) rule that the more recent your peerage, the less likely we are to use your title. If you don't use your title professionally, we are less likely to use your title. If you are a politician currently working at the EU or UN in some capacity, we are less likely to use your title.

I have my own opinions, which on the spectrum that I have seen around here, tend to be on the side of using titles more frequently, but even leaving those aside, there appear to be several which are outliers/errors even under our current loose consensus about how to do this. An example would be Lord Mandelson, who is almost universally known now as a Lord.

I'm going to keep plugging away at my studies, categorizing the non-titled Lords by field of work, etc., in an attempt to come up with a more precise empirical way to describe what actual practice is these days.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

It seems that Barony of Seabegs (Scottish barony, 15th century creation) is currently for sale. So is it possible that we will be looking at an article title of, “Jimmy Wales, Baron of Seabegs and Lord of the Farther Domains", or something of that kind? Kauffner (talk) 02:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Ha. Well, I'm talking about Members of the House of Lords, not about these funny baronies that aren't even peerages.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
"An example would be Lord Mandelson, who is almost universally known now as a Lord." You mean Peter Mandelson, who only last month got 55 mentions as "Lord Mandelson"[3], and 111 (or exactly double) as Peter Mandelson[4] (85 of which don't even use the word "Lord"[5]) (note that all three searches include both English language and non English language sources). Claiming that he is "almost universally known as a lord" seems to be a bit of an exaggeration. Fram (talk) 11:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I was wondering about that one. I suspect that it's only the news media who refer to him as Lord Mandelson. He is still generally better known as Peter Mandelson. Your average person wouldn't think of calling him "Lord". Deb (talk) 11:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I was mistaken. I was working from memory of recent news stories, and didn't do a google check myself. Sorry about that, bad example.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:28, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
No problem. Fram (talk) 06:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Google is useful, but I have a problem with the overwhelming priority given on Wikipedia to what "the average person" calls something. The average person is, almost by definition, not an expert in most fields and not always the best judge of what the correct title or name is. That's why we get the discrepancy that Jimbo has highlighted. We should focus on "authoritative sources", not just in choosing individual article names, but in identifying conventions that provide consistency. E.g. if the majority of peers are called by their title, then even modern ones should be unless authoritative sources (not journalists, who are not experts) turn overwhelmingly away from titles. --Bermicourt (talk) 11:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
It's refreshing to find someone who is not completely sold on the "common name" fixation. However, I would not propose the use of a name that is incorrect (as in the case of "Princess Diana"). I was really meaning the average British person; I think it's a little dangerous for people from an environment where Mandelson's name is not in everyday use (and I say this with the greatest respect for Americans) to pronounce on how the article about him is best named. Deb (talk) 10:30, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
For whatever it is worth, I agree with you both. My view is that all the articles on peers should follow exactly the same naming convention, with the full title included in the article title. The current levels of inconsistency are annoying.
However, I do acknowledge that in my campaign that we do that, we do have to overcome some valid (if ultimately mistaken) objections.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
The main objection being, I think (though expressed differently by different objectors), that many or most of these people are not primarily notable for being peers, and it therefore seems weird to make them follow a consistent naming convention for peers rather than the consistent naming convention for people in their actual field of notability. Which - whatever the field - is going to be basically "use common name" (with a strong preference for forename+surname forms).--Kotniski (talk) 16:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
The "'common name' fixation" is ultimately about reflecting in our article titles how topics are actually most commonly named in reliable sources (accommodating for disambiguation as well as possible) as opposed to reflecting how some editors think names should be used, based on some standard other than common usage in reliable sources. Often the two approaches result in the same name; in those cases the difference is moot, of course. But when there is a difference, trying to follow some standard other than usage in reliable sources is a never-ending source of dispute and consternation. Reducing conflict and consternation is why I, for one, support consistently naming our articles in accordance with common usage, be they peers, any other people, places, animals, plants (the only category I know of in which the "some other standard" approach dominates, largely because scientists have developed a comprehensive and well known taxonomy - but that's true for animals too, and it's not followed), TV show and episode names, films, books, etc.

More to the point, I fail to see much value in compiling these statistics for any category of articles. When a topic has a single obvious name commonly used in reliable sources, that's what should be the title of that article, period, regardless of how other similar articles are named. Only if there is a conflict with other uses of that name might we need to look at how other similar articles are disambiguated in order to decide how to disambiguate. If sometimes we do it the other way around (allow following a convention to trump the name indicated by looking at common usage in reliable sources), then how do we decide in which cases to prioritize one, while in others give higher precedence the other? Toss a coin? Indeed, what results is the WP equivalent of coin tossing - WP:RM discussions replete with WP:JDLI "arguments" - unnecessary and pointless conflict, debate, and consternation, no more predictable in outcome than a coin toss, all because some insist on using some name which they believe is more "correct" than the name most commonly used in reliable sources. To what end? --Born2cycle (talk) 17:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

To be clear, the research and statistics on naming conventions was a small part of a much larger job I did relating to Infoboxes. There's good reason to look at how we are using those, so that we can think about how to be more consistent and useful to the reader.
But even for naming conventions, I think it's useful to have a big picture view, because what we do far too often is case-by-case examples without consistency from precedent. I think the best way to avoid coin tossing is to have a clear idea of when we deviate from a standard, and why.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree the survey is useful for Infobox consistency. I also agree with your last statement, but I suspect we're thinking of different standards, which could be:
  1. The name most commonly used in reliable sources, or
  2. The convention used by similar articles.
Again, when these two standards indicate the same name, as is often the case, the distinction is moot. Let's say it's true for 80% of the cases. That is, for 80% of the articles in a given category (like peers, or TV episodes, or U.S. cities), the convention used for that category indicates a title that is also the title most commonly used in reliable sources. Thus, for that group of titles, both (1) and (2) are standards that are followed by 80% of the articles. What's interesting to look at, then, is the other 20% for which the two "standards" indicate different titles. Perhaps one of those articles uses the most common name rather than the name indicated by the convention. Is that consistency with (1), or a deviation from (2)? How one answers that question is the coin toss to which I refer above, and the only way I can see to avoid it is by prioritizing one over the other.

It seems to me that much more often than not (the main exceptions being plants and some U.S. cities) we title articles by looking at specific naming conventions only when there is no obvious name commonly used in reliable sources available for use. I have no problem with following naming conventions in those cases. My issue is with insisting on following a naming convention even when it indicates an available name (not used by any other article in WP) different from that obviously used in reliable sources to refer to that topic, because that's deviating from what is arguably the dominant standard in titling WP articles, in favor of some other standard. I don't see how we could ever be clear on when it's okay to deviate from that standard (1), while consistently deviating from (2) in order to be consistent with (1) is clear. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:07, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Interesting case

See the talk page for Lord Mackay. The page has been moved from the usual 'Baron' title to this one, on the grounds that it is better known. Rather than simply revert, I thought it interesting enough to bring forward to a wider audience for reflection.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The question appears to be whether law lords should not be bound by our general conventions for barons; mingled slightly with the contention that Scottish Lord Advocates are different. Either would be worth considering. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Pretenders, again

See Talk:Louis Alphonse, Duke of Anjou#Requested move: Louis Alphonse, Duke of Anjou --> Louis Alphonse de Bourbon

We call the legitimist pretender to the French crown Duke of Anjou, by analogy with Henry, Count of Chambord. But is this sound? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The spike-helmeted beast

Editors may be interested in this move request, which would produce Kaiser Wilhelm II. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Kingdom of Sardinia

If the interest of editors has not already been exhausted by the above discussions, they may also want to look at the latest RfC at Talk:Kingdom of Sardinia.--Kotniski (talk) 11:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Pretenders

Pretenders are hot, with disputes arising here, here, and here. Here what the guideline currently says:

Do not apply an ordinal in an article title for a pretender, i.e., someone who has not reigned; instead call them what independent secondary sources in English call them. For example, use Louis Alphonse, Duke of Anjou, not Louis XX, for the legitimist pretender to the French throne. Such a person may however be referred to by a title, for example, Victor Emmanuel, Prince of Naples for the last Italian Crown Prince. But he should not have his article titled Victor Emmanuel IV even though Italian royalists call him so. (Such a name should redirect to the article.)

First of all, given name only is royal style, and the RS generally gives Louis Alphonse with a surname. This section could be interpreted as endorsing a "given name-comma-title" format for pretenders, a style which would appear to be peculiar to Wikipedia. Aside from that, I would like to see this section rewritten along the lines of, "For pretenders who are not legally recognized as royals or nobles, see WP:MOSBIO." Remember, the title of this guideline is Naming conventions (royalty and nobility). Thus, it should not provide guidance regarding those who are neither royal nor noble. Of course, follow the independent secondary sources is the same guidance that MOSBIO gives. But all the same, I'd like to see the lines of jurisdiction clarified. Kauffner (talk) 09:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem here is that most of the knowledgeable information that has been and is written about members of deposed dynasties doesn't treat them as if they are "neither royal nor noble". So you are trying to use Wikipedia to effect a change in the way the real world writes about them. That's not Wikipedia's function, and I object to re-writing this guideline to do no more than refer such issues to WP:MOSBIO, which is an abdication of this workpage's responsibility. The quote you give above from Point #3 of the "Royals with a substantive title" section of this guideline for naming articles on these people is correct except for call them what independent secondary sources in English call them, which was inserted, without a word of discussion, into the guideline barely two months ago. FactStraight (talk) 14:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Oppose as most importantly the current guideline is neutral, titles are used by and attributed to royals of non reigning families. The comma system is not invented by Wikipedia if you consult any genealogical work a substantive title will go after the name. I rememberer a Request Move at the Prince of Hanover, to this day no one has provided a reference for what his legal name is, yet they wanted to move to what they said it was. The reality is they don't have a clue. For instance Kauffner you removed the the title Grand Duchess of Russia form Maria Vladimirovna, and now you seem to be stating categorically by the way you made the lead that her legal name is Maria Vladimirovna Romanova now what is your reference that exact form is her correct legal name? - dwc lr (talk) 14:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Oppose, ==Move to Jean d'Orléans==

New York Times gives him as "Jean d'Orléans". So does Paris Match here and here. No one else is calling him "Prince Jean, Duke of Vendôme". Given name only is royal style and every RS is including a surname. Kauffner (talk) 12:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

And in all three it gives his ducal title which you removed..... - dwc lr (talk) 14:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
You must know why. It is not part of the most common version of his name, nor is it a legally recognized title of nobility. Paris Match introduces him as "Jean d'Orléans" and gives "duc de Vendôme" in the following sentence. Kauffner (talk) 02:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
This sounds like cherry-picking based on IDONTLIKEIT. If all three references accord him both name and title, on what rationale is one being preferred and the other omitted, since we give both for peers? Where is it stated that "given name only is royal style"? Since when are WP bios supposed to be named according to "legal titles"? Why accuse others of making up a naming format ("These are what, titles that you just made up for him?") -- then do exactly that yourself? FactStraight (talk) 14:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose Although I would prefer people be just referred to by their princely title or by their substantive/ducal titles (eg Prince Jean of Orléans OR Jean, Duke of Vendôme) Seven Letters 17:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

These are what, titles that you just made up for him? And you were complaining when I translated the titles used by the French press. Either title you suggest is better than the current title, which is quite artificial -- and in a style that may be unique to Wikipedia. Kauffner (talk) 19:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Those are French descriptions of what he is which you did not translate (d'Orléans). If he is better known as the Duke of Vendôme then there is no need for Orléans. Seven Letters 20:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
What makes you think that he is better known as "duke of Vendôme"? Even if he was, we do not have biography titles in the format "Duke of Foo", not even Duke of Wellington. Kauffner (talk) 01:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
At one point did I claim he was... And you're totally getting it wrong. My statement was about Jean, Duke of Vendôme vs Prince Jean of Orléans. Seven Letters 14:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose There is a hodge-podge of personal preferences attempting to be substituted in here as a new policy based on a single IDONTLIKEIT objection to titles for persons who hail from what are now republics. But the head of the Vladimirovichi has claimed, along with the legacy of the head of the House of Romanov, the right to assume and accord titles within his family since 1924 -- far longer than Wikipedia. According noble-sounding titles to members of the Capetian dynasty is a very old practice that the family has consistently adhered to whether on or off the throne of France -- and which pre-dates modern journalism and encyclopedias but has been reflected in them more often than not, e.g. the last of the male line of Louis XV was known Henry, Count of Chambord by every entity except the French Republic -- including the Encyclopedia Britannica. Every one of the sons of King Louis Philippe I during his reign, and every one of his male-line grandsons after his dynasty had been deposed bears a title granted by the head of the family. Nor have such titles always been "legal" in order to be conferred or publicly recognized, then or now: the basic title for the Legitimist pretender, Duc d'Anjou, derives from a courtesy title accorded Philippe de Bourbon in France prior to his assuming the crown of Spain in 1700. Some titles used by the House of Orléans are legally theirs (Duc d'Orléans), others not (Comte de Paris); Do we really want to posthumously de-title the Prince Henri, Count of Paris, making Wikipedia a laughing stock?. The princely prefix is allowed precisely to prevent a concern you claim to have: confusion that "Duke of Vendôme" is a noble title one would expect to follow French nobiliary rules. It is duly noted that some here object to members of deposed dynasties being accorded extra-legal, noble-sounding titles. Strenuously. But such persons have long been and continue to be accorded such titles in RS. It sounds as though there is a desire to "flip the script" by using the titles of Wikipedia articles to "correct" people's "misperceptions" that members of deposed dynasties are still "royalty", rather than have those article titles reflect the apparent reality -- which is that they are neither referred to popularly nor scholarly as if they were untitled commoners. This guideline reflects the fact that princely prefixes and noble titles are among the best ways for an article title to disambiguate persons who; often share a small pool of first names, sometimes have no agreed-upon last name, are generally referred to, except informally, by a title, and who remain notable enough to continue to be written about in both popular and reliable sources largely because of their royal ancestry and historical eminence. Lastly, people who have in the past and continue to discuss these matters here tend to bring to these issues a knowledge of the history, a rigor concerning the applicable rules, and a familiarity with applicable customs that should continue to be tapped and respected rather than ignored and discouraged, and used to inform Wikipedia's articles touching on these subjects. FactStraight (talk) 14:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Jamie the Saxt'

The discussion at Talk:James I of England#requested move includes what may be novel interpretation of this guideline; comments welcome. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:05, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Although inclined to agree with Septentrionalis's position (though not necessarily his reasoning) in this matter, because this popped up and I read it before seeing the !vote at Talk:James I of England -- as I would have eventually -- I am uncomfortable now casting a !vote in light of canvassing during an ongoing move request. FactStraight (talk) 20:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
This is a neutral - if generally well-informed - locus; this is one post; the posting is transparent; the phrasing is as neutral as I could make it while specifying the issues on which I would like comment (chiefly, does the use of James I of England claim that of England is common usage?) and those who disagree with me on it are welcome to say so, here or there. If enough people do, we should scrap "preemptive disambiguation". Not WP:CANVASSing by the meaning of the guideline. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't see what "novel interpretation of the guideline" refers to; but it's always been quite normal to report such move discussions on this page - I hardly think it can be called canvassing.--Kotniski (talk) 05:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
The novel claim is that we can't use James I of England, because it is (with of England) less common than James VI and I. This has a problem of fact; the difference between the two is both recent and quite small, less than the errors of measurement involved with search engines. More importantly, it has a problem of theory: the most common name for Jamie the Slobberer is James I, but that is obviously ambiguous. Our practice is to disambiguate it by principal state; we could call him James I as primary usage, but how many Scots will that soothe? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Please don't misrepresent the opinions of others. It's clearly stated that "James VI and I" being more common than "James I of England" is a recent change. DrKiernan (talk) 19:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
So what have I misrepresented? James I remains by far the most common name. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
But apparently "James VI and I" is a more common modification of "James I" than "James I of England" is.--Kotniski (talk) 06:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Not really; which one is more common depends on what search you make. More importantly, James VI and I is a different base name than James I - and vastly less common; most anglophones aren't interested in ownership of James Tobacco-bane. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Change of guidance

The move request at Talk:George VI of the United Kingdom#Requested move would remove the preemptive disambiguation from all the British monarchs since William IV. This is a substantial change of guidance, but may be reasonable. Please comment there.

In addition, if we do that, do we want to remove the disambiguation from, say, Edward III of England? Edward III is equally unambiguous, and redirects to it. Some would call this anglocentric, however. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:31, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Seyed

Seyed is an originally Arabic title and many names starts with this word. For example Seyed Ali Khamenei, leader of Iran. Khamenei almost is known with the name of Seyed Ali Khamenei in Iran or its media. Here is some questions:

  1. I think Seyed is a honorific title and should not be used. Is it true?
  2. If it's true, can we use this prefix in the article's title of the people whose their name with Seyed is most prevalent?
  3. How we can find out what name is more prevalent? Media, books, Google search or what?
  4. If the majority of the users vote in a RM (Requested Moves) to an opposite name of the prevalent one (which we have found out from the above sources), what will be the result? It should move or keep according to the sources?

Mehran Debate 08:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Isn't there anybody to discuss about it?? Mehran Debate 07:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
In reply I would say:
  1. If it is an honorific, like "Mister" or "Master", then per MOS:HONORIFICS it should not be included in the article title but can be discussed in the article. It is included in the lead sentence and infobox, but is optional after that. The style employed in the article should either follow the style chosen by the first contributor or the style chosen by consensus on the article talk page. If there is no consensus and an article generally omits it, then it should be omitted. If there is no consensus and an article includes it, then it may be added.
  2. In order for the honorific to be included in the title it must be the overwhelmingly commonest form of the name. If the difference between the two forms is marginal, or as in the case of Khamenei, his name is used in English-language sources without the honorific more often than it is, then it should be omitted. Generally, article titles should use the commonest form of the name in English; the commonest form in Farsi should not determine the name of the page.
  3. Books, media, google, any information that assists in determining the commonest form.
  4. Requested moves are not votes, they are discussions. A majority vote on one talk page does not overturn a long-established guideline with wide acceptance. The article title should keep to the sources as closely as possible, allowing for disambiguation where necessary. DrKiernan (talk) 08:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your attention. Mehran Debate 08:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Stewart or Stuart?

Readers of this page may be interested in the move request at Talk:House_of_Stewart#Move_the_article_back. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Risen from the dead

Guess what's back? See Talk:James_I_of_England#Compromise_Suggestion_to_Requested_Move:_James_VI_and_I. There was another proposal in the meantime (or maybe two) which also did not receove consensus and was not mentioned here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Wife of a life Baron

Someone moved Mary Wilson, Lady Wilson of Rievaulx to Mary Wilson, Baroness Wilson of Rievaulx, citing this guideline. It's now being proposed that it be moved back. Assuming we agree it should be "Lady" in this case (or even if we don't), can we clarify the guideline as it relates to wives of peers?--Kotniski (talk) 10:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Open RM

Style for 'non-numbered' monarch

I was just wondering why we use the style 'X, King of the Y' for monarchs whose name isn't followed by a number. It would make sense to have John of England instead of John, King of England because the former looks more consistent than the latter. Hot Stop talk-contribs 15:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

There's a lengthy discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)/Archive 22#Monarchs, revisted. DrKiernan (talk) 15:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing it out. I'll take a look Hot Stop talk-contribs 15:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Basically its because forms such as "John of England" are not used in the real world (or are used very rarely) - they would disguise who we are talking about.--Kotniski (talk) 15:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I got about 1/3 of the way through before I gave up trying to read that. But are styles like "Anne, Queen of Great Britain" used? I've never heard her called anything but Queen Anne. Hot Stop talk-contribs 15:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
The reason "Queen Anne" is not a good title for the article is that it is ambiguous. Deb (talk) 19:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
It's not ambiguous to the extent that the title needs to be disambiguated by Wikipedia standards (it's a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC).--Kotniski (talk) 08:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
No, it is not a primary topic. Deb (talk) 12:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I remember now, you refused to be convinced by this before. But there is no-one else called Queen Anne even remotely as commonly as she, and the other common uses (Queen Anne furniture etc.) are all longer phrases which derive from the same queen, providing even more testimony to what the rest of us know already - that Queen Anne virtually always means that Queen Anne.--Kotniski (talk) 13:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't matter where they derive from; they are not the same topic. Deb (talk) 18:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Respectfully, if it's not a primary topic, then why does Queen Anne redirect to it? Alkari (?), 3 November 2011, 19:41 UTC
It's perfectly valid to disagree with the status quo. But really, I don't think you could have a clearer case of primary topic than this one. Take any really famous person - there are going to be other topics named after them, including possibly some quite prominent ones (like John F. Kennedy International Airport) - but that doesn't stop the really famous person from being the primary topic for the name used alone.--Kotniski (talk) 08:08, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I'd prefer her article to be called Queen Anne, too. But she is certainly called Anne, and "Queen of Great Britain" can be thought of as a disambiguator (like the England in Lincoln, England), so the present title is not that bad.--Kotniski (talk) 15:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
It has been a year since that RM proposal... much has changed since... try again? --Born2cycle (talk) 18:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
What has changed since? --Kotniski (talk) 08:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm under the impression that there have been a significant number of WP:NCROY articles moved from predisambiguated titles to common name titles in the last year, no? That's just my impression, but I don't pay a lot of attention to this area. Maybe I'm wrong. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, only a few, that I'm aware of.--Kotniski (talk) 08:08, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Queen Anne can mean any of five Queens of England and three Queens of France, as well as other people; of these, at least one is better known, another more influential than the queen regnant. Is she overwhlemingly more common than the others put together? Hardly, but that's what primary usage means. She3 is 5he most recent of them; but that's presentism. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't make sense to ask "is she more common". What we consider is whether the phrase "Queen Anne" more usually refers to her than to the others. And as inhabitants of the real world, we know that it does, and overwhelmingly so. Anne Boleyn is called Anne Boleyn, not Queen Anne. And of course we base our decisions on present usage, not that of 500 years ago.--Kotniski (talk) 07:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Everyone's got an opinion, but aren't we supposed to go by what reliable sources use? --Bermicourt (talk) 07:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I suppose - are you saying that reliable sources normally use "Queen Anne" to refer to someone other than the woman we all know as Queen Anne? --Kotniski (talk) 11:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Of course they do. The second hit on Google books is a book called Queen Anne: Friend of Pocahontas. It's about Anne of Denmark. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:43, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
But this is a blip - look through the list of results, and you'll see there's a clear majority where the phrase refers to Queen Anne of Britain, just as we would all expect.--Kotniski (talk) 07:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

There is a standard for the naming of monarchs. Here we have an example of a monarch whom some people consider to be a primary topic and others consider not to be. In the absence of consensus, why the determination to move the article name when it already has a perfectly good title? Deb (talk) 12:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The other title would be even better; and I don't think there's any serious doubt that it's a primary topic (by Wikipedia's usual standards); but I'm not aware of any great "determination" to change this title (it would be a slight improvement, that's all). --Kotniski (talk) 17:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I'd be opposed to moving the article to Queen Anne, just like I'm opposed to the article title Queen Victoria. Why? because Queen isn't a given name, but rather a title. GoodDay (talk) 08:34, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
"Prince" and "Princess" aren't given names either, but we have hundreds of articles starting with those terms. DrKiernan (talk) 10:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Princes and princesses, as well as some Lords and Ladies, were specifically excluded (after much discussion) where they are born with the title. Deb (talk) 12:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't follow. Excluded from what? I'm not arguing for a change in the convention or at any particular article title; my comment is specifically and only aimed at GoodDay's argument that we must only use given names. That would be a major change and I don't see that removal of titles has any advantage. DrKiernan (talk) 13:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Excluded from the general rule that titles are not used. Deb (talk) 21:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Queen Anne presents a problem because it can refer to various queens consort. I would prefer "Anne, Queen of Great Britain", because Anne of Great Britain feels too similar to "Anne of Green Gables" (a novel). In other cases we have a standard form, which should always be retained, even of the article itself gets moved to a more "friendly" name. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Tsar/Czar

I know this might not be the proper venue, but a few months back I asked on Tsar's talkpage why we use Tsar and not Czar. I was just curious as I couldn't find an answer elsewhere. Hot Stop talk-contribs 05:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Baudouin of Belgium

How do we handle this article? Should it be Baudouin, King of Belgium or Baudouin, King of the Belgians. GoodDay (talk) 23:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

We should move it back to Baudouin I of Belgium but we can't because of the most recent debate. So what's wrong with leaving it as it is? Deb (talk) 11:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
For the normal reasons - this isn't what he's called. The convention tells us to use Baudouin, King of Belgium; personally I would prefer King Baudouin of Belgium or King Baudouin; anyway, any of these options (or Baudouin, King of the Belgians) would be preferable to what we have now.--Kotniski (talk) 11:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
(Formal move request now opened, by the way.)--Kotniski (talk) 11:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Infante

A rule needs to be made for the Spanish and Portuguese title of Infante. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 02:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

RFC – WP title decision practice

Over the past several months there has been contentious debate over aspects of WP:Article Titles policy. That contentiousness has led to efforts to improve the overall effectiveness of the policy and associated processes. An RFC entitled: Wikipedia talk:Article titles/RFC-Article title decision practice has been initiated to assess the communities’ understanding of our title decision making policy. As a project that has created or influenced subject specific naming conventions, participants in this project are encouraged to review and participate in the RFC.--Mike Cline (talk) 17:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Should royals have their names in their native tongues?

WP:SOVEREIGN says that royals should have their names in English or in the way most historians use. This rule led to situations where a list of monarchs is inconsistent, such as with German Emperors, where we can find William I, German Emperor and Wilhelm II, German Emperor. One name in English and the other in German. Another good example is John VI of Portugal (João VI), whose mother was Maria I (not Mary I) and whose children were Pedro I (not Peter I) and Miguel I (not Michael I).

I've seen a few editors claim that anglicized names are preferred because they are easier to pronounce. This would make sense if everyone else, not just royals, had their names in English. We have a Kaiser William I among Albrecht von Roon, Karl Friedrich von Steinmetz and Helmuth von Moltke. Another example would be Charles IV of Spain (Carlos IV), surrounded by Pedro Pablo Abarca de Bolea, Francisco Javier de Balmis and José Moñino y Redondo.

Thus, should royals have their names in their native tongues instead? Jean II of France, Nikolay II of Russia, Carlos III of Spain, Karl VI, Holy Roman Emperor, etc...

I'd like to warn you all that I'm talking about royalty that uses the Latin Alphabet. This discussion does not involve Arab, Chinese, Indian and other royals. Also, in the case of Roman Emperors, names wouldn't be spelled as AVGVSTVS or VITELLIVS, but Augustus and Vitellius, respectively. As they already are, in fact. --Lecen (talk) 16:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Articles should have the name by which their subject is best known in English. Opera hat (talk) 16:30, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree, the current practice of common name in English is the best approach and avoids potential conflict. What are we supposed to do with someone like Charles I of Austria and IV of Hungary (use Karl or Karoly?), Baudouin of Belgium or Boudewijn? Which native language do you choose. - dwc lr (talk) 16:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
If it is "of Austria" then it should be in German. Belgium would be an exception to the rule, mainly discussed and settled on articles related to it. --Lecen (talk) 17:05, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
The common English name, with others as redirects. Dougweller (talk) 17:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  • There has been a long and heated debate over John V of Portugal and John VI of Portugal, which has resulted in them being restored to that format. I think that, having settled that one, we should not reopen it. Some people clearly found the Portuguese name João VI too unfamiliar. I think we may need separate conventions for each country or even each name in each country. For Belgium, so few foreigners know Flemish that the French form is to be preferred. However, whatever the outcome, it is important that rediurects exist for all credible search terms. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Established English-language exonyms only, escept for people who lived beyond the year 1900 by which they all had/have legal names with legally registered spellings which it would inappropriate to translate ever.
My very strongly held views and motives on this are the results of decades of trial and error and etymological research and are clearly expressed on my talk page beginning with the pivotal question what is phonetic empathy?. SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I've read that, and find it an abhorrent philosophy that is culturally hostile. Fortunately, it is merely an opinion, not anything anyone else need be guided by. Alarbus (talk) 07:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Rubbish. It makes a lot of sense unless you like forcing English-speakers to try and learn a myriad different and often unintelligible foreign words for no good reason. We're here to help our readers not confound them. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
This is what I found at WP:SOVEREIGN: "Monarch's first name should be the most common form used in current English works of general reference. Where this cannot be determined, use the conventional anglicized form of the name, as Henry above." My question is whether the subject of the article will always be recognizable under the English version of their name, which I know is why there have to be redirects.Coaster92 (talk) 23:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  • For the most part, yes, names should be their proper names not some anglicised form that are hold-overs from the nineteenth century age of empires. Modern historians are largely using proper names these days and we should sync with that, not with what Britanica did in 1911. Alarbus (talk) 07:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Non one has given any good reason to keep the names in English when it has been causing inconsistency among monarchs' names (some with their names in their native tongues and others in English) and the most serious problem: everyone else has their names kept in their native tongue. Why only monarchs' names are "difficult" to pronounce? --Lecen (talk) 13:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not only monarchs - anyone else whose name is normally anglicized (John the Baptist and so on) will also have it anglicized on Wikipedia.--Kotniski (talk) 13:16, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
That's an exception, not the rule. --Lecen (talk) 13:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
It's not an exception. It follows the rule that we used the name that is most common in English. We do the same for Joan of Arc, Avicenna, Christopher Columbus, Sitting Bull ... it would be possible to sit here and come up with examples all day long. --FormerIP (talk) 13:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
It isn't? Does every German, French, Brazilian, Spanish, Portuguese and Italian politicians, military officers and others have their names in English? --Lecen (talk) 14:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
No, because that is not "the name that is most common in English". Deb (talk) 14:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
I know that. It's precisely what I'm talking about. Having a monarch with an anglicized name surrounded by people with their names in their original tongue makes no sense. It's unnecessarily complicated. --Lecen (talk) 18:05, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
If we changed "Joan of Arc" to "Jeanne d'Arc", most English-speaking people would not be familiar with the title. That is the point. We use what is the most familiar/commonly-used title for English speakers. Deb (talk) 18:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm no talking about everyone, but just royals. But nevermind. --Lecen (talk) 18:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
You're argument is not with us, but with the countless historians who have used Anglicised names for a long time. Part of the reason is that in many cases no-one is sure what name they would have used themselves as the sources are in Latin and also "Pierre of Frenchland" might have been a German or Pole who spoke no French and did not call himself Pierre, but just inherited the territory. There were no English newspapers, the English records of the time were in Latin, etc, etc.. In fact there is no guarantee that, even if Pierre was French, he would have used the modern version of the name. There is a modern trend to try and use (or is that "guess") the original name, but unless it becomes widely accepted, it will just generate inconsistency and confusion. By the way, you will find other languages do the same: William the Conqueror is Wilhelm I. on German Wikipedia, Guillaume le Conquérant on French Wikipedia and Guglielmo I d'Inghilterra on Italian Wikipedia. Who is right? All of them! --Bermicourt (talk) 18:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
The difference is that monarchs are known in histories primarily by their first names, while nearly everyone else is known by their surname (or estate). So in the past historians have translated the first names to the English form, while leaving the untranslatable surnames as they were. This may be increasingly less acceptable now, but as a result of this historical practice English forms of foreign names for monarchs are often still the norm in English-language sources. Wikipedia should reflect this, until it can be shown that a balance of reliable English-language sources supports a change. Opera hat (talk) 02:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

So why does the Portuguese Wikipedia use pt:Isabel II do Reino Unido for HBM? Because the Portuguese will understand it? We do the same thing. JCScaliger (talk) 01:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

If I may interject, why is it you compare this wikipedia to other language ones? Who is to say that they are correct? This discussion is on what the correct thing to do is and it is on this wikipedia. Whatever the other wikipedias use is irrelevant, for their correctness is not credited nor discredited. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 01:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
So you support a double standard, then? JCScaliger (talk) 03:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
It's not exactly a double standard. Our standards on English wikipedia are not project-wide, they are for English wikipedia. We just happen to employ the same standards as most other language wikipedias in this case. And, as you say, it is with good reason. Deb (talk) 12:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Follow the Notability rules. There can be no single rule for all names in the English Wikipedia, and that includes the names of royals. It all depends on how the person is mostly known in the English-speaking world. We are not here to redress some percived injustice about a particular state of affairs, because that would be blatant original work from our part. If a German emperor is historically known in the English world as "Wilhelm", he should be denoted as such in the English Wikipedia. If he is known as "William", then "William" it should be. Search and create. -The Gnome (talk) 10:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Follow reliable sources. I would mostly second what The Gnome has just said. If English language sources tend to use "William" we should use "William". If they also tend to use "Wilhelm II" then we should use "Wilhelm II". If English language sources are inconsistent in using William for one king and Wilhelm for the other then we should be inconsistent too. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Use the name most commonly used in English-language sources. As has been stated above, historical sources are inconsistent, so we should be no more and no less consistent. We are not writers, just editors, so it would be wrong-headed of us to try to establish order among chaos by assigning consistent naming practices where no such consistency exists among our sources. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 13:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Use common names. If we'd always stick with native names, what would happen when we'd get to Henry III of France, who was also King of Poland? Would we call him Henri? Or Henryk? Here's an idea: if 60% or so of an article's sources use a certain name when describing the subject, use that spelling. dci | TALK 02:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Use the common English name. What's the point in having different guidelines according to script used? Why would we apply one naming guideline to monarchs using the Roman alphabet and another (the normal) guideline to monarchs using an eastern script? Nightw 11:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • WP:COMMONNAME exists for a reason; follow it. Whether some random list article is 100% consistence is completely trivial to whether or not people can find the article they're looking for earlier. We cannot possibly expect people not familiar with, say, Spanish to know that "Carlos" = "Charles", and such glosses are actually moving targets anyway, as languages change over time. I have no opinion to express right now on SergeWoodzing's ideas, other than that his "legal name" distinction may be a good argument for not renaming recent people. Saying "follow reliable sources" is essentially meaningless, because reliable sources will differ, depending on whether they are specialist works or generalist ones. There's a whole essay about this now at WP:Specialist style fallacy. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 18:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

(Further comment) -- This is largely about non-British monarchs. The question is what is the common usage in English, and should reflect current practice. I would suggest that the test should relate to the usage of academic historians, and normally to recent ones. Ghits statistics are unlikely to be helpful, as they are liable to pick up a lot of very ancient historians, now out of copyright, whose work is available on websites. Names normally written in non-Roman scripts clearly need to be Romanised, but that hardly takes the argumetn further. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm baffled as to why this discussion is continuing. The question was asked and answered. There appears to be general consensus. Why are we prolonging the argument. Deb (talk) 22:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree. Our approach is to follow the sources. Let's cut the debate and get on with producing and improving articles! --Bermicourt (talk) 08:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Tradition is that nobility, not only royalty, have their names always translated. Unfortunately, specially in America (North & South) it has became an assumption of knowledge to use original language names, no matter how unpronunceable in the speaker’s language. I would vote for native languages. — 189.61.24.117 (talk) 23:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(royalty_and_nobility)/Archive_22&oldid=1138972193"