Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)/Archive 24

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

Pretenders and defunct titles

This guideline seems to give insufficient guidance on the titling of articles about family members of pretenders, as well as claimants to defunct titles. Specifically, this guideline is silent on how to title articles about the children of pretenders who style themselves "Prince" or "Princess," as well as the consorts of pretenders. This came to my attention with the recent death of Princess Maria Teresa of Bourbon-Parma (whose father was the Carlist pretender to the Spanish monarchy, but who is not considered a "princess" by the actual Spanish royal family), and left me wondering if it's consistent with guidelines or consensus that her article is titled "Princess," and if I should propose a move--and, if so, to what? And, as someone noted above in 2018, the guideline's statement, "For claimants to titles which have been suppressed, as with the dukes of Bavaria, follow the general article titling policy," is utterly unhelpful. We have many articles using defunct titles, and no clear guidance on whether or not that is recommended. For example, the Grand Duchy of Tuscany was abolished in 1859, yet the article title for Archduke Sigismund, Grand Duke of Tuscany, born in 1966, uses the defunct title. --DavidK93 (talk) 06:30, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

The reigning king of Spain, Felipe VI, has no problem to recognize the Parmesan title of Princess to the said Marie-Therese. Her grandfather was the last reigning duke, Robert I, Duke of Parma. In matter of fact the spanish king would be overjoyed with happiness, were it so that the Parmesan title of Princess were the only in use in that cadet family. The problem lies in the use of the title Infanta de Espana for Marie-Therese. 89.27.56.156 (talk) 22:22, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
I added clarification that these should not be used for article titles, because although this should be blindingly obvious, some people haven't taken it on board. Pinging SMcCandlish and Smeat75, who have been working on this. Guy (help!) 10:06, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Surely the deciding factor is what reliable sources use, not what governments suppress or think? Bermicourt (talk) 11:29, 21 May 2020 (UnC)
I can give you any number of reliable sources to attest that Germany and Austria, for instance, abolished royal titles, they do not exist any more. it is a fantasy. WP should not be disseminating inaccurate delusions. Smeat75 (talk) 12:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
The specific issue here is that people might label someone as the King of Siam, and list them as a pretender to the throne of Siam, when that person has never claimed to be the King of Siam and does not pursue any such claim. In that case it doesn't matter whether genealogists say they are the heir to the historical throne of Siam, we call them plain old Bob Smith. Any title that is not officially recognised and used by the subject is basically WP:SYN. Guy (help!) 13:44, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you Guy but your clarification has already been altered. I am changing it back to the way you had it. Using these dissolved titles is absurd and misleading, I thought for years that Germany had officially recognized Dukes and Royal Highnesses, but they don't, they are "titles in pretense" as they are called. There are hundreds of articles that do use these fantasy titles, are we going to move them? Just pointing out, Bermicourt, that Guy is an admin.Smeat75 (talk) 12:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
I am not disputing the fact that some countries have abolished titles. However, what governments officially approve or don't approve is given very short shrift elsewhere in Wikipedia. For example, officially Local Nature Reserves are capitalised in the UK, but that hasn't stopped Wikipedia editors voting to decapitalise it, flying in the face of its official government designation. It's a bit of a leap from saying something is not officially recognised to saying its fantasy. If you were born the Duke of Boravia because you were part of a hereditary noble family, the government saying they don't recognise the title doesn't make it suddenly a fantasy. In practice, German nobility have underscored their heritage by incorporating their titles into their surnames. To use another example, we all know that Bono is not Paul Hewson's real name and not officially recognised by the government, but that's his article name because that's what reliable sources call him. We should be going by WP:COMMONNAME not WP:WHATGOVERNMENTSTHINK. And BTW, the fact that someone is an admin, doesn't absolve them of the need to seek consensus and follow WP guidelines. So please revert your last edit in line with WP:BRD and let's try and achieve a consensus on how to deal with this sensibly. Bermicourt (talk) 16:25, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
There is no Duke of Bavaria, the position was abolished. His last name is the German for Duke of Bavaria, yes, but that's not a title, it's his name and it is ridiculous for the article on him here to translate his last name and put a comma in it. I am not going to revert back to the change you made to the guidelines. Smeat75 (talk) 16:43, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
That argument would only work if we only refer to people by their official, legal names, when we don't. Do you object to us referring to Lady Gaga as such on the basis that her stage name is a "fantasy"? It is not our role to determine whether someone is entitled to refer to themselves in a particular way: that is why we follow reliable sources. I happen to think that continuing to use a royal or noble title derived from a country that has abolished such titles is pretty silly, but that's just my opinion, and I can't enforce it on the world. Lots of people have the opposite view, and it is indisputable that many people holding such titles are routinely referred to by others (including mainstream media sources) by those titles. And I do think that calling them "fantasy titles" is going too far: there is clearly a distinction between someone who would legally hold such a title if their state still recognised it and someone who has just decided to assume an invented title. Ultimately, if someone is generally known by reliable sources by a "defunct" title, then it is non-NPOV of us to say "no - we, Wikipedia, the arbiters of what is proper, have decreed that they should not be known as Count John von Smith, but as Mr John Smith". We can obviously point out that their legal name is Mr John Smith, and that their title is unrecognised by whatever state originally granted it, but that's as far as neutrality allows us to go. (And as an aside, being an admin doesn't grant one any special power or authority in content or policy disputes.) Proteus (Talk) 16:10, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Lady Gaga is irrelevant, that doesn't mislead anyone, labeling these people with non existent titles is inaccurate. And where is the evidence that any of these people actually use these fantasy titles? In Austria it is even illegal to do so. I don't think these people make absurd "claims " to be holders of abolished royal positions, others who care about such trivia work out who would be the holders had royalty not been abolished and apply the titles to them. I think these kinds of articles are all BLP violations unless there is a reliable source somewhere that says "so and so has stated that he claims the position of Prince of Prussia " or whatever. It is a fantasy world and it is spreading inaccurate, misleading (dis)information. Smeat75 (talk) 16:30, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, Lady Gaga is a red herring; as with "King" in King Crimson, the "Lady" in her appellation is just a string of evocative, figural text, and does not imply an actual title of nobility. The "von" in Ferdinand Zvonimir von Habsburg, however, does make such an implication, and the article inappropriately dwells on imaginary pretender stuff. Sources consistently refer to him as Ferdinand Habsburg, the name he uses himself, and he has publicly made no claims to any throne (which was renounced by an ancestor before he was born, and which constitutionally was abolished anyway); he's just a racecar driver with an interesting family background. But this is not what our readers are "learning"; WP is filling their heads with nonsense. That article and many like it are verging on WP:TNT. PS: A related problem is that WPers are confusing the use of van/von/de names in the US, Canada, UK, etc., where they are meaningless, with use of such names in continental Europe, where they usually are not. It's another form of clumsy OR.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:01, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Proteus, stagenames are a red herring: the question is whether we should use titles that are not used officially or by the article subject. And the obvious answer there, per WP:V, is: no.
Nobody thinks Duke Ellington was the Duke of a place called Ellington. And nobody thinks the Duke of Bavaria is the ruler of the Kindom of Bavaria because, and I cannot stress this enough, that kingdom does not exist and has not existed since 1918. Guy (help!) 20:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Proteus, example: we had an article on Princess Regina of Saxe-Meiningen, with {{infobox royalty}} and the title "Archduchess Regina, Crown Princess of Austria, Hungary, and Bohemia", styling her "Consort of the Head of the House of Habsburg-Lorraine".
Her obituaries were rather more prosaic: "Social worker who might have been Empress of Austria". We shouldn't write articles about social workers that claim they were Empress of Austria, since that title ceased to exist when her husband was two years old, which is why he was the "former Crown Prince" and not the Emperor. Guy (help!) 22:04, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Maybe this issue should be raised in policy? The guidelines right now seem to leave enough grey area for fabulist interpretations to prevail, so it would be best if we could point editors to firmer, more explicit instruction on how to treat defunct/unclaimed titles. JoelleJay (talk) 19:11, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
JoelleJay, doesn't need to be. This is straight WP:V / WP:SYN. You can't be the Elector of Saxony any more, because the office does not exist. You can't be a pretender to the Electorate of Saxony, because there is no title to pretend. Guy (help!) 20:30, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Guy, I think I should have put this in the FYI section below, since it has more relevance to Nav/Infoboxes than article titles. I'm referencing the types of arguments here, and the slow edit warring here that indicate editors can still shoehorn things like succession boxes and royalist infobox names into articles for, among other things, people who never "succeeded" into a title in the first place. I also don't know how much WP:NCROY has been revised since 2011 (hopefully a lot), but this move proposal spawned a lot of appeals to "NCROY consensus" in support of royalist styling. JoelleJay (talk) 21:56, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
But you can be Duke Ellington it would seem and Wikipedia would applaud that! Moreover there are plenty of valid titles in the UK, for example, which are just titles and everyone knows, for example, the Duke of Edinburgh doesn't rule Edinburgh. So the simple answer is to do what we do practically everywhere else and FOLLOW THE SOURCES, rather than relying on our WP:POV and getting wrapped around the axle. Bermicourt (talk) 21:48, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Bermicourt, the Duke of Edinburgh is a current title of nobility and is used by HRH in public life. There is no Emperor of Austria-Hungary. You can't be a pretender to the Imperial throne of Maximilian I, because Mexico is a republic, there is no empire, there is no emperor, there is no throne.
And many of the sources used to establish these fanciful titles are... differently wonderful. Self-published books, Angelfire websites, blogs and the like.
Sure, there is obsessive minority interest in obscure defunct titles of nobility. But it's not up to us to pretend that they are real. Guy (help!) 22:12, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

PoV and OR claims about alleged pretenders and titles/names of them

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

There's a long and closely related thread about this at: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Labeling modern descendants of nobility with theoretical titles: NPOV, BLP, NOR and other policy problems.

This goes beyond article titles, and has even more to do with article and infobox content.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:01, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, yes. It needs fixing, slowly and patiently, starting with article titles, then navboxes I think. And all the attendant redirects for non-notable private individuals listed under fake titles in articles on some other family member. Guy (help!) 20:29, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Before any POV fixing occurs, we need to check the sources to see whether they use titles or not and follow WP:COMMONNAME. Bermicourt (talk) 21:48, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
How many reliable sources would you like that German and Austrian royal titles were abolished , they do not exist, there's no such thing?Smeat75 (talk) 22:08, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Whether they exist or not does not matter. What sources call people is what matters. It is a policy. After all, Queen Latifah is not a queen, and Emperor Norton was not an emperor. Surtsicna (talk) 22:13, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Surtsicna. If you Google Otto of Hesse who died recently. No non German source calls him “Otto Prinz von Hessen”, various German outlets even use “Prinz Otto von Hessen”, his legal surname is probably not even ‘Prinz von Hessen’ but ‘Prinz und Landgraf von Hessen’. The fact is, it’s common for non reigning royals to be accorded their historic titles. Franz, Duke of Bavaria has been mentioned here and he would have been born Prinz von Bayern, has he changed his surname to Herzog von Bayern, or is he just widely called Herzog (Duke) as a curtesy since his father died. What about the late Maria Emanuel, Margrave of Meissen presumably born Prinz von Sachsen or Prinz von Sachsen Herzog zu Sachsen, what would be done about his article did he change his surname or just use the Margrave title and be called it by everyone, what would his surname have been Prinz or Prinz / Herzog combination. By all means mention in an article that such and such country does not recognise titles etc. But there are verifiable sources to support the use of titles and even styles, saying what surnames are would appear to me to be at best a guess and so unverifiable which is a lot more troubling and dangerous than calling someone Prince or Duke because that’s what sources do. - dwc lr (talk) 07:21, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Once again, the comparison to stage names is irrelevant, no one is going to be mislead by them. It is inaccurate to apply dissolved titles to living people and I think it is a WP:BLP violation. The person who is called Franz, Duke of Bavaria on EN WP was legally allowed to change his last name to Herzog von Bayern when he "succeeded", but that is not a title, it is his last name. The article should be moved to Franz Herzog von Bayern, which is what the German WP calls him. We do not translate peoples' last names and put a comma between their first name and their surname. You can't be Duke of Bavaria because the position was abolished. I agree with Guy, sources that use these "fanciful" titles are not reliable and just because some people call them by these non existent titles does not make them their common names. It is either ignorance, a misguided effort to be polite or peddling a delusion. WP is not here to spread inaccurate fantasies. " Margrave of Meissen" is what the "head of the house of Saxony" decided to call themselves when German royalty was abolished. They just found this old title, defunct since 1547, and applied it to themselves, it has absolutely no validity and "everyone" does not call them that, only those who want to participate in these fantasies.Smeat75 (talk) 09:58, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

No, no article should be moved to whatever German Wikipedia calls the person. This Wikipedia has its own policy. And no, this Wikipedia does not prefer legal names. The policy clearly states so. The policy says that the title of an article should be determined by a "significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources". Sources are not automatically unreliable if they use a non-legal name or a title not recognized by law. Labelling newspapers such as The New York Times as "not reliable" for calling Franz and his father dukes just does not stick. People who call themselves queens on the stage are engaging in "inaccurate fantasies" as much as people who call themselves margraves at pretentious dinner parties. The content of the article should make it clear that the title is not based in law but no article should be titled so as to be unrecognizable to English speakers. Surtsicna (talk) 10:36, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Again I completely agree with Surtsicna and what the German WP does is irrelevant. I think a much bigger BLP violation is us making up someones surname without us actually knowing, rather than following Common Name and what the English language sources do (eg NYT example above and the recent example of 'Prince Otto of Hesse'). Is there even a source for Franz of Bavaria changing his surname for example, can we actually add a source to the article to support that assertion, the article mentions with reference he changed his 'Style' on the death of his father. Indeed if we strip away the 'titles' can we actually provide a source for what any of the German royals surnames are, the Hanover's legal surname I believe is 'Prinz von Hannover Herzog zu Braunschweig und Lüneburg Königlicher Prinz von Großbritannien und Irland'. If that is the case Smeat75, are you suggesting we should change the article titles to include that mouthful even though in any English source they would be called 'Prince of Hanover'? - dwc lr (talk) 10:51, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
I think the name changes are easy to verify. This particular guideline is about article titles, however. There is no reason not to treat the article about Franz à la Emperor Norton: the common name in the title, the legal name as the subject of the lead sentence, and the common name again in the apposition. Surtsicna (talk) 11:11, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
In answer to the question above, the article about that person should be moved to Ernst August von Hannover. I question whether any of these people make "claims" to abolished royal positions or "pretend" anything. It makes them look utterly deluded and detached from reality to say they do, that's why these articles are BLP violations. All this nonsense should be removed.Smeat75 (talk) 11:33, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
It should not be moved to that title because that is not what he is commonly called in English. That move would contravene policy. The guy calls himself what he calls himself and sources indulge him, just like Emperor Norton or Princess Nokia. That's all there is to it. Many people, Emperor Norton included, are notable precisely for their detachment from reality. References to "Baroness Nena von Schlebrügge" and the like are a problem because she does not call herself that and neither do sources. Surtsicna (talk) 12:22, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Surtsicna, Emperor Norton was a nutter who claimed to be emperor, and that's why he's notable. Most of the people to whom these fictional titles are being applied do not use them and the titles form no part of their notability, being ignored almost entirely in reliable sources (e.g. Regina von Habsburg who we described as an Archduchess but obituaries described as a social worker).
Franz was listed in another article as a pretender to the Scottish throne. There is no Scottish throne, it's part of the United Kingdom. If Scotland leaves the Union it will almost certainly be as a republic, and Franz' spokespeople have said that he has exactly zero intention of ever pursuing this hypothetical claim anyway. It's a trivial factoid, not a defining characteristic.
That's the absurdity we're dealing with here. A handful of royalty fanbois write books that trace the lineage of the families that used to be royalty, and based on that, we're rewriting history to resurrect their titles in the here-and-now. Guy (help!) 13:04, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Surtsicna, Is there a "Bavarian royal family"? Does Bavaria have a throne? This is separate from the question of the use of the ducal title - the article claims him to be Bavarian r5oyalty, when Bavaria is part of Germany, a federal republic. We are writign about modern-day Bavaria not fictional feudal Bavaria or Sto Lat or whatever. Guy (help!) 12:58, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
I agree with you completely. Wikipedia should not attribute titles to people who do not use them. In cases where such supposed titles are, as you say, almost entirely ignored in reliable sources, Wikipedia should not push them. Franz should not be listed as claimant to any throne because he does not claim any throne. Royalty fans tend to insert all sorts of nonsense that should be removed on sight (e.g. attributing religion to a 6-day-old child). I agree that this is distinct from the question of what he is normally called and what Wikipedia should call him. Surtsicna (talk) 13:17, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
The Bavarian State Minister for Culture for example even refers to him as "SKH Herzog Franz von Bayern" (HRH Duke Franz of Bavaria) rather than Herr Franz Herzog von Bayern. - dwc lr (talk) 13:26, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Why would you move him to that? That's not a legal name or his common name. The Greek Royal Family would be another huge problem for your approach because they refuse to accept any surname and still use royal titles and are always referred to by them. - dwc lr (talk) 13:26, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
I agree that comparison to celebrity names like Queen Latifah is a red herring, as I went into in detail at the other thread. They are not similar or related use cases. We also really don't care what some Bavarian bureaucrat with royalist leanings writes. We care what the majority of modern reliable sources in English are doing. So, Ferdinand Zvonimir von Habsburg is absolutely wrong, and should be moved to Ferdinand Habsburg. It should also be denuded of all the pretender crap in it, since it's baseless OR and violates NOR and BLP as well.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Pinging SMcCandlish, Smeat75, and Guy: What I don't understand is why BLP is so careful to respect its subjects and give proper attribution to claims about them in most aspects, but does not give any preference toward using the name they prefer and identify themselves as. I can understand using self-applied monikers like Lady Gaga, since that is overwhelmingly what they're known by and they often use these pseudonyms on their own social media. But I think there's a pretty glaring oversight on BLP policy when it comes to people who don't call themselves what (portions of) the popular press calls them, even in official, personally-released statements where titles would actually be used*. And in cases where there's maybe some question of how the significant majority of RSs refers to someone (who does not hold an unambiguously extant title), shouldn't the policy lean towards the name actually used by that person, e.g. what they call themselves on their verified IG, facebook, twitter accounts? We allow those as sources on the subjects themselves as long as they meet certain criteria.
  • CV of Karl von Habsburg submitted to the European Society for Gynaecological Oncology 2017 Congress (note his use of titles for his father, mother, and wife); he's apparently regularly involved in these conferences (see second paragraph). JoelleJay (talk) 20:17, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes let’s stick our heads up our backsides (or stick our heads in the sand) and pretend the “pretender crap” doesn’t exist because it’s never mentioned in connection to him, is it. (BBC News - Formula One: The Archduke of the Austrian GP. He might be His Imperial and Royal Highness, Ferdinand Zvonimir von Habsburg-Lothringen, Archduke of Austria, Crown Prince of Hungary, Bohemia and Croatia, but what Ferdinand really wants to be known as is a racing driver.) I’m sure the BBC is an unreliable source, the only reliable source is what Austrian law says. - dwc lr (talk) 07:40, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Emphasis mine: "When the subject of an article is referred to mainly by a single common name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language sources, Wikipedia generally follows the sources and uses that name as its article title (subject to the other naming criteria)." Can you please demonstrate that the preponderance of English RS use "prince Ferdinand" or "archduke Ferdinand" or follow his name with titles? When I use these search terms (with quotes): "Ferdinand" "Habsburg" the only results from reliable sources that give him titles are that BBC Sportshour blurb and a NYT newsletter. "Karl" "Habsburg" has more RSs referring to him as "archduke", however it is not clear that this is a significant majority (or even a majority). I think it's also relevant that the search engine test guidelines distinguish between "popular use" names and "correct" names: A search for the incorrect Charles Windsor gives 10 times more results than the correct Charles Mountbatten-Windsor. JoelleJay (talk) 20:17, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
DWC LR, here's your problem:
  1. "Inauguration lecture of ESGO 2017 was delivered by Karl von Habsburg, an Austrian politician and grandson of the last emperor of the Austro-Hungarian empire."
  2. Dictionary definition of pretender as "A pretender is an aspirant or claimant to a monarchy that has either been abolished or suspended, or is occupied by another."
  3. Therefore von Habsburg is a pretender to the Austrian Imperial throne <<<WP:SYN
That's been the problem all along.
There is no "His Imperial and Royal Highness the Archduke" because Austria is a republic and has been since 1918. You may not legally call yourself that in Austria, and, rather importantly, he doesn't calll himself that.
He does not aspire or claim (i.e. pretend) to the throne. He is merely a descendant of the last to hold it. And, unlike a handful of editors here, he seems quite sanguine about that. Guy (help!) 14:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
JzG At no point have I proposed changing the article title for Karl or his son, Karl is probably best known as a politician his son for racing. If a deposed Royal is commonly known by a title that should be in the article title though, which is not the case here. I also am perfectly happy with referencing him as just head of the House of Habsburg rather than calling him a pretender. What I am opposed to is removal of any mention of ancestral titles in the articles when it’s a verifiable fact they are still attributed said titles (depending on the situation). Here’s a quote from Karl von Habsburg’s official website and the entry on the Order of the Golden Fleece, “Der Souverän des Ordens ist seit 2000 Erzherzog Karl von Österreich.” Royals/deposed royals have many guises, we may have Karl von Habsburg the politician or business man, Archduke Karl the head of the House of Habsburg-Lorraine and Sovereign of the Order of the Golden Fleece, so he may not aspire to be Emperor but he certainly considers himself the head of the former ruling dynasty and still considers he has the right to award the Golden Fleece. And really who cares what the Austrian law, we are not subject to Austrian law, outside of Austria (and probably inside too) the Habsburg’s are still called Archdukes etc (again depending on the situation, which would be true for the titles of reigning royals as well I doubt the low key ones with day jobs go around using their titles in their professions). In Hungary you now can’t legally change from the gender you were assigned at birth. Your an Admin so you may know better than me, is it the case Wikipedia would now call a Hungarian assigned at birth male who today announced they identifies as a female a male still in accordance with the Hungarian law? Or will Wikipedia do it’s own thing and be guided by what’s verifiable. - dwc lr (talk) 08:30, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
DWC LR, non-existent titles should not be used to name articles. This is an encyclopaedia, not a peerage fansite. On a related note, a couple of the most wiodely-used sources for these fantasy titles are now deprecated because they are (and always were) unreliable according to WP:RS criteria. Guy (help!) 08:58, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Relevant deletion discussion for line of succession to the former Austro-Hungarian throne. JoelleJay (talk) 20:45, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Request for Comment

For interested parties Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#RfC. - dwc lr (talk) 10:34, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Living consort intros & infobox headings

May we decide on the style of the intro & infobox heading of consort bio articles? Currently the intro to Queen Letizia of Spain is different from the intros of (examples) Queen Silvia of Sweden, Queen Sonja of Norway, Queen Maxima of the Netherlands, Queen Mathilde of Belgium, etc. They should be in sync. GoodDay (talk) 01:59, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

This guideline has nothing to do with introductions and infobox headings. The lead sentence of the article about Queen Letizia matches with the lead sentences of articles about the other queens of Spain, which matters more than matching with the lead sentence of the biography of a Scandinavian queen. Surtsicna (talk) 08:45, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
This concerns the living & current consorts of all countries. The lead in the article of the current Queen consort of Spain, fails to match with the lead in the articles of the other current Queens consort of other countries. GoodDay (talk) 13:34, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
As for living former queens consort. The intro (as well as infobox heading) of Queen Sophia of Spain, is out of sync with other living former consorts. GoodDay (talk) 13:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
And I fail to see why the biography of the current queen of Spain should be consistent with the biography of the current queen of Norway rather than with the biographies of previous queens of Spain. Surtsicna (talk) 13:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Because, with the exception of Sofia, the other Spanish consorts are dead. GoodDay (talk) 13:46, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
So? Letizia has more in common with dead Spanish queens than with living Scandinavian queens. Surtsicna (talk) 14:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
We ain't gonna agree on this, so I'll give a week. If no solution is found for how to handle the intros & infobox headings of current & retired consorts? I'll open a Rfc on the matter. GoodDay (talk) 14:36, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
The solution is that you stop trying to enforce uniformity without any concern for the quality of individual articles. Surtsicna (talk) 15:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
We'll let others decide on which form to use. It's not entirely up to just you or me. GoodDay (talk) 15:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
You want another opinion? I am opposed to any imposed uniformity. Each intro should serve the purposes of the article, as deemed appropriate by the contributing editors. There is no reason whatsoever to try to institute a uniformity of structure over people who are fundamentally individuals, even if they share one particular noteworthy characteristic, and this applies independent of whether they are extant or deceased. The solution is that there is no problem that needs a solution; my answer to which form to use is all of them, along with any other form that accomplishes the task for each specific article. Agricolae (talk) 04:30, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
I agree. There is no "one size fits all" here. No-one imposes uniformity on the sources and we should reflect that. Bermicourt (talk) 07:13, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Request for comment

(non-admin closure) There is consensus for proposals 1 and 2. There is no consensus for proposals 3 and 4. - MrX 🖋 14:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

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

The requested move on Elizabeth I, here, has passed that shortened the title. There are a few things I would like to address in this RFC. Firstly, I would like to know how far we can go in shortening the titles to omit the country. Henry VIII of England is not titled Henry VIII, and Juan Carlos I of Spain is not titled Juan Carlos I. Other examples we have that omit the country are Elizabeth II and James VI and I. The second thing I would like to address is when there has been one holder of the name of a monarch, should we title it like this John of England or Anne of Great Britain? Queen Victoria is not called Victoria of the United Kingdom or Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom. Interstellarity (talk) 14:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

This RfC lacks structure, and it is likely not of interest to many. I am therefore removing it from WP:CENT. On the merits, I don't see the need for special rules for monarchs. Doesn't WP:COMMONNAME address this? If the monarch is well-known or better-known without the full title, omit it. Sandstein 10:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
There is a convention for monarchs and we don't depart from it lightly. I would suggest that Interstellarity is too UK-focused, perhaps not considering the fact that other countries still have monarchies. Deb (talk) 11:47, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
@Deb: I found other monarchs where the short name has the primary that are not in the UK that could potentially be moved. These are Europe centric because they have similar naming conventions.
Hope this helps. Interstellarity (talk) 12:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Not really. This is just my opinion, but one concern is that, the shorter the title gets, the more likely it is that the user searching for an article will not be sure what they are getting. For example, what about Pope Nicholas II? I hope you take my meaning. Deb (talk) 13:00, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
@Deb: Do you think the Tsar of Russia is the primary topic for Nicholas II or do you think Nicholas II (disambiguation) should be moved to Nicholas II? Interstellarity (talk) 13:10, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Personally I would move the disambiguation page. Deb (talk) 13:16, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
@Deb: I have created a move discussion here. You are welcome to participate in it and state your opinions. Interstellarity (talk) 13:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Sandstein. This convention should be revamped with the aim of bringing it more in line with WP:COMMONNAME, which (being a policy) overrides this convention more often than it supports it. The convention should also take into account WP:CONCISE, another part of the WP:Article titles policy. Britannica's naming convention for monarchs seems to be much more in line with Wikipedia policy than WP:NCROY is, which is rather puzzling. Surtsicna (talk) 12:06, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, way back in time, there was a convention for naming of monarchs which was carefully thought through, discussed and agreed. There were many dissident voices, however. Some were very keen on using nicknames such as "William the Conqueror", and others whose Anglo-centric views meant they could not conceive of anyone outside the UK ever being called "Queen Elizabeth" or "Queen Victoria". So, to use a British idiom, it went to pot. I wonder if those who spend a lot of time working on these pages actually really think it's a good idea to revert to articles called Bonnie Prince Charlie or Princess Diana, just because that's the name by which they are popularly known? Deb (talk) 12:50, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
It's not the popular usage that matters - at least not according to the policy. It is the usage in "independent, reliable English-language sources". A majority of the books cited in Diana, Princess of Wales do not call the subject "Princess Diana", and neither do the most reputable media outlets (BBC, The Guardian, Daily Telegraph, etc). Dropping "of Place" and "Duke of Place" parts from some article titles would not result in anything as dubious as "Princess Diana". We would just have concise and precise titles such as Henry VIII, Carl XVI Gustaf, Alfonso X, Conan IV, Haakon VII, Christian IX, etc. Surtsicna (talk) 13:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
I take your point, but I think it is usual for books to call a ruler by a full title, eg. Christian IX of Denmark, at least when they are first mentioned. Okay, if a book is about them, or if it's obvious from the context, you wouldn't. For example, a book on 16th century England would just say "Henry VIII", whereas a book on 16th century France would probably refer to him as "King Henry VIII of England". I'm not a fan of dropping the country as a general rule just to make article titles shorter. Deb (talk) 18:51, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
But surely that then applies to virtually anyone who has ever held a title or position of power. A biography of Napoleon III would probably refer to the contemporary US president as "President Andrew Johnson of the United States" or something similar rather than just "Andrew Johnson". In my experience, Wikipedia articles are much more likely to refer to "Elizabeth I" than to "Elizabeth I of England". I have not figured out how to prove it, though. Surtsicna (talk) 19:58, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, they are, but that's entirely because of context. Is that relevant for someone who is coming to the subject cold? Is there any convention that says we should decide an article title on the basis of internal links? Deb (talk) 08:54, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
WP:NOTBROKEN says that internal links "can be used to help decide on the 'best' article title". That is why replacing redirects with pipes, still a common practice, is unhelpful. The policy, however, is to decide an article title on the basis of common usage in reliable sources. Surtsicna (talk) 09:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
It's very much a "one size fits all" solution. Deb (talk) 11:57, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Given a choice, I'd prefer we go back to Monarch of country for all these monarch articles. GoodDay (talk) 20:33, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
But, if that's not possible? Then for those countries that have monarchs with exact same names, we should adopt Monarch (country). GoodDay (talk) 13:37, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Recent multiple RMs

I think we need to have a review of the Naming conventions, in wake of the sudden growing number of RMs of monarch bio articles. GoodDay (talk) 00:30, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposal for changes to WP:SOVEREIGN

Here are some suggestions I originally posted two years ago:

  1. If there is an overwhelmingly common name, use it: William the Conqueror, John Balliol, Peter the Great, Henry the Fowler, Mary, Queen of Scots, Queen Victoria, Gustavus Adolphus, Eric of Pomerania, Charlemagne. This is in line with WP:COMMONNAME and is no change from the status quo.
  2. If the regnal name and number are unambiguous, use them: Louis XVIII, Edward VIII, Ivan V, Gustaf VI Adolf. Adding a country to the article title, when there is no other country with a monarch of that name, goes against WP:PRECISION.
  3. If the regnal name and number are not unambiguous, but it has been decided that the subject of the article is the primary topic, use just the name and number: Louis XV (could also be a decorative style), Louis Philippe I (could also be a Duke of Orléans), George III (could also be a King of Georgia), Isabella II (could also be a Queen of Jerusalem). This is already the case for Edward VII, George V, George VI, Elizabeth II. It seems silly to have a redirect from a shorter title to a longer one.
  4. If there is no primary topic for monarchs with the same name and number, then add the country: Peter IV of Aragon and Peter IV of Portugal, James III of Cyprus and James III of Scotland, William III of the Netherlands and William III of England. For Polish kings using the surname is more common: Casimir IV Jagiellon, John III Sobieski.

Names should be given in the form most commonly used in English sources. This usually means using English forms before about the nineteenth century and native forms for more recent rulers, but exceptions abound. It means we have Philip V of Spain and Felipe VI of Spain, but we shouldn't attempt to impose a consistency where none exists.

I think these changes should bring this naming convention more in line with Wikipedia:Article titles, and hopefully make move discussions easier as a result. Opera hat (talk) 20:05, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

That's one way of looking at it. The other way of looking at it is that the article titles have strayed from the naming convention and should be brought back in line. During the discussions on this, it was very clear that many contributors did not agree that, for example, "William the Conqueror" was the overwhelmingly common name for King William I of England. Deb (talk) 12:48, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
I'd rather a one fits all solution & am against the nickname (William the Conqueror, Frederick the Great, etc) articles. My first preference would be to go back to the Monarch of country version. But with so many editors involved? it's near impossible to get a majority to agree with me. GoodDay (talk) 13:41, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
I support this proposal. While consistency should be one of the factors that determine an article's title, it shouldn't be the only factor that determines the title of an article. Sometimes we might have to accept inconsistency in article titles. There are many examples of this on Wikipedia even off-topic of this. @GoodDay: While every editor is entitled to their own opinions, sometimes we need to accept the consensus even if you disagree with it. Hope this helps. Interstellarity (talk) 14:49, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Problem is getting a consensus across all the monarch articles. At this moment RMs are popping up at a rapid rate, with different results. A Hard cover Encyclopedia 'editor-in-chief' would go beserk over these inconsistencies across such group articles. GoodDay (talk) 14:54, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose I recognise that it is impossible to achieve total consistency on this issue. I also suggest that points 2 and 3 above should be taken separately. I recognise that there are a few cases with a very well-known cognomen where we depart from the normal standard, although some people may feel we have gone too far recently. However I repeat the points I have made at Talk:Louis XIV of France. It is not the case that other encyclopedias adopt this approach e.g. ODNB, Britannica. If we applied this new approach consistently we would end up moving a large number of relatively obscure monarchs e.g. James V of Scotland. The "of Foo" designation would have to be switched on and off in an odd way. For example, we would have "George II of the United Kingdom" (not the primary topic) then "George III" and "George IV", then back to "William IV of the United Kingdom", then "Queen Victoria", all of this not because of developments in the UK, but in other countries e.g. Greece. Similar issues would arise with e.g. the Stewart monarchs of Scotland, and probably a few other countries, e.g. "Charles IX of France" but plain "Charles X", because of events in Sweden. PatGallacher (talk) 20:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Indeed. Too much inconsistency within same country monarch bio articles, let alone all monarch bio articles. GoodDay (talk) 15:56, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support this proposal that aligns with the principles of WP:TITLE. Consistency is the last and least important of the principles in that policy, which also notes that there is often some reason for inconsistencies in common usage. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:22, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - just in case it wasn't clear from my comments above. Deb (talk) 12:10, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I think it best that we go back to Monarch of country for all the monarch bio articles. But, if we are going to end up with just Monarch, then for those with the same name but different countries? the solution would be Monarch (country). GoodDay (talk) 12:58, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Reply I already said this at Talk:Louis XIV of France. I have had a look at the ODNB link provided. It doesn't handle e.g. James I of Scotland any differently from James V of Scotland (the only James V). It only seems to include English and Scottish monarchs, far fewer to disambiguate. It actually disambiguates the Scottish and English James II as "James II" and "James II and VII", does anyone seriously think we should copy this? It distinguishes the English and Scottish William I by cognomen. As for the Online Britannica, the distinction between the article title and description isn't totally clear. However it has e.g. "Louis XVI" in large letters and "King of France" below in smaller letters. It doesn't however treat the Louis's of France or Jameses of Scotland any differently. So it would actually be Wikipedia which would be adopting a different approach from any other reference work if we handled monarchs differently, depending on whether their name-number combination was ambiguous or unambiguous. PatGallacher (talk) 18:54, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose in agreement with GoodDay and Strong oppose re: Charles XIV John of Sweden and Charles XV of Sweden who have different numerals indifferent countries where Sweden should not take precedent. Their moves are being discussed individually & should not be snuck through here. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:37, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Note: One of the first bios to be changed from Monarch of country to simply Monarch, was Elizabeth II. This mainly occurred (IMHO) because of participation from a few Canadian monarchists, who were upset that Liz was primarily identified with the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 15:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. A guideline needs to be in line with policies, and so this guideline needs to be in line with WP:Article titles. WP:NCROY is untenable and worthless as long as it contradicts the WP:Article titles policy, as proven by dozens of articles that are not aligned with it.
    I should add that in the second case mentioned by Opera hat, the unambiguous regnal name is always also the common name, which means that appending the name of the realm goes against two points of the WP:Article titles policy. Surtsicna (talk) 23:04, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps it's WP:Article titles, which needs to be changed to conform with NCROY. GoodDay (talk) 15:35, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps usage in reliable sources too should be changed to conform with NCROY. In all seriousness though, it does not work that way. Surtsicna (talk) 15:52, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
The main argument for shorter article titles is WP:PRECISION (no more precise than necessary), part of WP:Article titles. WP:NCROY is already specifically exempted from WP:PRECISION. However, the trend of recent move discussions has been to ignore WP:NCROY in favour of WP:PRECISION. If an article titling guideline does not describe actual practice it is useless. That is the reason why a change is being proposed. Opera hat (talk) 23:38, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support 1 and 2, oppose 3. I'm in favor of maximum clarity here -- common nicknames are generally sufficient for this, and while I don't especially like rule 2, I'm fine with it because it's clear who the title is referring to. If there are multiple royals/nobles with the same name and numeral, though, I would rather title each one "of X", even if one is significantly more famous than the others, because it makes absolutely clear which person the article about. That said, I'm fine with redirecting the plain name+numeral to the most common subject in these cases. 3 kids in a trenchcoat (talk) 00:04, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. Opera hat, what does "If there is no primary topic for monarchs" mean? Bill Reid | (talk) 10:36, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
If the name and ordinal is a disambiguation page, e.g. Charles III. None of the monarchs on that page is the WP:Primary topic for the term "Charles III". Opera hat (talk) 11:44, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
I'd definitely oppose the (king of Scotland) form. WP:PARENDIS says that a qualifier in parentheses is only to be resorted to after more natural disambiguation methods have failed. I don't really like adding the rank if it is not necessary, either, as that would seem to be overly precise as discouraged by WP:PRECISION. My original proposal was to remove the ranks for dukes, counts and princes, too, but as that got some dissent at the time I thought I'd leave it out this time around. Opera hat (talk) 11:44, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
I am a bit concerned about the aesthetics of sequences such as Charles VII of France→Louis XI→Charles VIII of France→Louis XII→Francis I of France, Philip V of Spain→Ferdinand VI→Charles III of Spain, Richard III→Henry VII of England→Henry VIII, etc. The comma-separated disambiguation from WP:PARENDIS might look less offensive in such cases. Surtsicna (talk) 12:59, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Concur with Surtsicna. Adoption of the Monarch # (country) title style, may well bring more support to this latest movement away from Monarch # of country title style. It would certainly ease my concerns. GoodDay (talk) 13:20, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Why not just have them as James II (Scotland) & James II (England)? If we're on a drop the of country move, for monarch bio articles. GoodDay (talk) 12:19, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
I think that is worth considering but parentheses appear not to enjoy broad support. German Wikipedia handles it that way. Surtsicna (talk) 12:59, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
I tentatively like this idea, but what would we do about monarchs with no numeral, i.e. John, King of England? I think "John (England)" would look kind of silly. "King John (England)" would work, I guess, but I don't know if other people would like that. What do you guys think? 3 kids in a trenchcoat (talk) 06:28, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
I oppose this idea because it's just moving hundreds if not thousands of articles for no benefit. James II of Scotland and James II of England are clearer (i.e. more recognizable) and more natural than James II (Scotland) and James II (England). They're the same number of characters, so there's no change in conciseness and they are just as precise and consistent. So, two of the criteria at Wikipedia:Article titles#Deciding on an article title are worse and three are no better. DrKay (talk) 07:16, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
What about re-adopting the original Monarch # of country style, for all monarch bios, if we ain't gonna adopt Monarch (country) for point #4? GoodDay (talk) 13:09, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Because not all monarch bios need the natural disambiguator "of country". The only reason we use disambiguators is because multiple articles with the same name can't occupy the same article space simultaneously. If there is a primary topic (or only one topic) of a given article title, then that gets to occupy the article space without a disambigutor, whether natural or parenthetical. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:33, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article names of Non-British European Nobles with Titles

Non-British aristocrats with noble titles also use the "Personal name, Ordinal (if appropriate) Peerage title" as the article title, with the noble title translated to English, correct? Does anyone have any objection to me moving the remaining pages to conform with this standard? StellarHalo (talk) 05:18, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Not necessarily. There are a number of exceptions listed, in which case the general article titling policy applies. DrKay (talk) 07:38, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

No. 4 in WP:SOVEREIGN

I am familiar with the naming conventions associated with WP:SOVEREIGN specifically at No. 4. However, there are a lot of exceptions to the rule. Examples: Joanna of Castile, Philippe of Belgium, Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands. Do you think we should change the conventions to determine how we should title monarchs without a roman numeral next to their name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Interstellarity (talk • contribs) 02:31, September 2, 2020 (UTC)

What are you suggesting they be changed to? Seeing as there's been a trend to move Monarch of country to just Monarch, lately. Perhaps some of the 'non numbered' monarchs could be move to just Monarch, as well. GoodDay (talk) 13:40, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
To elaborate, my suggestion would be to move articles like Stephen, King of England to Stephen of England, John, King of England to John of England, and Anne, Queen of Great Britain to Anne of Great Britain. Moving those to just Stephen, John, and Anne would not be a good idea because those titles for sure are not the primary topic here. Interstellarity (talk) 14:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Moving them back to the original titles. No problem. GoodDay (talk) 15:08, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Strong oppose. It was already shown in the last RMs that titles like "Anne of Great Britain" are ambiguous. DrKay (talk) 15:28, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
@DrKay: What about moving pages like Joanna of Castile to Joanna, Queen of Castile, Philippe of Belgium to Philippe, King of the Belgians, Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands to Willem-Alexander, King of the Netherlands, and Hussein of Jordan to Hussein, King of Jordan? Interstellarity (talk) 16:41, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't see the need, but nor do I particularly object. Consistency is the weakest of the criteria at Wikipedia:Article titles. Article titles needn't be artificially extended unnecessarily, but consistency is a 'goal' even though it isn't a rule. DrKay (talk) 16:49, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Range block

I think we may soon need a range block for @178.237.236.175:, who refuses to communicate & keeps repeating same edits at Queen Sofia of Spain & related articles. GoodDay (talk) 14:09, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Article titles of consorts

I wonder if it's time that we remove Queen, Empress, Princess, Prince etc, from the naming of consort articles? Example: RM Queen Silvia of Sweden to just Silvia or (if disambiguation is required) Silvia (Sweden)? GoodDay (talk) 18:35, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Where possible, we call the historical ones by maiden name - or we used to until people started chanting the "common name" mantra which resulted in nonsense like Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother instead of the more useful Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, and Princess Maria Antonia of Naples and Sicily, instead of Maria Antonietta of Naples. Thankfully, we've retained Zein Al-Sharaf Talal, Eleanor of Aquitaine, Anne Boleyn, etc. Deb (talk) 19:33, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Having Queen Mathilde of Belgium but Philippe of Belgium, Queen Máxima of the Netherlands but Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands, etc, cannot make any sense to anyone other than those of us who have grown used to it. There is nothing logical about it, and I can see how it could be seriously misleading. Surtsicna (talk) 11:32, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. GoodDay (talk) 14:49, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Agree a change is needed, however I think the maiden name is the most sensible option, considering that the given names are rather common at least when it comes to Europe. Anonimu (talk) 18:03, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

In the coming days, I'm planing on mass moving those articles to title without 'Queen'. Ya'll will have to back me up on that? unless you think a overall RM would suffice. GoodDay (talk) 17:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I think this change is a very bad idea that will only serve to confuse. Without 'King' or 'Queen' in the title, the average reader will have little idea that they're royalty and no clue as to whether they're princes, kings, queens or some other title. This is Wikipedia setting itself above the sources instead of reflecting them. Bermicourt (talk) 21:26, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Why? We don't use titles for the monarchs. We've got Harald V of Norway, not King Harald V of Norway. So why have them for the consorts? GoodDay (talk) 01:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
I agree. I'll certainly back your proposal. Deb (talk) 11:30, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I think it would be better to have "King"/"Queen" for regents than to strip them from consorts. I think maiden names are a technical solution to a bad situation. "Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother" is much better than "Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon". "Mary of Teck" is outstanding as a poor title. She was only technically from Teck, and this name is very poor for recognition. I struggle to suggest a better title, but the failure to attend to WP:CONSISTENCY is appalling. The recent spate of of shortening Regents is definitely not helping. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:51, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

RMs no longer required, apparently

It appears that @Interstellarity: has decided to skip the RM procedure & unilaterally move pages, per WP:PRECISION. -- GoodDay (talk) 12:50, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

@GoodDay: I thought the moves were uncontroversial. However, I did open up a few discussions that I thought might be controversial. See Talk:Margrethe_II_of_Denmark#Requested_move_10_September_2020, Talk:Harald_V_of_Norway#Requested_move_10_September_2020, and Talk:Franz_Joseph_I_of_Austria#Requested_move_10_September_2020. I do understand that if an RM was held before on that particular page such as the third one, then it shouldn't be moved unless a new RM is done. I also understand that if my moves are reverted, then I'll discuss it on the talk page. I never want to be in a move war with anyone because that risks my editing privileges being revoked. I hope I didn't cause any trouble here. Interstellarity (talk) 13:29, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
What about the rulers of Liechtenstein & Monaco? You've massed moved a few of those, too. GoodDay (talk) 13:31, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
And Moroccan, Lesotho, Moravia, Ethiopia, Spain, rulers too, etc. Doesn't everyone know Muhammad VI? "I thought the moves were uncontroversial". I don't even know how to reply to this. So much damage done by one relatively new editor in so little time. This insanity has to stop.
I am not sure I can put it down to ignorance. A quick look at Interstellarity's history shows they are perfectly aware such moves are not "uncontroversial". Walrasiad (talk) 16:35, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
I do not see any insanity or damage. Most of the moves are in compliance with the consensus reached at the Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)/Archive 24#Request for comment section of this talk page. Surtsicna (talk) 16:53, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
That's the way it is @Walrasiad:, those who are against consistency on group articles, have gradually gotten their way. Many of them, likely had a hand in changing the related MOS, to fit their wants. That's how a lot of stuff is done on Wikipedia. Change the rules to your liking & then push its adoption on the areas-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 14:59, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
There is immense damage to recognizability. RMs are required for such page moves. There are people who didn't participate in the RfC above, but may nonetheless have objections. You can bring up the RfC above in the RM, but that is not blanket approval to do without RMs. Given the acrimony and reversals they are certainly aware of, claiming "I thought these moves were uncontroversial", is disingenuous. Walrasiad (talk) 17:12, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
@Walrasiad:, wait until the precision/common name crowds, start messing with the pope bio articles :( GoodDay (talk) 00:19, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Are the 'predecessors' & 'successors', now going to be deleted in the infoboxes of certain bio articles, too?

This push against consistency on the monarch articles is now taking a extreme step. Attempts are being made to delete the predecessor & successor sections from the infobox at Alfonso XIII. -- GoodDay (talk) 18:30, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Once again, you are enforcing consistency at the expense of accuracy, efficiency, grammar, verifiability, style, and everything else. I have yet to see you concern yourself with anything else or to make any other kind of argument other than consistency. Surtsicna (talk) 18:42, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Once again, you're enforcing chaos on monarch articles. What's going to be the next step? deleting infoboxes entirely from certain monarch bios? like maybe Gustav V of Sweden, Frederick VII of Denmark or Hirohito of Japan? When will it end? GoodDay (talk) 18:48, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
It will end once everything is accurate, easily comprehensible, verifiable, and grammatically sound, i.e. probably never. Surtsicna (talk) 18:59, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
No matter how chaotic, messed up the style or arrangement of these monarch bio articles, get :( GoodDay (talk) 19:04, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
GoodDay, A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds - Ralph Waldo Emerson.
Does Wikipedia value accuracy more or less than stylistic consistency? I'd say the answer here is pretty clear. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:03, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
What of Alfonso XIII's predecessor, Alfonso XII? GoodDay (talk) 22:42, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, I reckon it's up to the rest here at WP:NCROY. What is the fate of Alfonso XIII's infobox, concerning his predecessor & successor? GoodDay (talk) 21:50, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

GoodDay, no, a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS can't supplant WP:NPOV and factual accuracy. The successor to the deposed monarch is "none". Guy (help! - typo?) 22:05, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
@JzG: What of the predecessor? GoodDay (talk) 22:41, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Sounds absurd. It is absolutely vital information for readers to see at a glance - dates of reign, what came before, and what came after. The very first thing I always do - always - when I open any monarch page is precisely to look at the predecessor & successor in the infobox. It is frequently also the only thing I read, since that's often all the info I'm looking for. The predecessor/successor in the info box is extremely vital & useful. Why on earth would anybody want to remove it? Walrasiad (talk) 10:06, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Because sometimes information cannot be adequately presented in an infobox. In this case, what came before and what came after cannot be subsumed under two words. No extremely vital and useful information should be presented in a way that misleads readers. Surtsicna (talk) 13:28, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Is that also your view at Juan Carlos I's infobox? GoodDay (talk) 14:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Walrasiad, so, what, we render a complex situation into something that is, as Mencken put it, "clear, simple and wrong"? That's not a great idea. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:35, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Sure it can. Not sure what you mean by "mislead". Care to give an example? Walrasiad (talk) 13:33, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
What I mean by "mislead" is lead toward a wrong conclusion. The example is at the relevant talk page. I see no reason to discuss this here as it has nothing to do with naming conventions. Surtsicna (talk) 14:00, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Surtsicna, just to be sure I haven't missed it, which is the "relevant talk page"? Deb (talk) 14:38, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
A reader glances over the infobox at Alfonso XII, sees that his successor is Alfonso XIII. This leads the reader over to Alfonso XIII article, but suddenly (under your preferred version) he's confused, cause Alfonso XIII's infobox, not only is there no successor, but also no predecessor, which now makes the reader wonder if Alfonso XIII is Alfonso XII's successor. Same situation over at Juan Carlos I, a reader glances over the infobox there & sees that Alfonso XIII is Juan Carlos I's monarchial predecessor, but is then confused at the Alfonso XIII's infobox because (under your preference) Alfonso XIII has 'no' successor at all, nothing. No matter how yas slice it, these articles are strong together & so we shouldn't be breaking that string. GoodDay (talk) 14:29, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
GoodDay, who says there can only be a predecessor if there's a successor? That sounds to me like "turtles all the way down". Guy (help! - typo?) 14:32, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that we entirely delete the predecessor & successor sections from Juan Carlos I's infobox, merely because the 'predecessor' section is bloated? GoodDay (talk) 14:36, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

We've plenty monarch bio articles, where a situation occurred that the monarchy was either abolished (see Constantine II of Greece, Michael I of Romania, etc) or restored (see Juan Carlos I of Spain, Charles II of England), or both (see George II of Greece). So the question is, who do we list as their predecessor & successor? or do we follow Surtsicna's advice & eliminate the entire field. GoodDay (talk) 16:39, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, I find the option taken for Juan Carlos I of Spain, i.e. indicating the "succession" to/from relevant head-of-state-equivalent titles, to be far more useful than just "Monarchy abolished" or whatever. The information presented remains reasonably concise, in keeping with the spirit of infoboxes. But in all cases, brief wording explaining the succession is far better than totally deleting the predecessor or successor fields. If the situation is particularly complex and can't be expressed in just a few words, "See dissolution of the Kingdom of Whereverland" will do the trick. Rosbif73 (talk) 17:03, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Georges mess

It is with regret that I did not notice the RFC above when it was open, and only learned of it when I began to notice a slew of RMs changing titles rapidly across the board. For the record, I would have disagreed with No.2, and strenuously so. It is predictably causing problems across Wikipedia. The hope expressed by some above that this would be resolved easily on a case-by-case basis is evidently not the case. I am not asking for re-opening of the RfC, merely lamenting how it concluded, and the regretting the damage being done, the slew of the nationalist biases it has unleashed to the detriment of the functionality and educational value of Wikipedia articles.

I first noticed it in Spanish articles absconding with titles to the detriment of smaller kingdoms and non-Spanish audiences. Currently there is a lamentable struggle in two British monarch pages trying to force George III & George IV, despite the existence of Georgian monarchs and others with those names:

The line being forwarded, apparently, is that "Britain is more important than Georgia" (WP:BIAS), and that the perspective of "British experts" is more important than ensuring clarity and usefulness to audiences of diverse educational & geographical backgrounds (WP:GLOBAL). I strongly object to the proposed changes, and have made my objections to the changes clear. In a nutshell (to quote myself):

"Wikipedia has an educational function, so when you're proposing to remove clarity and usefulness to students and the general public, and make things obscure, more difficult and even spread misinformation (e.g. insinuating there is only one "George III") or bias (e.g. "Britain matters more"), it is detrimental to to the educational mission of an encyclopedia."

More to the point, it seems there is confusion as to whether No.3 of the RfC also passed. Notably two participants of the RfC above, @Surtsicna: and @Rreagan007:, have chimed in to support the change, despite knowing it does not fulfill criteria No.2. Apparently they seem to assume No.3 also passed. Or simply that WP:SOVEREIGN doesn't really matter.

Since this can of worms was opened on this page, and has involved at least two participants of the RfC, I would like to invite others from the RfC to try to actually give some guidance on what was decided, and how it is to be applied. Walrasiad (talk) 05:14, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

No.3 regarding primary topic did not pass, it failed as no consensus, which means the status quo remains. And the status quo is that WP:SOVEREIGN is silent as to a universal standard for what to do when a monarch is deemed to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Since it is silent as to a universal standard for primary topic monarchs, we must make decisions on a case-by-case basis in light of all article naming policies, as we have been doing for years. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:54, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
NCROY has been a mess for quite sometime, with the move away from consistency in the article titles, via rejection of the Name # of country style. GoodDay (talk) 00:57, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
The shortening of the Georges is unfortunate, a big step away from valuing CONSISTENCY. I think Wikipedians are over-valuing catchy titles for books that are titled for commercial purposes at the expense of CONSISTENCY. Every author of a new book wants a short title suggestive of being both comprehensive and authoritative. More words in the title reflecting the particular scope of the book reduces the number of browsers likely to buy. A good example, for a film, is The Madness of King George, where even the numeral is omitted, for (i) not wanting it to appear to be a sequel film; and (ii) to contextualise the audience in the period, when King George was alive, we don't use numerals when referring to the current regent on current issues. This is at odds with Wikipedia being an historiographical reference work. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:59, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
It's only going to get worst. I suspect the popes are going to be next on the list. GoodDay (talk) 00:02, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
It's disheartening to see a close by B2C in a discussion where the oppostiion says"Minimalism gone silly", which immediately puts him and his title minimalism in a COI situation. He should have recused, or ~voted. Dicklyon (talk) 00:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Dicklyon, link to the close please? I don't think B2C can be trusted to close any discussion that involves article names. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:44, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
He closed both of the two George articles linked at the top of this section, while this discussion was ongoing. I think a Move Review may be in order. He clearly "supervotes" for conciseness in these closes. Dicklyon (talk) 00:54, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
  • That's a bit messy, agreed. I would suggest that a group RfC specific to these articles might find consensus for consistent naming? Redirects are a thing: anyone looking at William the Conqueror will not be hugely surprised to find themselves at William I of England. Mind you, I adhere to the Stanley Gibbons Rule: it's only foreign monarchs that need disambiguating ;-) The discussion above is no consensus for a general rule, not consensus against a specific one. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

One holder of a name with no ordinal

@DrKay: Could you explain the difference between a title such as Joanna of Castile and Joanna, Queen of Castile? How does consensus decide which one is better? When browsing through monarchs' titles, I see a mixture of both titles in use? I'm assuming, for example, that Christina, Queen of Sweden is not titled Christina of Sweden because there are other queens named Christina from Sweden. The current title can also be ambiguous because while she was the only queen regnant, there were also queens consort of Sweden. I'm also asking the people watching this page to comment on what the best approach would be in this case. Thanks, Interstellarity (talk) 15:12, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Both forms are in use. Consensus is decided by editors. DrKay (talk) 15:43, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
If we follow the latter, it would be "Joanna, Queen of Castile and Aragon". GoodDay (talk) 15:59, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Aloys II RM

BTW I've opened up RM at Aloys II. -- GoodDay (talk) 04:15, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Barbados

On 30 November 2021, Barbados will become a Commonwealth republic. Now, an RFC earlier this year, decided that monarchy articles that had Elizabeth II as their 'only' monarch, would be styled Queen of country, rather then Monarchy of country. My question is - Assuming Charles doesn't succeed to the throne, before Barbados becomes a republic - Do we move Monarchy of Barbados to Queen of Barbados? Do we need a separate RM for that article, when the time comes? GoodDay (talk) 23:35, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Nothing was decided at the RfC. There was "no consensus". Peter Ormond 💬 23:37, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
They all were monarchies, not queenships. "Queen of Barbados" is just a title, whereas this article (and all other similar ones) cover the monarchy as an institution: how it functions, it's history, symbols etc etc. All the former monarchies were originally titled Monarchy of country, but were moved to Queen of country without any RM discussion. Peter Ormond 💬 00:06, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I heard on the news today that Barbadoes is becoming a republic very soon. At the very least, the article should be amended to reflect this by using the past tense and removing (or greatly reducing) details of Prince Charles being heir apparent. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:20, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

RFC: Regnal names

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
I find that there is consensus to remove the relevant language.
In this request for comment, the community discusses a proposal pertaining to a portion of our naming conventions for monarchs. This section states that when a name like "Edward VIII" is unambiguous, it is inappropriate to specify the country (as in "Edward VIII of the United Kingdom") in the article's title. The proposal discussed here would remove that guideline. Editors on both sides deployed a variety of arguments rooted in our policy on article titles. The primary reason given for retaining the present wording was that specifying the country amounted to the sort of unnecessary disambiguation discouraged by WP:PRECISE. Those in favor of the present language proffered additional arguments pertaining to concision; they also argued that a desire for consistency was not sufficient to outweigh the remaining factors, particularly given the inherent inconsistency of the titles of our articles about royalty. Editors arguing in favor of removing the language cited consistency as a key reason: since using the country's name will be necessary in many cases due to ambiguity alone, they argued that including it as a general rule makes our titles more predictable for readers. Another major argument used to support removing the language was based on recognizability, the reasoning being that specifying a monarch's country enables readers to see more clearly whom the article is about. Finally, editors argued that deciding such matters on an article-by-article basis is preferable to a single centralized guideline since various individual factors (such as a monarch's common name) are relevant.
By a very substantial margin (more than 4–1 by my count), participants favored removing the present wording. While the numerical tally is not dispositive, neither is it irrelevant, particularly when, as here, "some people think one policy is controlling, and some another". The arguments in support of removal were logically sound and based on reasonable interpretations of policy, and the arguments opposing removal were adequately rebutted. This is thus not the sort of situation in which our consensus guidelines permit the closer to overrule the majority. While the arguments against removal were also well argued and rooted in policy, they simply did not attract sufficient support in this discussion to carry the day. Accordingly, I conclude that the consensus of the community favors removing the discussed text from our guidelines. Of course, this does not mean that the titles of all articles about royalty must include the country's name: it only means that the standard titling criteria should be considered in individual case-by-case discussions. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:04, 14 November 2021 (UTC)



Should the language If the regnal name and number are unambiguous, use them: Louis XVIII, Edward VIII, Alfonso XII, Gustaf VI Adolf. Adding a country to the article title, when there is no other country with a monarch of that name, goes against WP:PRECISION. be part of the guideline Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)? User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:29, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

This language was added after a 2020 RFC which was fairly wide-ranging in the changes proposed. However, recent RM proposals at Talk:Edward IV of England (a discussion I closed) and Talk:Edward I of England have reached no consensus based on opposition to that specific line being policy. I feel it is necessary to either demonstrate a clearer consensus in support of this rule, or to remove it as an official guideline. I am neutral as-to which is done. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:29, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Survey

  • The monarch bio names should be all changed back to Monarch # of country naming style. GoodDay (talk) 19:46, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree. It's nice to be able to see where they're from without having to click on it. Benjamin (talk) 22:00, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Monarch names should be without country names only if the monarch is well known by exactly that name, such as Elizabeth II. Having an unambiguous name is not enough if the monarch isn't well known enough. Having a country name for every monarch would also work. JIP | Talk 23:37, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Remove the language. I think there are rare cases where a monarch is so iconic that they can rightly be referred to by just their name, but these are very much the exceptions. If done for all those with unique combinations as the guideline suggests, it would result in a single line of succession alternating between one style and the other. As such, there should not be a guideline mandating this type of inconsistency.Agricolae (talk) 23:44, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Remove. Monarch names should have name of country in title, improves recognizability and facilitates searches. Walrasiad (talk) 23:55, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Definitely keep. I see no reason to treat monarch article titles differently from all other titles on Wikipedia. In general, a WP article title is not supposed to describe the article topic, it merely uniquely and concisely identifies it such that the topic is recognized from the title by anyone who is familiar with the topic. Anything in addition to that should only be added to the title when necessary for disambiguation. Monarch article titles should not be an exception. Using unnecessary bulk in monarch article titles sets a contrary precedent and introduces complexity and ambiguity to the title decision-making process. —В²C ☎ 00:21, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
    If this is a decision in line with existing broader policy, then surely this line is WP:CREEP? Then the name can be chosen between concision, precision and common names. In fact, the only reason to keep the line in question is for consistency. — HTGS (talk) 19:23, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep per Born2cycle. There is no need to pointlessly disambiguate monarchs whose name and regnal numbers unambiguously identify them. Total consistency between article titles has never been a standard on Wikipedia.  Mysterymanblue  02:08, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. As Born2cycle said, there's no need to disambiguate rulers with unique names. After all, we don't have Joe Biden, President of the United States or Boris Johnson, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. As for the matter of consistency, there have been for many years articles like Cleopatra or Elizabeth II or James VI and I (in those cases all FAs by the way) and Wikipedia is still here. Векочел (talk) 05:14, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree with GoodDay. All articles shoulf follow the Monarch # of country style, which is far less confusing. Dimadick (talk) 05:16, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Alternative (Summoned by bot) I don't understand why titles would not ordinarily follow the regnal name, title, of country format ie Edward I, King of England. This seems to be fully informative and not to invent 'faux' titles ('Edward I of England' does not seem to me to be a description anyone would ordinarily use - it is equivalent to Joe Biden of the United States to me, neither fish nor fowl). There may be exceptions for monarchs who are very, very well known or who are commonly known by a 'short' form (eg Margaret of Anjou), but the default position should be for clarity over brevity and avoiding 'faux' constructions which mislead as implying an actual royal title. Pincrete (talk) 06:37, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. "Of country" is typically not part of the WP:COMMONNAME, so its function is disambiguation. If there is only one person with the regnal name and number, then adding "of country" is unnecessary disambiguation (WP:PRECISION). The desire that titles of monarchs should follow a single format is reasonable, but does not outweigh the other criteria. Consistency considerations are also less persuasive when titles already use different formats for various reasons (e.g. Elizabeth I (May 2020 RM), Queen Victoria, James VI and I). As for whether a topic is "iconic" or "well-known enough", it can factor into primary topic determinations (not relevant to this guideline about unambiguous cases), but otherwise is not part of the WP:CRITERIA. The guideline here wisely leaves a monarch's iconicness out of the analysis. Lastly, making the title more descriptive is also not a good reason to require "of country", as Born2cycle said. Adumbrativus (talk) 08:02, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Remove. I'm flabbergasted by the idea that "Edward I of England" is a 'faux' title. It's the way he is normally referred to outside England. Unless of course you'd prefer to change the article title to "Longshanks" or "Hammer of the Scots" in accordance with the common name convention. Deb (talk) 08:33, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Remove as per the explanation of Agricolae. I would add that what seems unambiguous to people in one country (e.g. Henry V must be the English one) is not always unambiguous to people in another, and WP is international. I do not have a strong opinion about the proposal of Pincrete. My main concern is not over-doing the "Precision" priority.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:21, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Remove. The cited passage, and in particular the second sentence, inappropriately suggests that WP:PRECISION is the only relevant criterion when actually there are others we must consider, notably WP:CONSISTENT. Per our WP:CRITERIA, a good article title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles, and the nature of names in this case means that many will require a clarifier regardless of what the convention states. If a set of articles titles changes from all being in the form "Monarch of Place" to all but one or a handful being in the form "Monarch of Place" (as would likely happen in many sets like this), I fail to see how that would be an improvement, either for our readers or for meeting our good article title goals. This along with some of the considerations raised by Walrasiad and others makes it clear to me that a consistent naming convention, consistently applied, is definitely preferable. ╠╣uw [talk] 09:32, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Remove the language. When there is a conflict between policies and/or guidelines, sometimes we need to just make a decision as to which is best for us. I think that Wikipedia:Consistency in article titles is more useful here as guidance. Consistent patterns are more useful to readers. Randomly removing the "of <country>" bit in a haphazard way as we have been doing recently is confusing to readers and editors, and I know we have reasons for doing so (there's always a reason). I'm just saying that the reasons are not as important as keeping a consistent system of titling articles. --Jayron32 12:00, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
    Just as an addendum, there are going to be WP:IAR cases where some monarchs are better served as not having the "of <country>" appellation. I'm still okay with that, things like Queen Victoria doesn't bother me. However, those examples should be the exception, and handled on a case-by-case basis. --Jayron32 12:02, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Remove the language, largely per the WP:CONSISTENT arguments. For many royals, the "of country" disambiguation is necessary to avoid confusion (e.g. Henry I of England vs. Henry I of France); having this pattern abruptly drop off when we pass a certain number leads to a messy appearance, and makes it more difficult for readers to predict the title of later articles. (As Agricolae and Jayron32 have mentioned, there will likely be some exceptions - for instance, I'd argue that Henry VIII is sufficiently well-known to not need "of England" appended - but I think such cases are rare enough to remain as exceptions, rather than be codified into the rules.) ModernDayTrilobite (talk) 13:58, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Remove. Makes it more easy and precise to search and handle royalties.-- Dewritech (talk) 15:00, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Remove the language, resume consistency of naming (with a very few exceptions as noted by others) and avoid WP:GLOBAL bias. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:31, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Remove the second sentence which is not constructive. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:21, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Remove--the reader needs orientation., ssnd titles in an area should be consistent. DGG ( talk ) 20:43, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Remove. I have changed my mind on this issue as I have several times proposed moves to short names. I now think clarity is more important and would prefer Edward I, King of England and Alexander II, Emperor of Russia. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:28, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep paragraph - the title is intended to identify the subject, not define it. For example, in a recent requested move which is now at Talk:Lapid, Israel, all votes to move the page away from Lapid were based on PRIMARYTOPIC and could be summarized that the old name was insufficient to identify the subject, not that so few people had heard of this small town that we need to define it. Edward V should be enough to identify the subject, that is to distinguish him from other topics that readers may be looking for. Animal lover 666 (talk) 19:04, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Remove, but without preference for adding the country. The line currently prefers concision against both precision and consistency (and sometimes common name). Perhaps we should consistently prefer precision over concision, but I don’t think the present discussion is about that. — HTGS (talk) 19:37, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Remove. Standard monarch titles should be Monarch # of country, for CONSISTENCY, for predictably, for RECOGNISABILITY, for the readers. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:16, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Remove the language. It seems unnecessary rulemaking being overly constrictive, and is contrary to external usage. Sometimes sources *do* say “Louis XVIII of France”. If an article mentioning historical events mentioned that phrase, it would not be so bad a thing for an article that we need a rule banning it. Also it seems unworkable for the less famous names and nations and confusing for the ordinary reader - exactly how does one know if Baudouin is unique ? And if another nation in the future crowns a King whose name was unique that would suddenly recast existing text to being wrong. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:16, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Remove as article titles for this subject are already covered under guidelines and policies such as WP:PRECISION and WP:COMMONNAME, which already provides for titles such as "Queen Victoria" or "Wilhelm II" as well as "of country" titles. I note that the RfC isn't about implementing an "of country" guideline but removing of a guideline. --Spekkios (talk) 22:25, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Remove. As written the language under discussion requires us to remove the country attribution when the result is unambiguous. I think that's inappropriate. I could see individual articles having discussions that lead to not including the country (Alfred the Great would be one possible example), but those should be case by case, and they should be rare exceptions. Rare, because the point would have to be that they are so well-known under a common name that it's best to leave them there -- this can't possible be true for more than a few monarchs. And if consensus ends up being that all monarchs need the country name included, I'd be OK with that too, though I doubt we have to go that far. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Remove: This seems to come down to WP:CRITERIA, and considering #1 (recognizability) against #4 (concision); the current text supports concision, removing it would support recognizability. The latter of these is self-evident, while the former can be demonstrated by considering Adalbold I, Aloys II, Denis I, Tassilo II, and Ulrich IV; I don't believe many would have any real idea what these names refer to.
I personally believe hold that #1 is more important than #4; it is more important that a title be useful in recognizing the subject, than it is to keep the title concise, and so I support removing the text.
By the way, 力: You missed Talk:Louis IX of France#Requested move 11 October 2021. BilledMammal (talk) 05:28, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Remove. It clearly doesn't have consensus in actual RM debates, and guidelines reflect consensus, not the other way around. This shouldn't be taken as license to move away from COMMONNAME arguments when there is one - go ahead and move Ed to Edward Longshanks if desired, but the country is generally quite relevant, relevant enough to include in the title. Note: I'm not sure it needs to go in the guideline, but in the cases of monarchs with multiple relevant domains where "privileging" one domain would be controversial / problematic, omitting the domain might be reasonable. But this is rare enough that it probably doesn't need to be an explicit guideline. SnowFire (talk) 04:48, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Remove the language. The previous scheme offers considerably more recognisability, and affords some understanding of the topic to the general reader of an unclicked-on wikilink. Folly Mox (talk) 12:12, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

P.S. @Power~enwiki: To ensure wider and less biased input, a notification of this RfC discussion should probably also be placed in Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Walrasiad (talk) 05:14, 15 October 2021 (UTC).

Done. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Expanding on my comment above: The norm of Monarch # of country was the norm on Wikipedia for over a decade,and lasted until last year (September 2020). It should be restored. It worked well on many grounds, e.g.
  • (1) immediately recognizable, informative and helpful in searches,
  • (2) identifies the topic as a monarch rather than a cryptic surname ("Malcolm X") or a movie sequel ("Rocky III"), or a ship ("Mary II") or any other myriad uses for these combinations,
  • (3) ensures consistency both vertically (across time) and horizontally (across countries)
  • (4) it does not prejudice one country over another, avoiding presumptions of national superiority (e.g. "George III of Great Britain" does not trump "George III of Georgia") (note: an item asked already in the guidelines but which has not been respected since this penchant for shortening began).
  • (5) lets Wikipedia maintain its policy of avoiding honorifics in the article titles (in common usage, almost nobody uses "George III" alone. When they want to shorten it, they always prefix the title to it, "King George III"). The usage "...of country" avoids us having to include the honorific "King" (or "Duke" or "Prince" or whatever) in the title, by having the title implied already in the name of the kingdom/duchy/principality. The original norm "George III of Great Britain" functioned already as a concise version of what should be the proper article title "George III, King of Great Britain"),
  • (6) It remembers that the audience of Wikipedia is WP:GLOBAL, and does not assume all our readers are deeply versed in European (or often even more narrowly British) royal kitsch, and would instantly remember the country by name & number alone. It is notable that it is mostly English monarchs that get this shortening treatment, which tends to reflect more the Anglocentric focus of our editors, rather than the serve our wider audience.
A fair, consistent norm for sovereigns, applied equitably across countries, is useful, helpful, improves recognizability and avoids toxic nationalist squabbles. The gain is great, the cost is negligible or none.
The norm worked well on Wikipedia for over a decade. It was broken in the Summer of 2020 because of a narrow nationalist squabble over whether some British monarch should give priority to Britain or Canada. It was a rather parochial affair. But it led to its hurried inclusion in multi-item RfC, which was approved without too much attention paid to different items. It has never found general acceptance, continues to be resisted, has not passed in many (probably most) RMs that attempt it. It will likely continue to be sore point in the future. There is a lot of cost and practically no gain to shortening. The wording should be removed.
Naturally, exceptions can always be made on a case-by-case basis. But it should not be included as part of the general guidelines. Walrasiad (talk) 05:14, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Please explain why titles of monarch articles should be treated differently from all other titles on WP. Is there something different about these articles or titles that justifies the difference in treatment? What? —В²C ☎ 08:13, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
They literally just enumerated 6 reasons. It's OK to have a different opinion because your favorite rationale is more important to you, but don't disrespect someone who disagrees with you by refusing to acknowledge the considerable effort they put into making a cogent argument. --Jayron32 14:19, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Jayron32, I appreciate Walrasiad’s effort, but frankly it’s déjà vu… I’ve seen so many variations of this argument so many times. Each of those six reasons arguably applies to other categories of articles on WP, some reasons as-is, others slightly modified. Do I need to spell it out? Consider each of the six reasons as-is, or slightly adjusted as appropriate for the category, as basis for always adding the country to titles of articles about heads of state, capital cities, car manufacturers, corporations, etc. More generally, almost all of our titles could meet Reason 1 and the others better if more information was added to the title. So, this list doesn’t explain why monarchs should get this treatment while other topic categories and all titles in general do not. My question stands. —В²C ☎ 15:28, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Why do you think that other categories of article need to be treated the same? All systems are arbitrary, and mostly exist because "that's the way we've been doing it". The fact that "somewhere else it is being done differently" is an unconvincing argument as far as I am concerned. There has been a system in place, mostly unchanged, for 15 years. "But other groups of articles don't do that" is both true, and irrelevant. Various types of articles, such as articles about cities, or articles about roads, or articles about musical acts, or whatever, have developed their own conventions which are particular to that topic, whether it is in organizing the text, titling the article, having standard sections, whatever. We have a system here that has been working fine for 15 years. The impetus is on people to explain why doing it differently would be more useful and It is different than how other articles do it is not a reason that imparts much usefulness. --Jayron32 16:13, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Jayron32, why do I think other categories of articles need to be treated the same? Good question. It's because we will only achieve title stability by establishing and adhering to consistent rules. I wrote about this on my page over ten years ago, if you're interested. Introduced here: User:Born2cycle#A_goal:_naming_stability_at_Wikipedia, and more details in the following section: User:Born2cycle#The_role_of_title_criteria_on_stability. --В²C ☎ 04:00, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
in common usage, almost nobody uses "George III" alone. When they want to shorten it, they always prefix the title to it, "King George III" — I disagree. I would never use the title when referring to Henry VIII or Louis XIV or Napoleon III or Robert the Bruce. Is it perhaps a British/US difference? The play was called The Madness of George III but when they made it into a film the title was changed to The Madness of King George. Opera hat (talk) 14:48, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
User:Walrasiad is spot on here. The "of country" convention was created after a lot of thought and discussion in around 2005 and worked pretty well despite the obvious drawbacks. Unfortunately "common name" stuck its ugly head into the discussion so now we have a random assortment of article titles which tends to favour the lowest common denominator in terms of historical knowledge. Personally I would re-adopt the original convention unless there is a reason not to. I would certainly resist any move to shorten existing monarch article names. Deb (talk) 08:33, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
I agree. Conventions like "Monarch of Place" serve (among other things) to make sets of similar articles more internally consistent and predictable, which is one of the fundamental criteria of good article titles, and the benefits of that should be self-evident. Efforts to reduce titles to their shortest form regardless of other titling goals seem to ignore this, and in my experience don't tend to give much consideration to the interests of our readers. ╠╣uw [talk] 09:50, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

An encyclopedia can actually have a simple, precise, consistent and quarrel free format for all royalty:

  • Men: "Name (and number if applicable)" "of Country" (and if identical names, "(Year)" when he became royal there by birth or appointment)
  • Women: "Name" "of Country (as per marriage if married)" "(birth country or maiden surname)" if applicanle

I dream of such. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:33, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

If memory serves me correctly, Elizabeth II was one of (if not the) first monarch bio articles to be moved to name only style (after repetitive RMs). Behind those repetitive RMs were possibly Canadian monarchists who were merely annoyed to see "...of the United Kingdom" in the bio article title, because in their eyes it belittled Canada. Eventually, an RM resulted in the bio article title being changed, ignoring weight which points out that Elizabeth II is first or foremost associated with the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 16:46, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Alternative consideration — I'm thinking that the actual title of the article should include the most relevant country or realm, but that when it's generally agreed that nearly all queries have one single monarch in mind (e.g. Queen Victoria, Henry VIII, Elizabeth II, Napoleon, Julius Caesar, Emperor Constantine}, then we continue to link directly from the query to the main article, rather than to a disambiguation page (" 'Elizabeth II' can refer to..."). I think that there's validity to both of the considerations above: (1) that landing on a page should let you know immediately whether you're seeing an article about (say) Elizabeth II of the U.K. or Elizabeth II of Russia — especially when an unclear Wiki-link from another page doesn't indicate the realm, while (2) search box queries should not require strange, cumbersome titles (like Victoria of the United Kingdom) that few outsiders from the non-specialist general public would think to enter. ¶ I.e., Leave a country or realm indicator in the article's title, but continue to allow commonly-understood short titles to link directly to the generally-accepted target (with the usual hat-note about alternative targets), rather than to a disambiguation page. —— Shakescene (talk) 22:01, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Barring the unexpected, Sweden will someday have its own monarch named Victoria. GoodDay (talk) 16:38, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Discussion 2.0

I’ve read all of the discussion above and I see everyone supporting removal of the language in question is either not seeing, or ignoring, the big picture. In some cases I suspect this stems from a lack of experience with WP:RM proposals in general, and a lack of appreciation for title stability on WP, and how to achieve it. The whole point of WP:AT and WP:CRITERIA in particular is so the appropriate title can be determined as objectively as possible as often as possible. The language in question here simply aligns this guideline with WP:CRITERIA which is centered on WP:COMMONNAME: use the name most commonly used in reliable sources to refer to the topic of the article. By removing this language we’re tossing COMMONNAME in every case where adding “of country” is not the common name. I wrote about this on my page over ten years ago, if you're interested.

Introduced here:

and more details in the following section:

—В²C ☎ 21:42, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

We require consistency among these many monarch bios article titles. It will be interesting when (barring the unexpected) Victoria ascends the Swedish throne & keeps her name. GoodDay (talk) 22:07, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
What we do with all other categories is address each disambiguation situation as it actually arises. Again, I see no reason to treat monarchy articles differently. —В²C ☎ 03:04, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
We obviously (and for quite sometime) have disagreed on this topic. Doubt we're going to convince each other of the others' position. GoodDay (talk) 03:06, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
I’m just trying to see if you have a policy-based argument or whether it’s just JDLI rationalization. —В²C ☎ 04:41, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
There is no policy for what you claim, concerning this topic. GoodDay (talk) 04:45, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Born2cycle: You're (again) wrongly suggesting that policy hasn't already been invoked to support removal: it has. WP:CRITERIA advances a number of goals for good article titling, and states explicitly that consensus-building is sometimes needed to decide which to favor in certain situations, and to find the best balance among them. That's what we're doing here. The policy also specifically acknowledges the validity of "topic-specific naming conventions for article titles" that vary from each other, and does not insist on identical treatment of every article.

In this case you clearly favor a different balance than most others, and that's fine... but opening a whole new section seemingly for no other reason than just to reiterate your belief that other's aren't getting it isn't helpful — and nor is repeatedly dismissing everyone else's views as JDLI. You've made your points; others have too. Probably best now to just listen. ╠╣uw [talk] 11:25, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

  • Born2cycle - May I respectfully suggest that it is you, not everyone else, who is not seeing the big picture? You might do well to actually spend some time working on articles in this area and then you would be better qualified to comment. Deb (talk) 07:00, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
    • Time and time again, it’s the editors who work on a particular area of articles that feel “their area” requires special treatment, especially with emphasis on “consistency” within their area, not with all other titles outside their area. So, thanks, but no thanks. —В²C ☎ 17:33, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
  • If we are talking about consistency, I believe GoodDay makes an excellent point that next we will need to consider stripping "Pope" from the titles of articles on Popes. (And likely from the Eastern Patriarchs.) And perhaps there will be other articles where the aristocratic titles or professional titles need to be stripped.
    I'm not taking a stand for or against the original proposal, merely pointing out given a large enough picture "consistency" can be used to justify any desired convention. -- llywrch (talk) 21:16, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I think the argument for "Pope" to be in the title would be the same as including "of country". "Pope" is generally included when talking about the person anyway, e.g: "Pope John Paul did xyz today" --Spekkios (talk) 09:10, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
    • "Pope" has been included as an exception to the general rule of "no titles", and I know that there was a discussion on this. I think it probably relates to the fact that popes don't use their real names as their papal titles, so in a sense it's not a name at all and doesn't need to conform. Deb (talk) 09:29, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Bypassing RM

Over the last 12+ months, an editor (who I shall not name) went around boldly moving article titles to the Name only style, removing the of country bit. He sometimes used the technical move requests, to accomplish this. I've undone a tiny few of his bold page moves, since. TBH, I found it quite annoying that the individual bypassed the RM route. GoodDay (talk) 23:49, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

You mean undiscussed controversial unilateral moves like this one? Except you did that, and it’s not a revert [EDIT: Not a revert of a recent undiscussed RM —В²C ☎ 16:50, 19 October 2021 (UTC)]. —-В²C ☎ 13:43, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
It was page that was moved without going the RM route, so I reversed it. GoodDay (talk) 15:04, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Except it was moved with a comment citing policy and had been stable for over a year there. While that user may claim ignorance over the inherent controversy in such moves, due to your involvement here you certainly cannot claim that you didn’t know and the move you made should have gone to RM. It’s one thing to revert a recent unilateral move, but once 3-6 months have passed, let alone over a year, that title is arguably stable and since it had been moved, moving it again is clearly controversial. Requires RM. —В²C ☎ 15:28, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
They were moved without going through the RM route, thus I reversed them. In another area of Wikipedia years ago, one or two editors did the same thing (bypassing RM) to establish their preferred article titles. If you bypass the RM route, don't be surprised if you get that move reversed in the future. I just happened to come across them yesterday. GoodDay (talk) 15:41, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Moving without RM is acceptable if the move is not controversial. Claiming such a move was controversial and reversing it accordingly is one thing, and acceptable, if it was a recent move. Doing so over a year later is quite another, and unacceptable. —В²C ☎ 16:32, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
For the record, I made a technical request to revert your undiscussed move, noting that you considered it a revert of the previous undiscussed move. However I also noted that that other move was over a year ago and the title has been stable since. Your move was reverted accordingly. Have a GoodDay. —В²C ☎ 19:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Deb, said it better then I ever could. GoodDay (talk) 21:02, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

GoodDay I wouldn't waste any more time on this. You may as well go and bang your head against a wall. Deb (talk) 17:20, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

All sneaky page moves should be summarily reverted, not validated on the notion that successful sneakiness has WP:Silent consensus. It’s a known WP:GAME, by fanatics of brevity over consistency and recognisability in titles, to do sneaky page moves on barely watched titles to break CONSISTENCY, to weaken later arguments that consistent titling is consistent. The sneaky page move *should* have known it was a controversial bold page move, and should be warned that it was disruptive gaming. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:30, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
I’m well aware of the game as it’s played by IIO repeatedly. But we AGF and don’t revert their sneaky moves unless they’re caught soon enough. One year later is never soon enough no matter how quiet the activity on that article. —В²C ☎ 22:51, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
I disagree. But seeing as you've successfully restored the 2020 unilateral page move? I'll be opening an RM there, next month. GoodDay (talk) 22:55, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
One year is not long enough if only bot and gnoming edits intersperse for the sneaky page move to be recognised as status quo ante. If the editor who did the bold page move doesn’t do the right thing by self-reverting, hold a formal RM, and no consensus defaults to the prior title. This goes for both sides of the ideological battle lines. Sneaky bold page moves are disruptive to the project, bad page moves make for a lot more trouble than bad edits, and experienced RM participants should be held to a higher standard. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:39, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

@Interstellarity:, your are aware of this RFC. Being the fellow who made the aforementioned unilateral page moves. It would be appreciated, if you'd give your input 'here' or in the survey. GoodDay (talk) 18:27, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello GoodDay,
When deciding on an article title, I think it is important to go through the criteria to see if we can make a good title for the article. I know that some people mentioned the consistency part of the article title. However, I think there are a few article titles where consistency is not that important and that recognizability would be important. For example, we have Henry VIII, Elizabeth I, Louis XIV, Napoleon, Queen Victoria, and Elizabeth II. All the titles are easily recognizable to match their subjects. I would actually put recognizability above consistency when it comes to renaming articles because it is important that we serve our readers. I think having concise titles such as Juan Carlos I when disambiguation is not necessary is helpful. The lead explains that he was the king of Spain. If disambiguation is needed, then we can add the country. This is how I feel about the whole issue. Interstellarity (talk) 12:53, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
In future, would you please go the RM route, rather then unilaterally 'move' pages? GoodDay (talk) 16:56, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Sure, I can do that from now on. Interstellarity (talk) 19:33, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi Wikipedia editors, I have opened a discussion regarding WP:COMMONNAME policy and individuals preferred name that will be relevant to the ongoing discussion about regal titles. The discussion can be found here. Thank you. cookie monster 755 00:13, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Closing

Now that the RFC template has expired. I've put in a request for closure at the Wikipedia:Closure requests page. GoodDay (talk) 20:23, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

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

Last name in royal's infobox or RMs on former monarchies of Elizabeth II

Barbados is soon to become a republic & of course, nobody's gonna dispute that when it occurs. In the meantime, I'm juggling over whether to open an RM (previous one was in August 2021) to have Queen of country moved to Monarchy of country, where Liz's was the only monarch --or-- opening an RFC on whether or not a surname should be in the infoboxes of George V's descendants & if so, in note form or not. This would be those who are officially in the royal family GoodDay (talk) 04:09, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Simeon Sakskoburggotski

Is it the implication of WP:COGNOMEN#7 -- especially as he's used there as an example -- than on his death, the article Simeon Saxe-Coburg-Gotha should necessarily be renamed to "Simeon II of Bulgaria", even should the former remain the common name in English? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 07:40, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

IMHO, the article should be named Simeon II of Bulgaria, now that he's out office. Being the Bulgarian monarch, was his highest position. GoodDay (talk) 07:47, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
I see no reference to such a convention on this page; hence my query is particular to the one actually referred to. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 07:50, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

James I and James II

There is a move request at Talk:James_I_(disambiguation)#Requested_move_3_August_2022 you might be interested in. Vpab15 (talk) 10:20, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Wives of life peers

Please clarify whether the wife of a British life peer should be referred to as 'Lady X' or as 'Baroness X'.

Baron#Style of address implies that 'Lady X' should be used. 'Baroness' as a title appears to be used only for life peers in their own right. However, it is not as clear as it could be, and it should be specified here.

There have been several disputed edits concerning this, including to:

Pinging @DuncanHill, CrumbleCrumble, Robin S. Taylor, and Mr. D. E. Mophon:. Verbcatcher (talk) 18:03, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Ffion Hague, for example, should be referred to Ffion Hague, as this is the name she uses. DuncanHill (talk) 22:19, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
I should have been clearer. I mean: what title that does a wife acquire as a result of her husband's life peerage?
For example, should this edit to Ffion Hague by Peter Philim be kept?
  • | honorific_prefix = The Right Honourable
  • | name = The Lady Hague of Richmond
  • Ffion Llywelyn Hague, Lady Baroness Hague of Richmond (née Jenkins; 21 February 1968) is a Welsh broadcaster, author, former civil servant, and wife of Conservative politician William Hague.
Verbcatcher (talk) 21:13, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
  • The official title is certainly Baroness, as with the wives of hereditary barons and female life peers in their own right. The usual style is "Lady", but not the actual title. I would go with Baroness for article titles (if the title is needed) and first lines. "Lady" is for wives of knights and baronets. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:25, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
I understand that women members of the House of Lords use the style Baroness X (though their male colleagues are almost always Lord Y) to emphasize that they do not hold their titles by marriage. —Tamfang (talk) 20:42, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

William's and Catherine's titles

Since Charles III became king. There's been conflicting edits over whether or not William & Catherine are still Duke & Duchess of Cambridge. Also, since William was appointed Prince of Wales, there's been confusion about whether or not he & Catherine are (again) still Duke & Duchess of Cambridge as well as Duke & Duchess of Cornwall. GoodDay (talk) 21:48, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, he remains Duke of Cambridge. It's a substantive peerage, not a courtesy title, so it remains his until he dies (and it passes to his heir) or succeeds to the Crown (in which case the peerage merges with the Crown, and can be granted again). Choess (talk) 01:00, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
I don't see any confusion. The edit summaries and talk page comments of your opposers don't contest whether or not the titles are still held. DrKay (talk) 06:52, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
I may have come up with a solution. Charles' tenure as "Duke of Cornwall" didn't end in 1958, when he was created Prince of Wales. Therefore, William's tenure as "Duke of Cornwall" & "Duke of Cambridge" didn't end in 2022, when he was created Prince of Wales. GoodDay (talk) 06:59, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
The Prince of Wales always holds the titles "Duke of Cornwall", "Earl of Chester" and "Duke of Rothesay", and some others, such as "Earl of Carrick". However, some of these are not immediately or automatically granted. From the point of view of his title in this article, it's normal just to call him "Prince of Wales". When he's in Scotland, he's called by the Rothesay title, but he doesn't appear to have an Irish title. Deb (talk) 07:12, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
The Prince of Wales only hold those other titles, if he's the Monarch's eldest son. For example, the future George III was 'never' Duke of Cornwall, Rothesay etc, when he was Prince of Wales. GoodDay (talk) 07:14, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
More specifically, only if he's the monarch's oldest living son. Duke of Cornwall § Succession tells us that if a Duke of Cornwall should die without descendants [...], his next brother obtains the duchy, this brother being both the oldest living son and heir apparent. Presumably the same applies to Rothesay and the other lesser titles. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:32, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
I know that. See George V's tenure as Prince of Wales, who was Edward VII's second son, but only surviving son by the time Edward ascended the throne. GoodDay (talk) 07:36, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Hm, has any Duke of Cornwall died without descendants other than Arthur Tudor? —Tamfang (talk) 20:35, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
@Tamfang: several. Henry VI's son (Edward, in 1471); Richard III's son (Edward, in 1484); Henry VIII's son (Henry, in 1511); James I's son (Henry, in 1612) & Charles I's son (Charles, in 1629). Note - even though Edward III's son (Edward, in 1376) & George II's son (Frederick, in 1751) also never became king, both their sons (Edward III's & George II's grandsons) did. GoodDay (talk) 21:13, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
D'oh, I forget about those who died very young. —Tamfang (talk) 21:30, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Forgot all about this. Don't even remember where the RFC was held or what the result was, on this topic. GoodDay (talk) 20:38, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

British sovereigns

Based on the recent discussion at Talk:Charles III/Archive 6#Requested move 8 September 2022, there is apparently a consensus to not follow the guideline as it exists when it comes to British sovereigns. This guideline would clearly endorse titles such as Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom or Charles III of the United Kingdom, instead of the actual article titles Elizabeth II and Charles III. British monarchs, going pretty far back, for the most part do not have a nation in the article title. In the discussion, there was a strong preference for conforming to that precedent, rather than this guideline. So it behooves us to change the guideline, because guidelines are supposed to reflect consensus, not attempt to dictate it. The main issue seems to have been that Charles Windsor is recognized as the primary topic for "Charles III," and therefore people wanted that to be the article title. Strictly speaking, this isn't necessary; the name of primary topic can redirect to a more rigorously titled article name, such as Princess Diana, which redirects to Diana, Princess of Wales. But it was the consensus outcome. And this isn't limited to British sovereigns. Already, in discussing how to use ordinals, the existing guideline explains why there is an article Juan Carlos I and not Juan Carlos, King of Spain, yet does not explain why the article title is not Juan Carlos I of Spain, which seems to be what the guideline should lead to. I believe the following should be added as an additional bullet under "As regards Country," I guess after the three existing bullets:


Country may be omitted if a given sovereign is the primary topic for their first name and ordinal with no further disambiguation. For example, Henry VIII (not Henry VIII of England) and Gustav III (not Gustav III of Sweden).


Does anyone object, or have a counterproposal? --DavidK93 (talk) 02:26, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Years ago, I warned against moving away from the "Monarch # of country" style of page names. But nobody would heed my advice & now we've got inconsistency across the board. Very soon, we're going to have an inconsistency for current queen consorts. GoodDay (talk) 16:21, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Same here. Deb (talk) 09:16, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
"Monarch # of country" is fine as a general rule that applies to less well known monarchs whose titles generally need some form of disambiguation anyway, but this is the English Wikipedia where British monarchs are generally very well known as their name and ordinal. There is no need to force a title like "Charles III of the United Kingdom" when everyone else in the English-speaking world refers to him simply as "Charles III". Striving for a certain amount of consistency in article titles is all well and good, but common-sense exceptions like this are a good thing, not something that should be lamented. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:41, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
The move away from "of country" began years ago, primarily at Elizabeth II's page, after near repetitive RMs. Because 'some' editors (possibly Canadian & New Zealand monarchists) didn't want the United Kingdom in the article title, even though the UK was the country she was born in (later died & was buried in) & most associated with. GoodDay (talk) 23:47, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
Well that's certainly understandable, and our article titling policies strongly support "Elizabeth II" over "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom". Rreagan007 (talk) 23:50, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
Back then, I suspect it was more politically motivated. Shall we call it, realm pride. GoodDay (talk) 00:05, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
Well, as an American I don't really have a dog in that fight. But I think I understand the sentiment. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:15, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
"our article titling policies strongly support "Elizabeth II". I really don't think that's true, partly because the actual convention has had a truck driven through it by the "common namers". It seems to me important that it should be made clear what country a monarch ruled. In ten years' time there will be lots of people around who have no memory whatever of Elizabeth II. Deb (talk) 10:29, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
That may be true generally, but the memory of Elizabeth II will last much longer for English speakers, and that's what matters on the English Wikipedia. In 50 years if you say "Elizabeth II" to most English speakers, they will likely know exactly whom you are talking about Rreagan007 (talk) 16:34, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
"Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom" is hardly much clearer than "Elizabeth II". If clarity is what you seek, then surely you should be advocating for something like Elizabeth II (queen of the United Kingdom). Surtsicna (talk) 17:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
It worked well when the convention was observed for all monarchies, but once we abandoned all pretence at consistency, not so well. However, Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom is much easier to write down than Elizabeth II (queen of the United Kingdom). As for "most English speakers" remembering exactly who she was in 50 years time - well, I won't be here, so I can't have a wager on it with Rreagan007, but I'll be very surprised if that's the case. Half of them didn't know who she was when she was alive. Deb (talk) 18:45, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
Well let's do a thought experiment. In 50 years time, if you ask an English speaker "who was Elizabeth II", do you think people will be more likely to say Elizabeth II or Elisabeth II, Abbess of Quedlinburg? Rreagan007 (talk) 19:45, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
Going on this, I'd say neither. Let's face it, most English speakers aren't British. Deb (talk) 15:34, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

In these last two or so years, an editor has been opening RMs across several 'monarch' bio pages, pushing for 'name only' form. Unfortunately, the fellow has succeeded in a majority of them. GoodDay (talk) 19:43, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Well that seems to suggest that the consensus of the Wikipedia community is that we should not force every monarch article title to follow the exact same format. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:45, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
I never liked the way it was done, though. Going from one bio to another, instead of coming 'here' & seeking an overall consensus. GoodDay (talk) 19:48, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
Well, this page is not a policy page meant to dictate policy across Wikipedia. It is a guideline page meant to reflect the consensus that has formed around this particular type of articles over time. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:52, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
The same method or methods were done in another area of Wikipedia, well over a decade ago, concerning bio article titles-in-general. It just had an appearance of sneakiness to it, intentional or not. GoodDay (talk) 20:06, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
That doesn't mean it's the way it has to be done. Sometimes people like the idea of universal consistency in theory, but don't actually like it in practice when given the opportunity to make exceptions in specific cases. In all of the various RM discussions about monarch titles, this guideline is routinely brought up, and editors routinely reject the notion that we must conform all monarch article titles to one particular format. The British monarchs not including the country in the title is clearly an exception to the general guideline that editors have reached consensus on through various RM discussions over the years, and I think this guideline should indeed reflect that consensus as it currently exists. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:21, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
It is not consensus. It is pig-headedness by a few, tiring people out. I would propose to move them all back to standard format, where they were a couple of years ago. This is definitely NOT a guideline. Walrasiad (talk) 13:48, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
You shouldn't be making the change you attempted on this Naming convention page, without consensus. GoodDay (talk) 14:24, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
It absolutely is the current consensus on Wikipedia to not include the country in British monarch titles from George III onward. This consensus has developed organically over the last 12 years through many RM discussions such as: here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. It seems to be your "pig-headedness" that refuses to acknowledge this consensus. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:18, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Would be quite happy to see all those RM's reversed. GoodDay (talk) 15:55, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
I'm sure you would. Nevertheless, they prove that the consensus is to not include the country in the article title for British monarchs. And this guideline should reflect that consensus. What's the point of a guideline that does not accurately reflect consensus? Your bias against the British monarchy seems to be clouding your judgment in this matter. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:11, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
There absolutely is no consensus not to include the country in British monarch titles. It just happens that many of the British monarchs from George III onwards either have unique numbers or are the primary topic, and that has led some, like yourself, to misunderstand the issues involved. Deb (talk) 17:42, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
It's not "many" it's all of the British monarchs from George III onward that do not include the country in the title. Are you saying that you don't think there is consensus to not include the country in British monarchs from George III onward? Rreagan007 (talk) 18:41, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
"Would be quite happy to see all those RM's reversed." So do I. They were all bad moves. Dimadick (talk) 19:46, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
They were all good moves because they better complied with our article titling policies. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:42, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
They were awful moves that ignored the consensus reached here about titling sovereign articles. They should be reversed. Walrasiad (talk) 23:22, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
This guideline is meant to reflect consensus, not dictate it. There have been literally dozens of RMs on the British monarchs and a very clear consensus has formed in the Wikipedia community that British monarchs from George III onward should not have the country in their titles. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:30, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
That's the problem with the page-by-page RM approach. It leaves a related series of pages, with their titles inconsistent. Not very neat. GoodDay (talk) 23:36, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
It reflects exhaustion. The stubborn doggedness of a few editors in pushing their favorite version, and ignoring the resolutions discussed and achieved more comprehensively here. It is exhausting to fight this over and over again, RM by RM, simply because a handful choose to willfully ignore the consensus. Walrasiad (talk) 00:24, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
RM discussions is how we determine consensus about what a particular article's title should be. It sounds like you're just making excuses because you don't think that consensus goes against your dogmatic desire to try to make all monarch article titles conform to what you think they should be. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:56, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

RFC: Article titles for Various Princesses

Requesting comments based on closing comments on two RMs (not moved) I recently proposed regarding the styling of Princesses of the Blood, who married men with other titles, following their deaths Talk:Princess Louise, Duchess of Argyll#Requested move 24 January 2023 and Talk:Princess Alice, Countess of Athlone#Requested move 23 January 2023. Both of these proposed RMs did focus on British Princesses, but the wider community of monarchies also see this (such as Princess Alix of Luxembourg or Princess María de las Mercedes of Bourbon-Two Sicilies. Most articles I've found seem to follow this line, but some, such as Princess Mary, Duchess of Gloucester and Edinburgh and Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon do not line up with that idea. Estar8806 (talk) 21:42, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

  • Comment - There definitely is a lack of consistency, in the bio titles. GoodDay (talk) 22:02, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
  • WP:COMMONNAME is king here - trumps consistency every time. Even princesses have some right to choose their own naming style. We seem to be having a rash of proposed royalty moves at the moment, & I'm inclined to think that after 20+ years we have got the vast majority of them right by now, so am hard to pursuade that any change is needed. Johnbod (talk) 04:18, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
  • WP:NCROY has always been a huge problem. I think it foolishly tried to impose a consistency that simply is not there in the real world. Along the way it has also produced a number of unintuitive results. Given the lack of real world consistency, go with how actual sources reflecting back refer to the person, that is, give more weight to sources written well after the person’s death. Sources from their birth knew nothing of what the person would become. I suspect that for princesses, like people generally, they will tend to more often be known for their highest title in life, and will only be best known for their childhood title if their childhood title remained the most senior for all their lives. For princesses with interesting lives, such as multiple careers and/or marriages, it could be anything, and the decision should be made by the least connected sources. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:02, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
    WP:CONSISTENT is good, but not at the expense of conflict with WP:COMMONNAME. WP:NCROY is too often in conflict with COMMONNAME, therefore something is wrong. Consistency should be looked for within the usual results of COMMONNAME decisions. If consistency is not there, Wikipedia should not create it. Editors’s hopes should have little weight compared to what sources do. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:47, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment We should always try to be as consistent as possible without delving into the ridiculous. If something is trying to promote consistent article titling, more often than not, I will support it. I think that WP:NCRAN as is should be the largest and most important factor in deciding article titling for those that it covers, not the broader WP:COMMONNAME. NCRAN does say exceptions can be made, which is of course true, which is why it should be adhered to; however, lately, too many people have trying to change titles using the exception clause. So, whatever style get chosen (Princess [NAME], [TITLE] of [PLACE], or Princess [NAME] of [COUNTRY]), I would just hope for them to be uniform with the others. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 13:39, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment (Summoned by bot) this is outside my expertise, but while a of consistent base for most common circumstances is inherently a good thing I think the search for consistency here is futile and unhelpful. There is no consistency and consistency should not be applied for its own sake., as someone said on another recent 'Royal' RfC. WP:COMMONNAME overrides any imposed WP guideline and this appears to be one of those anomalous situations which no 'rule' will ever adequately cover. Pincrete (talk) 13:41, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
I always aim for consistency if possible, as it helps people to know where to look for an article, especially if there are many people with the same name - for example, Princess Mary. Deb (talk) 15:29, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Do not discard long-embedded practices. WP:NCROY should continue to be followed to give the technically correct information, follow long-standing conventions, have something that is absolutely available, and for consistency with others that have no alternative names. Use the title at the time of their death and mention other titles in the body. Where there is an alternative names arguably more WP:COMMONNAME, meaning more popular current-day shorter or slang reference(s), that can be mentioned in lead and used as a link to the article just like other cases of alternative titles and is done for Diana, Princess of Wales with Princess Di. To instead try to use a COMMONNAME for title would lead to debates over when does COMMONNAME overcome proper name, which of multiple names is most common today then tomorrow, a prolonged muddle of both approaches existing in WP, and if one does not use the official title of the person then where and how is it going to be mentioned later. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:24, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

RfC - Article titles for Deceased Princesses

The result of the request for comment was option C: common name. DrKay (talk) 16:19, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

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

It's been two months since I last proposed an RfC on this matter and I've come to realize that I may have formed that RfC poorly. So I'm going to give it a second go (note- I apologize if this is against any policy that I'm aware of)

So, to my question: should the article titles for deceased princesses who received a title from marriage (such as Princess Louise, Duchess of Argyll in the UK) have their article titles based on:

A - The title they held at birth, in line with WP:CONSORTS for the spouses of sovereigns; or (for example: the example I cited above would be moved to Princess Louise of the United Kingdom;
B - The highest title they held during their lifetimes (where the example I've used her would remain at the present title).
C - whatever WP:COMMONNAME dictates. (added by Johnbod)

I understand that some have a problem with seeking consistency where it may not exist in the 'real world'. However, WP:CONSISTENT is a part of our article titles policy. Even if we don't always abide by it (perhaps not nearly as much as we should, but I digress) we should at least have some form of guideline to abide by if/when consistency is needed. Happy to hear everyone's thoughts, Estar8806 (talk) 01:35, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Procedural note - I intend to ping contributors to the last RfC on this topic in around 24 hours. Estar8806 (talk) 01:36, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
@Johnbod, SmokeyJoe, Tim O'Doherty, Pincrete, and Deb: Estar8806 (talk) 02:59, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
B - for the late princesses who never became monarchs or consorts of monarchs. GoodDay (talk) 01:38, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
C - whatever WP:COMMONNAME dictates; this nearly always outranks WP:CONSISTENT. The last Rfc is just above btw. I notice most participating then said the same; you should certainly have added that as an option, so I have done so. Johnbod (talk) 03:07, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
@Johnbod I'm not exactly certain why you think you can simply change an RfC I've proposed, but I digress. The point of this was to determine what we should defer to in the absence of clear WP:COMMONNAME. Estar8806 (talk) 03:20, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
And also, most editors above cited either giving precedence to COMMONNAME, which I do not intend to change, rather give us something to fall back on. And, by my count, 3 editors above had issues with searching for consistency, 3 did not. I wouldn't call half "most". Estar8806 (talk) 03:24, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
(ec) Because you can't just exclude the option most people preferred last time! I'm afraid you aren't very good at drafting these things - you admit your last go at this was done "poorly". There's nothing about "The point of this was to determine what we should defer to in the absence of clear WP:COMMONNAME" in your nom, & some of the consistency fans are pretty clearly ready to over-ride WP:COMMONNAME. Only one person had commented, and you don't WP:OWN an rfc just because you started it. I commented last time that too many royal naming Rfc's were being started, and 2 months really is too soon to repeat one. Johnbod (talk) 03:26, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Again say, only half the editors last time had any problem with a search for consistency, certainly not "most". Also, read the last paragraph in my nom I understand that some have a problem with seeking consistency where it may not exist in the 'real world'. However, WP:CONSISTENT is a part of our article titles policy. Even if we don't always abide by it (perhaps not nearly as much as we should, but I digress) we should at least have some form of guideline to abide by if/when consistency is needed.. On your final point, I'm not claiming any form of ownership for the RfC (I'm sorry if it was perceived that way, perhaps I was slightly flustered), but you nonetheless missed the point of the RfC. Estar8806 (talk) 03:30, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
  • C Little to add to what I said above: "I think the search for consistency here is futile and unhelpful. There is no consistency and consistency should not be applied for its own sake. … … WP:COMMONNAME overrides any imposed WP guideline and this appears to be one of those anomalous situations which no 'rule' will ever adequately cover" . Pincrete (talk) 06:19, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
  • C: Consistency is the last and least important of the WP:CRITERIA, and is rightly overridden by WP:COMMONNAME. We should be giving priority to what the late princesses in question are called by reliable sources published after their death. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:17, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
    That may be true but it's not the same as common name. "Princess Diana" is the best possible example of an unacceptable common name. Deb (talk) 16:08, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
    Hardly typical. Johnbod (talk) 16:23, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
    "rightly overridden by WP:COMMONNAME" - huh? In what world does an enormously broad policy such as COMMONNAME (so broad it dictates the titles of over 6 million articles) have the right to be a complete block to any future RM on royalty/nobility pages that use consistency, as a whole argument or a partial one, as rationale for such a move? Let us not forget that the hallowed COMMONNAME even admits that [e]ditors should also consider all five of the criteria for article titles, one of which is indeed consistency. Nowhere does it say that WP:CONSISTENT is less important than the others: in fact, it says "[w]e strive to make titles on Wikipedia as consistent as possible with other titles on similar subjects.". I accept that, whilst COMMONNAME is policy and that this page here is merely a guideline, this was engineered in the specific interest of these pages, accepted by the community, and has been used widely for years, and continues to be used widely. COMMONNAME was not intended for these articles in particular, and does not have their needs in the best interest. Common sense prevails, and if that runs out, this guideline should. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 12:37, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
  • B unless there is a clear reason to do otherwise (I can't think of one). I don't agree that COMMONNAME should "outrank" consistency. TBH, there probably isn't a "common name" for most such women in any case. Deb (talk) 11:27, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
  • C. In most cases, COMMONNAME should clearly be preferred. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:48, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
  • C when possible (and it often won't be, e.g. when Princess X isn't the primary topic of "Princess X"), but otherwise neither A nor B. I don't think this is amenable to a general judgment that one or the other among A and B best fits the remaining criteria of recognizability, precision, naturalness, and concision, even as a default convention. It depends. What is the person more often called, in reliable modern sources? What is she most significant for? Who else has the same name, and how well do potential titles function as natural disambiguation? How long she spent being styled a particular way, and how she was styled at particular times (birth, or death, or otherwise) may be relevant, indirectly. Generally I would leave this up to editors' case-by-case judgment. Editors can consider consistency between certain articles, but should be careful that even ostensibly very comparable articles – for example, princesses who are siblings – will often not be similarly situated when all these factors are considered. Adumbrativus (talk) 04:54, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
    Just as a quick comment-
    I don't know how you would say "C" is often not possible, and then go on to say what the subject is more often called should be a key consideration, which is the whole idea of COMMONNAME.
    On a second point, case-by-case judgement generally isn't a good idea. That's why consistency is part of the article titling policy.
    I do however think that your point on how long a princess was known by what title may be an important consideration.
    Nonetheless, I think a lot of commenters here missed the point of the RfC. This isn't a discussion of COMMONNAME vs NCROY, but rather what to default to in the absence of a clear common name. NCROY is (sadly) ignored quite often, just look at all the article titles for various monarchs in conflict with WP:SOVEREIGNS. Estar8806 (talk) 02:56, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
    To clarify about the first point, issues unrelated to COMMONNAME may prevent the use of the common name as the article title – in my example, primary topic. What I mean is that, even in that situation, or even if no single name has a clear absolute majority, editors should still consider if there are significant differences in the relative frequency of the names being proposed. Adumbrativus (talk) 06:44, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
  • C -- I can only deal with UK. Under current usage the daughter or granddaughter of a monarch is entitled to be called princess and this is likely to be the common name. I would suggest that the suffix "of the UK" is inappropriate because the title came from being a member of the royal family, but not a ruler. If there is a need to disambiguate, it might be appropriate to use the name of her husband or royal parent. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:37, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
  • C. If there is a COMMONNAME, use it, or one of them. Failing that then B, eg Mary Tudor, Queen of France. Notice that highest position overlaps with COMMONNAME. Even in her lifetime, although she was queen of France so briefly, it was prominently referred to. Failing that, name at end of life. Failing that, I.e. if so inconsequential that there are no sources commenting on the Princess at the end of her life, use her birth name. This converges for infant and childhood deaths. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:30, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
    A problem with “COMMONNAME” is that most sources might be too close, eg from her lifetime, and with a scarcity of sources in modern times. COMMONNAME should be weighted against a large number of primary sources, and weighted for reliable secondary sources commenting historically, and if these don’t exist, maybe COMMONNAME should be considered to not exist, rather than pointing to primary sources. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:34, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
  • B, as the correct term although that is misstated - the as Princess Louise, Duchess of Argyll is not the “highest” title, that is her birth name followed by her title by marriage and the correct title. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:40, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 7 June 2023

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

The result of the move request was: moved. I see no policy-based reason to depart from the closure of the Hohenzollern RM from last December. In particular, I would like to direct editors to what I said in the penultimate paragraph of the closure:

WP:COMMONNAME allows us to use a less common name if a more common one is problematic. From assessing this discussion, I don't think anyone has adequately argued against the assertion that the princely title is problematic. Indeed, several editors take the view that it is problematic. It is from that that I ultimately conclude that the more preferable title when considering the COMMONNAME policy is the personal name.

The same is true in this RM. That the current titles correspond to the "common name" is, for most of the articles here, is an unsupported assertion.

In general, NCROY says that the use of princely titles in pretence as article titles is to be discouraged and a high bar – a little beyond COMMONNAME, actually – is set to delineate when the use is appropriate.

In the case of the German ex-nobility, with the context of the failed Reichsburger coup last year, in my view, that bar is exceedingly high, and nothing in this discussion indicates that, apart from maybe one edge case, that bar is met. (closed by non-admin page mover) Sceptre (talk) 23:30, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

– This discussion was already had for the House of Hohenzollern on the talk page here the reasoning is the same as that given by User:Seelefant and should apply to all German nobility born after 1919.

The Weimar Constitution of 1919 abolished in Article 109 any and all royal and aristocratic prerogatives, including titles. The words of the title were allowed to be retained as part of the family name, which is functionally just that - a regular, "bourgeois" surname that should not be translated, and not be put before the first name, title-style. These persons, born after 1919, are not, have never been, and will never be German princes, no more than a contemporary person carrying the name of "Müller" thereby retains the legal requirements to make and sell bread. Germany is a republic, not a constitutional monarchy. There are no German "princes" today, no matter what some people fancy to call themselves. This should be changed (in accordance with WP:NCROY "do not use dissolved or defunct titles"), and out of respect for Germany's democratic constitution, so not to give the impression that Wikipedia is lending encyclopedic credence to aristocratic pretense.

Wikipedia:NPOV is also relevant as keeping these names supports a royalist minority view and a view held by the extremist far-right Reichsbürger movement which were recently in the news for a coup plot.

I'm opening this request as User:Willthacheerleader18 reverted my moves claiming they weren't discussed before. I'd like to point out that this was general topic was discussed before on many pages. For example on the talk page for Albert Prinz von Thurn und Taxis there is a discussion about the incorrect page name and it seems like there was a consensus on the change so User:Julle changed it in February 2013. That change was reverted by DWC LR without discussion a month later.

The names I'm proposing are the same as the names used on the German Wikipedia (where one exists) for the most part. D1551D3N7 (talk) 22:16, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

In the english language, which are the more common usage? GoodDay (talk) 22:50, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose All of these moves should be treated separately, since there may be different arguments for each individual. WP:NCROY says "Do not use hypothetical, dissolved or defunct titles, including pretenders (real or hypothetical), unless this is what the majority of reliable sources use." (emphasis added). In the case of Princess Irmingard of Bavaria, for example, Google Books only lists one English-language work under "Irmingard von Bayern" (and that is a bibliographic reference which proves to be inaccurate if one looks at the actual book).[1] But there are a number of works listed with "Irmingard Princess of Bavaria".[2] This is just one example of how "the majority of reliable sources use" a princely title which some people think is "defunct". I'm not sure why D1551D3N7 proposes some changes which include "Prinz" (or some other title) in the surname and others which don't. In the case of Prince Max of Bavaria, he is never known as "Max Emanuel in Bayern". Noel S McFerran (talk) 06:08, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
    I responded to the common name argument in a separate comment.
    I think it would be unreasonable to open 20 separate move request discussions concerning the exact same topic, if I did that I would get a lot of people arguing that I should have done a joint move request. We would also have the exact same back and forths on each one. This also avoids silly arguments like "Y, the sister of Prince X should have Princess Y as the article title since he has it". Doing them all together helps with Wikipedia:Consistency.
    I don't just "think" the titles are defunct. They ARE defunct for all intents and purposes. They are claimants to a throne that DOES NOT EXIST and has not existed for over 100 years. How far away from the time of the abolition of a monarchy must we be before you would consider these titles defunct? If you want to claim the titles are somehow not defunct please present an actual argument.
    RE: Irmingard
    this book seems to use "Irmingard of Bayern", "Irmingard von Bayern" and "Irmingard of Bavaria".
    Given she was born shortly after the abolition of the monarchy and the fact she was persecuted by the Nazi's for being her father's daughter and common usage I think it's fair to keep the current title in her case but I don't think this argument extends to all of them.
    I kept Prinz in the surname if it was used on the German wikipedia but you're right, perhaps we shouldn't include Prinz. Sometimes Prinz or Herzog etc is incorporated in the surname, other times it isn't.
    RE: Max
    Hard to find any sources that talk about him or reference him in general outside of his supposed throne claims but it appears that the surname is actually "Herzog in Bayern" not "in Bayern" so that's a mistake on my part. D1551D3N7 (talk) 21:31, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose. These aren't their common names in English, and some of the suggested targets are ambiguous (Albert von Sachsen). Celia Homeford (talk) 07:10, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
    Thanks for pointing that out, it should be Albert von Sachsen (1934–2012) or Albert von Sachsen (born 1934) or Albert von Sachsen (historian)
    I don't see any others that are particularly ambiguous. D1551D3N7 (talk) 10:46, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Support, as per nomination. Any exceptions can then be resolved on relevant page Somej (talk) 09:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose - If they're more commonly known in english, by the current names. PS - Would we also be having an RM, concerning the same topic in Romania, Greece, Bulgaria, etc? GoodDay (talk) 14:46, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
    I responded to the common names argument further below.
    I do intend to look into the Romania, Greece, Bulgaria, Italian etc. ones also but different countries treat things differently so will require some research. Let's focus on the German cases first. D1551D3N7 (talk) 11:26, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose - see Wikipedia:Official names for guidance. DrKay (talk) 16:17, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose - we shouldn't be using German for these titles. Franz, Duke of Bavaria is also not known as "Franz von Bayern" in English. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:04, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
    They aren't titles, they are surnames and thus should not be translated. It would be like I insisted on referring to you as Tim Descendant of Doherty. D1551D3N7 (talk) 18:32, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment You claimed that I reverted your edits, but I did not. I requested they be reverted. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 00:05, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose as the proposed names are not used by a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources – and are not even consistent in their use of "Prinz". Rosbif73 (talk) 06:30, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Statements that we should use the proposed names "out of respect for Germany's democratic constitution" are completely against Wikipedia's conventions and verge on WP:OFFICIALNAME. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:50, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment
I don't see any arguments being given that explain how the changes on these pages should be treated any differently than in the case of their House of Hohenzollern counterparts
RE: Common Name
In a lot of cases the current article name is not the commonly used name.
I've collected a list of sources for some of the people listed.
Even in cases where Prince or Princess is used as a title the name used still doesnt match the article title as the titles tend to be English translations instead of keeping the German, they are surnames and should not be translated.
I agree with User:blindlynx and User:Somej, usage of the defunct titles should be exceptions not the norm and can be resolved later on the individual talk pages.
Gloria, Princess of Thurn and Taxis
name: Gloria von Thurn und Taxis
name: Gloria Thurn und Taxis
name: Princess Gloria von Thurn und Taxis
name: Princess Gloria von Thurn und Taxis
Princess Maria Theresia of Thurn and Taxis (born 1980)
name: Maria Theresia Wilson
name: Maria Thurn Und Taxis
name: Maria Theresia von Thurn und Taxis
Johannes, 11th Prince of Thurn and Taxis
name: Prince Johannes Thurn und Taxis
name: Prince Johannes von Thurn und Taxis
Albert, 12th Prince of Thurn and Taxis
name: Albert von Thurn Und Taxis
name: Albert Thurn Und Taxis
name: Prince Albert von Thurn und Taxis
name: Albert Prince of Thurn and Taxis (no comma)
Princess Iniga of Thurn and Taxis
Couldn't find any good sources in general, ones used in the article don't mention her or are dead links. Will probably nominate for deletion due to lack of notability
Friedrich Wilhelm, Prince of Hohenzollern
name: Prince Friedrich Wilhelm
given he was born shortly after 1919 I'm willing to concede on this one
Karl Friedrich, Prince of Hohenzollern
name: Karl Friedrich von Hohenzollern
name: His Highness Karl Friedrich Prince of Hohenzollern
D1551D3N7 (talk) 11:17, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Support Gloria, Maria Theresia, Albert, and Karl. For the others, I would like to see more evidence of COMMONNAME. JoelleJay (talk) 18:11, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Support all, for all that this nomination may have been a bit big. I believe the COMMONNAME concerns cut the other way above - these names should be considered the "default" (and yes, English Wikipedia doesn't use German, but it does take names as is. In the same way that an English last name of "Cooper" does not mean the person actually makes barrels any more, it seems that the likes of "Prinz" really are their last names, in the same way that "Prince" is a last name in English too). Only if an affirmative case is made for use of the English translation of the nonexistent title in English should we consider using that - basically a "Queen Latifah" case. (The main example I can think of is something like Prince Rupert Loewenstein, which honestly I'd rather move too, but at least English media does indeed call him "Prince" in English.) Keeping these names translated implies that there is an Actual Government Title afoot here, and that is quite inaccurate for the same reason we don't call Jean-Christophe, Prince Napoléon Emperor of France. SnowFire (talk) 05:14, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
We don't call Jean-Christophe Bonaparte "Emperor of France" but we do call him Prince Napoléon. As we do call Jean d'Orléans the Count of Paris, Carlos de Bourbon de Parme the Duke of Parma, and other nominal heads of formerly ruling dynasties by their courtesy titles that have no legal official capacity. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 15:36, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:OFFICIALNAME and WP:COMMONNAME. Particularly for those who are heads and consorts of former ruling houses (like the 11th Prince of Thurn and Taxis and the Dowager Princess of Thurn and Taxis). Translating them to the German names also seems silly, as English sources do not refer to them as such and this is English Wikipedia. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 15:36, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
    We're not "translating them to German names", these people are German of course their names are German. Currently it is the articles that are translating names into titles. In the case of Johannes the English sources I could find don't refer to him as "Johannes, 11th Prince of Thurn and Taxis" but either "Prince Johannes Thurn und Taxis" or "Prince Johannes von Thurn und Taxis" - note the lack of "of" or "and". Even if the title was to retain "Prince" in it the name is wrong as per COMMONNAME. The same applies to Gloria D1551D3N7 (talk) 19:14, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment Is this to set a precedent with all Wikipedia articles about non-ruling royal persons and notable members of formerly noble families? This would be a huge change in article naming on Wikipedia.. I mean, we have people like Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna of Russia (whose title is not recognized in Russia) and Vittorio Emanuele, Prince of Naples (whose title is not recognized in Italy).. not to mention the dozens of articles on heads and membrs of noble families in countries where the nobility has been abolished. This move seems to focus on persons from the Germanic regions, but if we are to do this, would this not follow suit with similar articles with people from Russia, France, Italy, Hungary, Czech Republic, Poland, etc.? -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 16:22, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
    You are committing a logical fallacy here - appeal to tradition. It should be the way it is because it is the way it is is not a valid argument. Just because articles for other pretenders exist with the titles doesn't make it right in any way.
    The convention already exists to not use titles for pretenders. The precedent already exists in the case of German nobility if you read the first sentence of my request. It is up to those who oppose to put forward a reason that differentiates these other German houses from House of Hohenzollern.
    Here we're only talking about German houses to have a more straightforward discussion, it's quite clear how the monarchy was abolished and the titles were removed, other former monarchies may have allowed people to keep their titles - I haven't looked into all of them yet. It was also 100 years ago, it's not exactly recent.
    The title of Maria Vladimirovna's page is contentious as you can see on the talk page and her Russian article does not have the title. The same applies to Vittorio, there's discussion on his talk page and his Italian article does not have Prince of Naples in the title. Why is English Wikipedia consistently taking a royalist point of view on these articles when most people from these countries clearly do not share this view? It clearly violates Wikipedia:NPOV. Italians or Russians may not interact with English Wikipedia enough to encounter these articles.
    I think we should follow suit with similar articles with people from Russia, France, Italy, Hungary, Czech Republic, Poland, etc. D1551D3N7 (talk) 19:42, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Oppose - Wikipedia is not bound to follow a country's laws based on how people should be called, particularly a law that has been obsolete for nearly a century. WP:NCROY says that titles in pretense should be used when most sources do so.
This is a complete WP:TRAINWRECK and these should be proposed individually for better discussion. The fact that the only evidence cited in the nom was a section of the Weimar Constitution, which isn't even in effect anymore, WP:NPOV was cited in a sentence that clearly is not intended to keep that NPOV, an assertion that one user made a change so there must therefore be consensus, and the fact that German Wikipedia uses the proposed titles, which are in no way obligated to do. None of this would make me support any of the moves individually (but that should be discussed elsewhere, hence TRAINWRECK). estar8806 (talk) ★ 18:13, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Comment on the Weimar Constitution: The cited part is still valid law in germany per Art. 123 Abs 1 GG. Theoreticalmawi (talk) 05:48, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Support By reasons given by the proposer. The evidence presented is very clear. When there are such cases where a name with consensus get reverted without discussion after some time, it is a absolute no-brainer that the reached consensus should be reinstated.:
Another important point is that the usage of such fake titles can be dangerous. We just had the case of the "prince" Reuß, who headed the 2022 German coup d'état plot.
Furthermore, some on this list even lack notability, so an english common name does not exist because no reliable english source ever covered these individuals. Theoreticalmawi (talk) 05:39, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose Wikipedia is and has always been what most reliable sources say about a subject, not what anyone personally believes to be WP:Truth based on WP:Original research on what laws say. Wikipedia has no obligation whatsoever to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS let alone respect any existing or defunct political regime and ideology. Per WP:COMMONNAME, Wikipedia determines which article titles to use based on prevalence in independent, reliable English-language sources.
Also, the nominator has failed to provide evidence for the claim that English sources are translating surnames rather than simply using defunct titles. Let's take the case of Georg Friedrich of Prussia for example. His legal surname is "Prinz von Preussen". Yet, multiple English-language sources have referred to him as "Prince Georg Friedrich of Prussia" instead of "George Friedrich Prince of Prussia". See The Economist, The Sunday Times, Associated Press to name a few. I have never seen anyone seriously write a multi-words last name in such a manner. Then there are sources putting a comma right after "Friedrich" and before "Prince of Prussia". See Deutche Welle and Financial Times. At least in the West, first name and last name is only separated by a comma when a name is rewritten to present a last name first.
Furthermore, please be aware that Wikipedia:Consensus can change especially if the previous consensus is not based on the existing policies and guidelines.
StellarHalo (talk) 09:45, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment "... and out of respect for Germany's democratic constitution" is irrelevant, just as respect for each respective country's government or leader has been irrelevant in every discussion about renaming the articles on Czech Republic (Czechia), Swaziland (Eswatini), Turkey (Türkiye), Burma (Myanmar), Cape Verde (Cabo Verde), Ivory Coast (Côte d'Ivoire), etc. Largoplazo (talk) 12:12, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Russian tsarinas

One thing with WP:CONSORTS that troubles me is the section on Russian tsarinas. There's no reason that their names as empress need to be included as opposed to the typical format for deceased queens and empresses consort. I'm not going to do a formal RfC tag (yet) but hopefully someone has some insight as to why this has become the case and whether or not they would support removing that section and returning the Russian empresses to the same format as most other queens and empresses consort. estar8806 (talk) ★ 02:39, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I think because they essentially changed their names and/or religion when they married the tsars? I mean Dagmar of Denmark was known as Maria Feodorovna in Russia, and that's a completely different name to her birth name. Also, since they are mostly notable as tsarinas, the names they took after their marriages are most probably the common names. If we are to continue using the married names, the currently used format allows for disambiguation. We have two Russian empresses named Maria Feodorovna (1, 2) and two named Alexandra Feodorovna (1, 2). They were not really creative when it came to names I guess. Also, the maiden name is not unique in the case of Dagmar of Denmark, though if there were ever a consensus to use maiden names for Russian empresses we could easily determine if she is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC or not. Keivan.fTalk 12:39, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Although I have very little knowledge, professional or otherwise of Russian royalty, I have also had issues with the way the English Wikipedia's articles on the tsarinas and empresses consort of Russia are titled. Unless there are reliable scholarly sources that would support calling these tsarinas and empresses by their married names, I, like estar8806, am in favor of renaming their article titles to be more in line with WP:CONSORTS, per WP:CONSISTENT.
On that note, as they are, the article titles of Russian tsarinas and empresses consort are inconsistent. For example, the article on Ivan V of Russia's wife is called Praskovia Saltykova (her maiden name), but the article on Alexander I of Russia's wife is primarily titled Elizabeth Alexeievna (her married name), while including her maiden name. Also, as Keivan.f noted, names such as "Alexandra Feodorovna" fail WP:PRECISION, as there are two empresses consort of Russia referred to as such. Finally, only including maiden names for the article titles of non-Russian tsarinas and empresses consort would be in the spirit of WP:CONCISE when compared to the current names. Hurricane Andrew (444) 03:26, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

The page name of Princess Alexandra, the Honourable Lady Ogilvy

Just a short, possibly few, months ago, I created a move request here, and received feedback from merely 4 of 5 people. It was in regards to the name of the page listed in the title of this section. Princess Alexandra, as far as I have studied, does go by an official title which is the Honourable Lady Ogilvy, but following the WP:Commonname rules and the Royalty naming conventions. Honourable Lady Ogilvy is not a substantive title because she acquired it solely through marriage and is known as "Princess Alexandra" from many sources, but for clarification and encyclopedic reasons as well as the naming conventions, should take upon "of Kent". This section is, of course, much shortened than my original post on the requested move page, and I highly encourage you to read it. I am only putting this here to get more feedback upon the correct title and if it can be changed or not. I would like all who contribute to this to please put the following options before their comment to create a valid and clear consensus:

  • Support – (message)
  • Oppose – (message)
  • Unsure... – (message)

Thank you!
BillClinternet (talk) 01:41, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Update
I am still taking opinions on this matter, however, I ask that you stay on topic.
Thanks be to those who've already shared their thoughts.
BillClinternet (talk) 00:26, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Support move to "Princess Alexandra of Kent" - BillClinternet, I agree with the rationale of your original proposal, especially given that as you noted, the House of Windsor's website doesn't even mention "The Honourable Lady Ogilvy" in their primary biography for Alexandra.
I will add the following rationale for supporting such a page move:
Princess Alexandra of Kent is the common name for the cousin of Elizabeth II in question, at least according to Google search results:
  • 1: "Princess Alexandra of Kent" yields 204,000 hits,
  • 2: "The Honourable Lady Ogilvy" yields 49,500 hits, and
  • 3: "Princess Alexandra The Honourable Lady Ogilvy" yields 49,100 hits.
Finally, while I recognize the following may violate WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, it should be noted that the English Wikipedia article titles for three of the four sisters of Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden (and Princess Alexandra's third cousins) follow a similar format as the current article title of "Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Lady Ogilvy": (The sisters are numbered from oldest to youngest)
  1. Princess Margaretha, Mrs. Ambler
  2. Princess Désirée, Baroness Silfverschiöld
  3. Princess Christina, Mrs. Magnuson
I would support moving these three article titles as well to Princess (name) of Sweden in the spirit of WP:CONSISTENT if this discussion favors a move for Princess Alexandra's page.

Hurricane Andrew (444) 03:51, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts. Another thing to point out too, is that on most, if not all, Wikipedia pages with the beginning simply have "Princess Alexandra..." followed by a territorial suffix, with an exception for the 2nd Duchess of Fife.
I believe the matter of the Swedish princesses should be posted on their respective Wikipedia talk pages.
I think it's completely out-of-question for people to have been saying that just because she took on the title "Princess Alexandra of Kent" prior to her marriage doesn't mean that isn't her common name.
Another thing is... Ignore all rules! The use of "The Honourable Lady Ogilvy" makes the article so inconsistent as the fact her father was the Duke of Kent and grandfather being George V, making her seem like a minor British peeress, although being a Princess.
Thanks for the thoughts,
BillClinternet (talk) 04:05, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Procedural oppose. It's inappropriate to launch an identical requested moves discussion at a different venue without informing any previous participants or the original talk page. I see nothing wrong with launching an identical discussion at the article talk page many months after a previous discussion has closed or a new discussion about a different target at the same article talk page soon after a discussion of a different target, but launching an identical discussion of the same target so soon after the last one in a different, dare I say secret, venue is out-of-process. DrKay (talk) 06:53, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Procedural oppose I agree entirely with DrKay. It hasn't been a month since the last discussion was closed and here we are again. People just have to accept the results when something doesn't go their way. Not to mention that any requests for a name change should follow the rules set out by WP:RM and such discussions take place on the article's talk page, where those who are interested and previous participants can have a chance to chime in. Some members of the community opposed this name change for different reasons which I will not go into here. Keivan.fTalk 11:58, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
    I understand your opinions, although they don't relate to the matter whatsoever with an exception for where this discussion is placed and when.
    Opposition to the matter of the title doesn't relate to where and when in regards to the previous discussion.
    Thanks for your thoughts, however.
    BillClinternet (talk) 12:20, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Support - either Princess Alexandra of Kent or Princess Alexandra, Lady Ogilvy. We don't need "The Honourable..." bit, either way. GoodDay (talk) 14:08, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
    Thank you. I'd like to add that I think adding "Lady Ogilvy" would complicate things a bit more, because that is even further from her actual title and innacurate.
    Thanks for the support.
    BillClinternet (talk) 02:56, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Support Princess Alexandra of Kent, but not the other options. Deb (talk) 14:34, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
    Thank you.
    BillClinternet (talk) 02:55, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The standard on living royals appears to be to refer to them by their current titles. She hasn't been "Of Kent" in 6 decades.2601:249:9301:D570:38CF:2358:328E:C8EF (talk) 13:49, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
    Common-name, royalty naming conventions, and original talk page debate on Alexandra's talk page says otherwise. I suggest making an account and familiarizing yourself in Wikipedia decorum, basic rules, guidelines, and most foremost the five pillars.
    Appreciate the input, though.
    BillClinternet (talk) 17:43, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Muhammad of Eretnids?

I need some guidance in disambiguating this page. I have made repeated moves.

Move history of Muhammad of Eretnids and my reasoning:

  1. It was initally Giyath al-Din Muhammad, same name as Ghiyath al-Din Muhammad, so a move was needed.
  2. I first changed it to Muhammad, Sultan of Eretnids per some examples in this article.
  3. Then, Muhammad, Eretnid Sultan to make it shorter.
  4. Lastly, Muhammad of Eretnids in accordance with the examples for Middle Eastern rulers in the last sentence of WP:NCROY#Names and titles outside the West.

Now, I noticed that that sentence refers to modern rulers. So, any suggestions? There doesn't seem to be an exact rule especially for Middle Eastern rulers. And since he is mostly referred to as either Muhammad or Ghiyath al-Din Muhammad in sources, I can't go for an option that is more popular among RS. I desperately need some title suggestions for disambiguation and also tips for the future. I have also recently moved some other articles, but it wasn't a series of moves unlike this. Aintabli (talk) 03:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I believe an explicit guideline is warranted just by the amount of articles on rulers from the Muslim or Middle Eastern tradition. The very last sentence on WP:NCROY#Names and titles outside the West just adds to the confusion. Aintabli (talk) 05:56, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
I agree that some more detailed guidance is probably warranted. I'll leave that for others who know more about these traditions, but I do have a few comments regarding your example:
Firstly, Muhammad of the Eretnids or Muhammad, Sultan of the Eretnids would seem better from a purely linguistic point of view
Secondly, your multiple moves had left a couple of double redirects. Normally a bot fixes these, but for some reason this hadn't happened so I have done so manually. Pay attention to this aspect if discussion here leads you to move the article again.
Lastly, a dab page and/or some hatnotes are probably needed to help readers who might be looking for Ghiyath al-Din Muhammad. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:31, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
@Rosbif73, I added Template:About to the aforementioned page. I hesitated from correcting the double redirects in case the page would have to be moved again but forgot to do that after I undid my comment that you've later restored. Do you have any comments on whether “Muhammad of the Eretnids” or “Muhammad, Sultan of the Eretnids” is better, or are you neutral in that regard? Aintabli (talk) 14:22, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
I'm neutral on that – I don't know enough about the context of these sultans or how they are described in reliable sources. Rosbif73 (talk) 19:36, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and moved the page to Ghiyath al-Din Muhammad I. Aintabli (talk) 05:01, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Other pages for disambiguation

In case anyone else is interested, there are a few more pages that need to be disambiguated or would benefit from this discussion

To understand it correctly, the name used most in WP:RS about Muhammad of Eretnids is "Ghiyath al-Din Muhammad"? I get thats the exact same name as the Ghurid ruler Ghiyath al-Din Muhammad, but what does it have to do with Muhammad of Ghor? His name is a bit different. HistoryofIran (talk) 19:15, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
@HistoryofIran If the Ghurid ruler Ghiyath al-Din is renamed to something like (either with or without Ghiyath al-Din) Muhammad of Ghor/the Ghurids/etc. for disambiguation, I thought that could easily be confusing because the new title of Ghiyath al-Din Muhammad and Muhammad of Ghor would be almost indistinguishable. But if "Muhammad of Ghor" is the name overwhelmingly used in RS, of course, it can stay as it is. Aintabli (talk) 19:26, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
The New Islamic Dynasties (page 234) by Clifford Edmund Bosworth (easily one of the most prominent historians for the Islamic era) calls Muhammad of Eretnids for "Ghiyath al-Din Muhammad I" (his grandson is called Ala al-Din Muhammad II Chelebi). The namesake Ghurid ruler doesn't have a regnal number. Would this be a solution?: Move to Muhammad of Eretnids to "Ghiyath al-Din Muhammad I"? And ofc still keep the disambiguation in each page HistoryofIran (talk) 19:41, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
I like that this would not involve any disambiguation suffixes, i. e. "of (the) Eretnids", so I think we can go with that. Thanks a lot! If any other editors would support moving Muhammad of Eretnids to Ghiyath al-Din Muhammad I, I am going to move the page once and for all. Aintabli (talk) 19:55, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

RfC of interest

(non-automated message) Greetings to anyone on the talk page of WP:NCROY! I have opened an RfC on WT:ROYALTY that may be of interest to users passionate about this guideline! You are encouraged to contribute to this discussion here! Hurricane Andrew (444) 22:09, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Discussion of interest: JOBTITLES

FYI, there's a discussion under way at WT:MOSBIO#JOBTITLES simplification proposal that potentially impacts these naming conventions. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:26, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Should 'Name # of country' be changed to 'Name # (country)'?

With all due respect to the previous RFC on naming of monarch bios. Why hasn't anyone ever suggested going with Name # (country) style, for those that won't end up as Name # style? Must admit, it would shorten the article title. GoodDay (talk) 20:49, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Natural disambiguation is preferred over parenthetical disambiguation per criterion 2 of the Wikipedia:Article titles#Deciding on an article title policy. DrKay (talk) 20:58, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
As far as making it shorter is concerned, it would only make the title one character shorter, since adding the parentheses would cancel out the removal of "of", so in practice, it would just be removing a second space between words. 2601:249:9301:D570:54F1:409D:EC26:FB49 (talk) 17:57, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
The reason I mentioned it. Sometimes, those who want to drop "of country" from monarch page titles, have mentioned that "of country" isn't a part of a monarch's name. GoodDay (talk) 18:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Consorts & royals in line of succession

I'm curious. Seeing as (since the recently closed RFC) more RMs (if they're still used) will result in more monarch bio page titles having "of country" removed. One wonders, are the consorts & royals in line of succession to thrones, to be next?
Examples -
Queen Letizia of Spain changed to Queen Letizia
Princess Ingrid Alexandra of Norway to Princess Ingrid Alexandra
Haakon, Crown Prince of Norway to Crown Prince Haakon
Victoria, Crown Princess of Sweden to Crown Princess Victoria
This does appear to be the growing trend. GoodDay (talk) 17:58, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

This seems like a slippery slope fallacy. 2601:249:9301:D570:DCE:DB6E:BCC:F04D (talk) 04:55, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
Oh.... it's going to eventually happen. GoodDay (talk) 18:11, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
That's a bridge that can be crossed if we get to it. 98.228.137.44 (talk) 02:45, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Correct article title for Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex

A summary of Talk:Prince_Harry,_Duke_of_Sussex#Proper_title_correction_needed.,

It is confused by Wikipedia:Official names#Common_name, since he continues to be called "Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex" or "Prince Harry": Newsweek, CNN, Royal Observer.

Would you please help us sort out the correct article title for Harry?–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:07, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I think the WP:RM route, is what you're looking for. GoodDay (talk) 20:11, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
FWIW - We have Prince Andrew, Duke of York, Prince Edward, Duke of Edinburgh, Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester, Prince Edward, Duke of Kent, for sons & sons of sons of British monarchs, with ducal titles. GoodDay (talk) 20:15, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
What is your suggestion for the requested move? Based upon your examples, it sounds as if you are suggesting "Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex" which would not require a move. And, don't we need consensus - or a decision here - before requesting a move?–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:23, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
IMHO, the page title should not be changed. He's still a British prince, as he's a legitimate child of the British monarch & previously a male-line grandchild of a British monarch. As for his older brother? William already has "Prince" in his page title, though albeit in the same style as his paternal aunt - i.e William, Prince of Wales & Anne, Princess Royal. -- GoodDay (talk) 20:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Excellent! Thank you!–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Fine as it is. He is still overwhelmingly referred to as Prince Harry. As pointed out above, Prince William, Prince of Wales, is unnecessary and weird duplication, hence the difference. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Exactly. We don't need to have the word "prince/princess" repeated twice. Other examples are Leonor, Princess of Asturias, Catharina-Amalia, Princess of Orange, etc.
With regards to Harry not being "Prince Harry" anymore, I have already given references from the London Gazette, dated after his marriage, at Talk:Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex. Examples were also given on other sons of British monarchs, including Harry's father and uncles. The whole thread over there was started by an IP without any solid evidence. Keivan.fTalk 23:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
After GoodDay's response, it is my understanding that
Does that make sense?–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Trust me. There'll be no consensus to rename Harry's page. GoodDay (talk) 00:31, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Makes sense. If there is a consensus on the article talk page, the issue would need to be brought up here again. And, it would seem to me that the guideline would need to be changed to rename the article title - with that logic applicable to other similarly-situated royal family members - likely requiring other moves / renaming.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Before his elevation, William, Prince of Wales was Prince William, Duke of Cambridge. He is still colloquially referred to as Prince William (just as his father was colloquially referred to as Prince Charles before he became King). "Prince Foo" is usually correct (e.g. Prince Michael of Kent, who is also a prince but not a duke or holder of any other title), but Prince William, Prince of Wales would just look weird. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:01, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Question on naming convention in regards to Polish sovereigns

During the Middle Ages, many Polish sovereigns were never crowned, and as such only used the title of "duke" or "high duke" for their entire reign. However these rulers still ruled over the Kingdom of Poland, just without the title of king. For these rulers, which format should be used: X, Duke of Poland" or X of Poland? UmbrellaTheLeef (talk) 07:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

How are they most commonly referred to in English language reliable sources. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves § Adding hyphens to French personal names

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves § Adding hyphens to French personal names. Ham II (talk) 05:37, 5 May 2024 (UTC)


Closed early in the light of universal opposition and the opening editor blocked as a sock puppet. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:07, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

RfC: Policy clarification/ change for WP:NCBRITPEER Should the policy for WP:NCBRITPEER be clarified/ changed? UnicornSherbert (talk) 13:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

In what manner? GoodDay (talk) 13:54, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
I was literally just typing a paragraph which your edit disrupted and now which I have got to rewrite all again... UnicornSherbert (talk) 14:01, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
So basically, you want the article title to match the article intro. GoodDay (talk) 14:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
I propose for the entire policy to be rewritten for the reasons I have given above. Far too much time is spent by users wrangling over someone's title and whether to include it. Surely this time would be better spent on providing quality edits... I think I have made the case that the policy is not fit for purpose and requires to be significantly rewritten. I would propose that a peers correct title be included in the lead as it currently is, in the infobox, and in the heading. I would further propose that for their job articles, their proper title be used. WP:COMMONNAME does not assist the submission made by the above editors as this is overtaken by the fact that they are peers. If it was the case that a peerage does not change this, why would there be two separate policies for people and then for peers? The policy also conflicts with WP:CONSISTENT. These too are yet other reasons why the policy is not fit for purpose. Where a peer is better known by a different name or title, they could have the resolution like in the article for Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston which says his name and correct title but then says "known as Lord Palmerston". UnicornSherbert (talk) 14:58, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Re-open the RFC

There is a plethora of monarchical names being closed over the strong opposition of the community, citing the recently-changed RFC above. This is causing severe disruption of long-stable article titles across Wikipedia.

The recent closure of the RM on Ferdinand VI of Spain over vigorous and overwhelming opposition seems to indicate that wider community opinion is not in line with the recently-changed guidelines. Neither I, nor many others, were aware nor participated in this RFC.

Most of these pages has been stable for 20 years - never proposed to move. That is an indicator of wider community consensus than the few people that happen to monitor the NCROY page. The RfC change slipped through on a 12-8 vote. The Ferdinand VI of Spain was opposed on 8-3, a bigger margin. It seems to me anomalous that a small group can engineer and overturn a long-term wider community consensus by ramming through a change in a guideline page, that affects a massive amount of pages, destabilizing Wikipedia and overriding long-standing community consensus. The wider community's opinion should not be treated as irrelevant because it was not expressed in the right location and right time.

It has been recommended that I should take this up here. So I would request the RFC be re-opened, and the matter revisited, so the wider community can participate. Walrasiad (talk) 06:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Anyone is welcome to open a new RfC at any time. I would however note that RfCs and RMs are not about counting votes but weighing up policy-based arguments, as exemplified in the closer's rationale: Based on the strength of argument from existing policy [...] there is a strong consensus to adopt the proposal. Likewise, for the specific example you mention (Ferdinand VI), the closer noted that none of the Oppose votes are actually based in policy.
The fact that the majority of recent RMs to remove "of country" have passed is itself a strong indicator of community consensus, opposition notwithstanding. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:06, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Where did the last RfC take place? Here? Then, I think any new RfCs should be opened at a place when the wider community can contribute, not just people who are interested in WP:NCROY guidelines. This new set of guidelines is affecting WP:TITLECON in many instances, which is a policy. Keivan.fTalk 14:52, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm not convinced a new RfC is justified, but agree that if one is held, it should be notified to relevant prominent places such as WT:AT or WT:BIOG to get wider input. I also agree with User:Srnec below that a pre-RfC discussion would be highly advisable before embarking on a widely publicised RfC.
Incidentally, WP:TITLECON is an essay, not a policy. Did you perhaps mean WP:CONSISTENT? Rosbif73 (talk) 13:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
I agree we need to reconsider the NCROY change, particularly given the contentiousness and lack of consensus apparent in the spate of RMs it's prompted. I also agree that greater participation would be extremely helpful, since (again as the RMs suggest) the wider community doesn't seem to be nearly as on-board. Though a bit cumbersome, mass pings to the participants of RMs associated with the change might be good. ╠╣uw [talk] 12:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
I support a new RFC, but I think we should have a pre-RFC discussion to identify the issues that need sorting and if there is perhaps a middle ground position, since I doubt there is community support for moving, e.g., Elizabeth II anywhere. Srnec (talk) 04:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Agreed. This is one of those situations where neither extreme — nation on all or nation on none that are unambiguous — will give us the optimal results. The former would mean moving Liz, and you’re right that that’s probably a non-starter; the latter would mean keeping the nation off of even lesser-known monarchs, which the contentiousness and only scattershot success of recent RMs shows is also not working. The most successful path is probably going to be a compromise somewhere in the middle. ╠╣uw [talk] 14:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
  • The RFC should be reopened. There's no shame in RFCs that make the wrong call due to an accidentally skewed turnout or the like, but when an RFC maybe made the wrong call, then a reconfirmation RFC is merited. I don't really want to be the one to spearhead it myself. But this is something where the needs of readers needs to come first and requires wide input, so should probably be advertised on CENT.
    • As a side procedural comment, @Rosbif73:, the whole point of RFCs is indeed to change policy. So an argument of "it's against policy" is meaningless here - RFCs are how policy is set, reflecting community consensus. And I'd argue it can hardly be argued the old RFC showed great consensus behind it, as its RMs have been radioactively controversial every time. I'm not saying whether this is right or wrong, just the sheer raw fact that it created this has to be acknowledged, which doesn't happen for truly non-controversial changes. SnowFire (talk) 22:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
    Regarding the procedural comment: NCROY is not a policy, it is a guideline, supposed to set out best practices for applying policy. A guideline must comply with policy, and an RfC about a guideline must take policy into account. Rosbif73 (talk) 20:16, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Going through the post-RFC multiple RMs in progress & closed. It appears the RFC-in-question's decision, isn't proving to be easily applied. GoodDay (talk) 00:08, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose further discussion of this matter - I will defer readers to what I have written on what I have posted on the WP:ROYALTY talk page. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 17:33, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
@AndrewPeterT I am going to reply here. You quote WP:COI: "Wikipedians must place the interests of the encyclopedia and its readers above personal concerns. It is the interest of readers that is precisely what is driving the concerns about this. Because most do not see this change as beneficial to readers, but rather as detrimental to them. This RFC was driven through by a handful of royal enthusiasts who happen to watch this page. It ignored the wider Wikipedia community, and did not take the interests of readers into consideration. That is what needs to be addressed.
I should also remind that this concern and a revision of NCROY was recommended by those who upheld the Ferdinand VII closure. Walrasiad (talk) 05:09, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
The inconsistencies among the monarch pages, continues to grow. Isabella II of Spain got moved to Isabella II & now is about to be moved to Isabel II. At the moment we've got Ferdinand VII (which was previously Ferdinand VII of Spain). Will that page 'next' be moved to Fernando VII? -- GoodDay (talk) 16:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Of course it won't. Monarch's names were systematically translated until the mid-to-late 19th century, but rarely thereafter. Reliable English-language sources continue to refer to him as Ferdinand, so no change is needed. Rosbif73 (talk) 16:42, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Of course it will. Nationalism is a perennial poison in Wikipedia history articles, and should never be underestimated. It has only been by watchfulness and strenuous effort that it has been prevented to nativize all monarchical names, and keep their recognizable English translations. Defenders of readers and accessibility will eventually be worn down by dogged nationalists eager to propound their unique spellings of "their" monarchs. Walrasiad (talk) 17:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm still at loss as well, concerning intros to current queens consort. Most use just the one name, except for the current queen consort of Spain. But that's another 'inconsistency' topic. GoodDay (talk) 17:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I am getting extremely fed up of articles on the ENGLISH Wikipedia getting moved to non-English names. Royalty and nobility articles are extremely inconsistent in the titling of their pages. On Wikipedia, the title of all monarchs' articles used to be "Name of [country]". Nowadays, different articles, very particularly those of the Spanish and Danish monarchs, have dropped the "of [country]". Why? The reason that "of the United Kingdom" is not included after British monarchs is because this is the English Wikipedia and for much of the English-speaking world (the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc.), the British monarchs are the monarchs! Not Isabella II or Frederik X. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 22:35, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

What a UK centric point of view you have! This is English language Wikipedia yes but it's not UK or Commonwealth Wikipedia. The reason Elizabeth II for example doesn't have "of the United Kingdom" is because there is only one primary article, there's no need for a disambiguator - not because "the British monarchs are the monarchs". You'll notice for example the article for Henry I is Henry I of England because there is Henry I of Austria, Henry I of France, Henry I of Cyprus etc.
Regarding the "non-English names", people do have names that aren't English. Names aren't typically translated and Wikipedia should not be assigning people new names based on an arbitrary translation. D1551D3N7 (talk) 00:58, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
He's right though. The only reason Elizabeth II is shortened is because of British nationalism (or rather Canadian nationalism - this whole mess started because of a dumb quarrel a couple of years ago between British & Canadian editors, the latter of whom took umbrage at the suggestion that Canada was being subordinated by having the title "of the United Kingdom". So their only resolution was to omit it entirely). Walrasiad (talk) 18:28, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
That is hardly a fair summary of the RfC that led to Elizabeth II's article title being shortened. The fact that she was queen of other realms was indeed raised, but what you are calling "nationalism" was actually based in policy, namely compliance with WP:NPOV. Other policy-based rationale also contributed to the decision to override the guideline as it stood at the time.
Similarly, the question of whether monarch's names should be translated is nothing to do with nationalism. Modern practice in general is to keep the "native" spelling of given names, but not to change the spelling of names that entered the English-language history books in translated form. Wikipedia follows that practice by referring to people by the name under which they are commonly known in reliable English-language sources. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Yes, but that is not her common name. Nobody calls her simply "Elizabeth II" (certainly not outside of Britain). She is at the very least "Queen Elizabeth II" (even if that is also the name of a ship), and Britain is almost always mentioned (if not in context). So by the common name criteria she should be at least "Queen Elizabeth II", not "Elizabeth II", just like we have "Pope John Paul II" not "John Paul II".
But early on, Wikipedia NCROY decided to not include titles like "king" and "queen" in article titles (unless they're solo, e.g. "John, King of England"). Instead, we decided that we can omit king/queen and leave only "of country" in the NCROY, feeling that is sufficient to identify the royal in the article title. That has been the norm for the past 20 years. And that worked very well for readers for the past 20 years.
This recent shortening change started as nationalism and has been driven by nationalism, joined by royalist aficionados and aesthetic minimalists, with little or no regard for Wikipedia readers, whose needs are being disregarded and left in the dust.
None of these shortenings are helpful to readers, but all are to serve the agendas of editors. That is the unfortunate reality of Wikipedia articles - and especially marring in history articles. If we have to pretend the British "Charles III" is somehow special because it satisfies the self-regard of British nationalists or royalist geeks, then we'll have to figure out a way to work with that. If that is necessary to contain the damage being done across Wikipedia, it is a compromise we'll have to consider. Walrasiad (talk) 09:44, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Spitballing a compromise:
How is this a compromise? That seems just like a restatement of the currently modified NCROY? Walrasiad (talk) 16:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
The intended difference is the "utterly" part. Namely, it would need to be more than "merely" a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (and the burden would be on people dropping the country to show it is unnecessary). HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 16:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
And how would they do that? What exactly is the difference between "utterly" and "non-utterly"? Walrasiad (talk) 17:29, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
It is really a I know it when I see it thing (and I would be interested to see if you have a bright-line rule in mind?). Probably not for even Mary I of England. What I am trying to get at is the difference between cases like Mary and Elizabeth II. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 17:39, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
FWIW - "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom" was moved to "Elizabeth II" a few years ago, due to some editors not liking the UK getting top billing over their own countries. It was like the umpteenth RM held on that matter, until they got their own way. GoodDay (talk) 17:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Ah, the joys of relentless nationalism. Walrasiad (talk) 17:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Edit-conflict: A bright-line rule I'd prefer is dropping country only for popular household names. So that would fit Louis XIV of France, but not Edward V of England. (with the stipulation that it includes households "outside of the country of origin" - so a Romanian monarch which may be a household name in Romania but not outside of Romania wouldn't cut it.) Walrasiad (talk) 17:52, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
I could live with that replacing my "utterly" suggestion. I still think there is no reason for completely unambiguous (not just a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, but when e.g. Edward V (disambiguation) is a redlink) to use of {Country}. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 17:57, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
The trouble is that "utterly primary" and "popular household name" are both somewhat subjective, and the latter is also likely to raise worldview issues. Many readers will be utterly familiar with British monarchs and see them as household names going back centuries, whereas many other readers won't have a clue who the same monarchs are. Rosbif73 (talk) 18:08, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
That's why I included the stipulation "outside of country of origin". British monarchs may be familiar to British households, but not necessarily to non-British. The burden of proof would be to show it used that way in non-British sources. Walrasiad (talk) 18:18, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Well the mess gets worse. This RFC is proving inoperable. "Necessary disambiguation" is apparently in the eye of the beholder. We now have an eager editor spamming RMs, declaring French kings are "primary topic" over Swedish kings. Big countries are "more important" than small countries. So France doesn't need disambiguation, only Sweden does. And why not? Who cares about Sweden? It has only 10 million people, France has 70 million. And a lot more people are interested in French history than Swedish history. Swedes don't really matter.
This NCROY shortening nonsense is asking Wikipedia editors to pick which countries are "important" and which are "not important", it is introducing prejudices of "big countries" over "small countries". This is not something Wikipedia should be doing. This NCROY is not only opening the door to nationalist POVs, now we are now adding imperialist POVs into the mix. A curious but inevitable result of a poorly-thought out NCROY. This really needs to revised.
Deciding which country is or is not important is not the kind of judgment calls we should be making. Indeed, one of the great benefits of retaining "of country" in the titles in NCROY was precisely that it puts all on an equal neutral NPOV level. We won't get drawn into the unsavory nationalist-imperialist games of deciding whether France is more important than Sweden, whether Britain more important than Georgia, whether Russia more important than Ukraine. Walrasiad (talk) 18:51, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
At least personally, I don't see it as a question of which countries have primacy over others. I see it as a question of which individuals are most commonly known by a given name, in line with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 19:19, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
It is effectively the same thing. "Charles IX of France" is much better known than "Charles IX of Sweden", simply because France (and French history) is bigger. So it is asking us to pick countries, giving bigger ones primacy over small ones. Walrasiad (talk) 19:36, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
There is no question of making judgement calls about monarchs or countries. Whether or not a primary topic exists for a given name, and if so which one, are determined based on objective criteria set out and agreed by the community at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Different countries are often primary for different ordinals, e.g. the UK is for Charles III, France for Charles X, Sweden for Charles XI... Rosbif73 (talk) 19:49, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
What "objective" criteria? Its all contextual. In books on Swedish history, Charles IX of Sweden is primary, in books on French history, Charles IX of France is primary. There happen to be far more books on French history than Swedish history because France is a much bigger country. So your "objectivity" is merely appealing to (and reinforcing) POV prejudices about certain countries being more important than others. This is not something Wikipedia should be doing. Walrasiad (talk) 19:59, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
I guess Paris should be moved to Paris, France? Because it's discriminatory to prioritise the French city over the countless other places with the name Paris or the mythological figure? UmbrellaTheLeef (talk) 17:09, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
I totally support re-opening the RfC. Too many of these controversial moves have been closed by non-admins who have claimed they are enforcing the guidelines whilst ignoring the guideline that says they shouldn't be closing controversial discussions. Then they can expect support from other non-admins and this is apparently enough to overcome the real consensus in the actual discussion. It should be obvious that there is more than one guideline involved and one such guideline shouldn't take precedence over all others. Otherwise it would be a policy, not a guideline. Deb (talk) 17:16, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) § Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) - RfC drafting for reversion of the November 2023 change

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) § Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) - RfC drafting for reversion of the November 2023 change. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(royalty_and_nobility)/Archive_24&oldid=1256360417"