m →RfC: Should the guideline explicitly accept Elizabeth II, Carl XVI Gustaf, etc titles?: edit reply to SmokeyJoe Tag: CD |
AndrewPeterT (talk | contribs) →RfC: Should the guideline explicitly accept Elizabeth II, Carl XVI Gustaf, etc titles?: post extended statement Tag: Disambiguation links added |
||
Line 470: | Line 470: | ||
*'''No''', these titles should not be accepted. I thank the nominator for opening this RfC, as I have also noticed how problematic this issue has become. I am in a hurry right now, so my response will be brief for the time being. However, when I have a spare moment, I will present a detailed argument with plenty of policy-based and discussion evidence to substantiate my answer. '''''[[User:AndrewPeterT|Hurricane]] [[User talk:AndrewPeterT|Andrew]] ([[Special:Contributions/AndrewPeterT|444]])''''' 16:53, 17 September 2023 (UTC) |
*'''No''', these titles should not be accepted. I thank the nominator for opening this RfC, as I have also noticed how problematic this issue has become. I am in a hurry right now, so my response will be brief for the time being. However, when I have a spare moment, I will present a detailed argument with plenty of policy-based and discussion evidence to substantiate my answer. '''''[[User:AndrewPeterT|Hurricane]] [[User talk:AndrewPeterT|Andrew]] ([[Special:Contributions/AndrewPeterT|444]])''''' 16:53, 17 September 2023 (UTC) |
||
===Statement by AndrewPeterT=== |
|||
'''NOTE A: This is my first time participating in an RfC. I apologize if I have done anything improperly, and <u>I especially apologize if posting a rationale in this format is inappropriate</u>. However, I am ''very'' passionate about the issue at hand, and I want to make my stance as clear and unambiguous as possible. |
|||
'''NOTE B: The following argument is intended to speak only for my viewpoint on the subject of this RfC. I recognize that this issue is ''very'' contentious, and I have taken a stance on this matter, as I explain below. However, I will accept the outcome of this RfC, even if it is not my preferred one. In addition, I am aware that there are some other editors that agree with the opinions expressed below. However, I would like for these contributors to speak on their own behalf.''' '''''[[User:AndrewPeterT|Hurricane]] [[User talk:AndrewPeterT|Andrew]] ([[Special:Contributions/AndrewPeterT|444]])''''' 00:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC) |
|||
====AndrewPeterT’s attempt to neutrally summarize the issue==== |
|||
As the nominator noted, there has been disagreement about what the appropriate title should be for certain European monarchs that have reigned since the end of the Middle Ages. At the core of this debate is an argument over whether [[WP:PRIMARYTOPIC]] and [[WP:COMMONNAME]] or [[WP:NCROY]] and [[WP:CONSISTENT]] should take precedence when naming articles on European royalty and nobility. As illustrated in the RMs linked in the next section, both sides of the involved parties have cited WP:PRIMARYTOPIC/WP:COMMONNAME or WP:NCROY/WP:CONSISTENT to justify their reasonings to support their viewpoints. '''''[[User:AndrewPeterT|Hurricane]] [[User talk:AndrewPeterT|Andrew]] ([[Special:Contributions/AndrewPeterT|444]])''''' 00:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC) |
|||
====Evidence to illustrate that the RfC issue raised has indeed been contentious==== |
|||
#All of the RMs that the nominator has mentioned (In the interest of full disclosure, I opened the Elizabeth II RM that is linked in the explanation. I will return to this matter later.) |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Charles_III/Archive_14#Requested_move_23_July_2023 An RM was initiated on Charles III’s article on July 23, 2023 that was unsuccessful] |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:George_I_of_Great_Britain An RM was initiated on George I of Great Britain’s article on July 30, 2023 that was unsuccessful] |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Victor_Emmanuel_III_of_Italy#Requested_move_4_August_2023 An RM was initiated on Victor Emmanuel III of Italy’s article on August 4, 2023 that was unsuccessful] |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Oscar_I_of_Sweden#Requested_move_17_August_2023 An RM was initiated on Oscar I of Sweden’s article on August 17, 2023 that was unsuccessful] |
|||
As I will elaborate on later, the linked RMs show that '''neither the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC/WP:COMMONNAME camp nor the WP:NCROY/WP:CONSISTENT camp in this argument have a monopoly on article title naming for European sovereigns, other royals, and nobles'''. '''''[[User:AndrewPeterT|Hurricane]] [[User talk:AndrewPeterT|Andrew]] ([[Special:Contributions/AndrewPeterT|444]])''''' 00:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC) |
|||
====AndrewPeterT’s concise opinion on the RfC matter==== |
|||
'''No, titles such as ''Elizabeth II'' and ''Carl XVI Gustaf'' are unacceptable for English Wikipedia purposes and should not be explicitly accepted'''. These titles violate the spirit of WP:NCROY, WP:CONSISTENT, and all of the four other goals of WP:TITLE. Also, as I will argue later, even WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:COMMONNAME make a case for alternative names such as ''Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom'' and ''Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden''. <u>Furthermore, given the contentiousness of this RfC matter, [[WP:IAR]] should be invoked so that WP:NCROY and WP:CONSISTENT takes precedence when titling articles covered by the scope of WP:NCROY. '''If an arguable “primary topic” or “common name” exists for a given post-classical European royal or noble, that title can exist as a redirect to the given individual’s article. This practice has precedence on Wikipedia, as I will illustrate in a later section'''.</u> '''''[[User:AndrewPeterT|Hurricane]] [[User talk:AndrewPeterT|Andrew]] ([[Special:Contributions/AndrewPeterT|444]])''''' 00:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC) |
|||
====Concessions to the opposition that AndrewPeterT will make==== |
|||
#I accept that this RfC only pertains to WP:NCROY. I will not comment on the appropriateness of article titles in other subject areas here, such as the pages under the scope of [[WP:WPTC|WikiProject Tropical cyclones]]. If another editor wants to debate the merits of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC or WP:COMMONNAME in that field <small>(which I would welcome)</small>, ''this discussion will need to take place in another RfC''. |
|||
#WP:NCROY itself does not apply to the entire scope of royalty and nobility, as the guideline page explains in multiple locations: |
|||
:{{Talk quote|Most of the conventions below <u>are intended to apply to medieval and modern European rulers and nobility</u>, since in these civilizations the same given names are often shared between countries, so some disambiguation is often required, and '''disambiguation by territory is convenient'''.}} <small>(Emphasis mine)</small> |
|||
:{{Talk quote|These following conventions (i.e. [[WP:SOVEREIGN]]) apply to '''European monarchs since the fall of the [[Western Roman Empire]]''' (but not to the Byzantine emperors), because they share much the same stock of names. For example, there are several kings and an emperor who are most commonly called [[Henry IV]]; their articles are titled [[Henry IV of England]], [[Henry IV of France]], and so on. …}} <small>(Bolded emphasis mine)</small> |
|||
:{{Talk quote|For guidance on East Asian monarchs, see ''[[#Names and titles outside the West|Names and titles outside the West]]'' below. Roman emperors are covered by [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ancient Romans)|Naming conventions (ancient Romans)]], and Byzantine emperors by [[WP:Naming conventions (Greek)|Naming conventions (Greek)]].}} |
|||
:{{Talk quote|'''Monarchies which use a completely different namestock, such as [[Lithuania]] and that of the [[Merovingians]], need not follow this convention'''; there is no disambiguation to pre-empt. Kings of a people, rather than a country or a nation, (for example, the late antique Germanic tribes) usually have no disambiguator, but "of the Goths" etc. should be added to the name if disambiguation is necessary.}} <small>(Emphasis mine)</small> |
|||
Therefore, for the following groups of royals and nobles, '''I will accept WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:COMMONNAME taking precedence over WP:NCROY in titling their articles, regardless of what is decided in this RfC''': |
|||
:*Any European monarch/royal or noble that primarily reigned/lived before the fall of the Western Roman Empire |
|||
:*Any European monarch whose realm does not use [[Regnal number|regnal numbers]] as differentiation as WP:NCROY mentions, and the royals or nobles of these realms |
|||
:*Any pope (i.e. sovereign of the Vatican City) |
|||
:*Any Byzantine royal or noble |
|||
:*Any Middle Eastern/North African royal or noble |
|||
:*Any Central Asian royal or noble |
|||
:*Any Far Eastern (i.e. East, Southeast, or South Asian) royal or noble |
|||
:*Any Sub-Saharan African royal or noble |
|||
:*Any indigenous Oceanian royal or noble |
|||
:*Any indigenous North or South American royal or noble |
|||
'''However, once again, I do ''not'' accept WP:PRIMARYTOPIC or WP:COMMONNAME taking precedence over WP:NCROY or WP:CONSISTENT for post-classical European sovereigns, royals, or nobles for reasons that I will elaborate on in subsequent sections.''' '''''[[User:AndrewPeterT|Hurricane]] [[User talk:AndrewPeterT|Andrew]] ([[Special:Contributions/AndrewPeterT|444]])''''' 00:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC) |
|||
====WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NCROY, and WP:CONSISTENT are all guidelines, ''not'' rigid rules==== |
|||
On multiple occasions, [[WP:PRINCIPLE]] makes the case that the four guidelines in the previous header are ''not'' Wikipedia laws: |
|||
#{{Talk quote|'''Wikipedia rules [i.e. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NCROY, WP:CONSISTENT et al.] are principles''', not laws. Policies and guidelines exist only as rough approximations of their underlying principles. <u>They are ''not'' intended to provide an exact or complete definition of the principles in all circumstances.</u> They <u>must</u> be understood in context…}} <small>(Underlined emphasis mine)</small> |
|||
#{{Talk quote|Each individual case will have its own context. While the rules are useful for the most common circumstances, <u>often there is no hard and fast rule that can be applied</u>.}} <small>(Underlined emphasis mine)</small> |
|||
#{{Talk quote|We are encouraged to use some common sense and discretion. <u>It is impossible to make hard rules that cover every context</u>. We must use some rational thought and judgment in our decisions, rather than slavishly following the wording of policy without thought}} <small>(Underlined emphasis mine)</small> |
|||
#{{Talk quote|<u>Rules cannot cover every possible circumstance</u> and sometimes may impede us from improving the encyclopedia. In those cases, we should be bold and do what is best.}} <small>(Underlined emphasis mine)</small> |
|||
With these quotes in mind, neither camp in this RfC debate, including my own side, can use our policy preferences to claim a monopoly on how article titles for European royals and nobles ''should'' be called. That being said, with certain accommodations, I will argue how WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:COMMONNAME cannot objectively “cover the context” that WP:NCROY describes. '''''[[User:AndrewPeterT|Hurricane]] [[User talk:AndrewPeterT|Andrew]] ([[Special:Contributions/AndrewPeterT|444]])''''' 00:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC) |
|||
====WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:COMMONNAME do not have the best interest of (European) royal and noble article titles in mind==== |
|||
As [[WP:PGE]] explains, a common misconception that Wikipedia users have is that a sitewide guideline takes precedence over a local one: |
|||
{{Talk quote|...editors need to follow the most relevant advice. '''A broadly worded policy page''', intended to provide only the most general outline of the goals, '''is not necessarily a better source of advice than a guideline that directly and explicitly addresses the specific issue at hand'''}} <small>(Emphasis mine)</small> |
|||
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:COMMONNAME are both examples of a {{Talk quote inline|broadly worded policy page}}. I concede that these pages provide advice that can provide useful considerations in some contexts outside of royalty. However, '''neither WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:COMMONNAME offer any explicit guidance on a preferred way to refer to European royals and nobles via article titles'''. In contrast, the '''local''' guideline WP:NCROY, among other things, provides a preferred template on titling European sovereigns whose realms use regnal numbers for differentiation and explicitly states how princes with territorial suffixes should be called on Wikipedia. |
|||
In addition, WP:COMMONNAME itself concedes that the most “common” name of a subject is ''not'' always acceptable for a Wikipedia article title, namely that {{Talk quote inline|'''Ambiguous''' … or inaccurate '''names''' for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, '''are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources'''}} <small>(Emphasis mine)</small>. As I demonstrate below, formats such as ''Elizabeth II'' are ambiguous and therefore do not adhere to this guidance from WP:COMMONNAME when for royals and nobles that share the same name: |
|||
#''Charles III'' can refer to either [[Charles III of Spain]] or [[Charles III of the United Kingdom]], |
|||
#''Elizabeth I'' can refer to either [[Elizabeth I of England]] or [[Elizabeth I of Russia]], |
|||
#''Elizabeth II'' can refer to either [[Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom]] or [[Elisabeth II, Abbess of Quedlinburg]], and |
|||
#''Maria Theresa'' can refer to, among [[Maria Theresa (disambiguation)|even other people]], [[Maria Theresa|Maria Theresa, Queen of Hungary]], [[Maria Theresa of Spain]], and [[Maria Theresa of Naples and Sicily]]. |
|||
'''''[[User:AndrewPeterT|Hurricane]] [[User talk:AndrewPeterT|Andrew]] ([[Special:Contributions/AndrewPeterT|444]])''''' 00:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC) |
|||
====There is no uniform way to adhere to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in general, and this is especially problematic for WP:NCROY==== |
|||
Simply stated, '''WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, as written, will never be conclusive when it comes to European royalty'''. This is supported by the fact that the guideline page mentions (at least) three times that no uniform definition of a ''primary topic'' exists: |
|||
#{{Talk quote|Although a word, name, or phrase may refer to more than one topic, <u>sometimes</u> one of these topics can be identified as the term's '''primary topic'''}} <small>(Underlined emphasis mine)</small> |
|||
#{{Talk quote|...Wikipedia has '''no single criterion''' for defining a primary topic…}} <small>(Emphasis mine)</small> |
|||
#{{Talk quote|There are '''no absolute rules''' for determining whether a primary topic exists and what it is}} <small>(Emphasis mine)</small> |
|||
In addition, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, via [[WP:DPT]], lists several ways to determine a “primary topic”. However, all of these tools involve Internet resources, which is especially restrictive in the context of royalty and nobility. Even when only considering a European context, many sovereigns and nobles ruled before the advent of the Internet. '''There are likely lost written or verbal manuscripts, speeches, and other primary/secondary sources over the centuries that may indicate a “primary” term could have referred to a different ruler than what Internet results may indicate'''. |
|||
Moreover, in the spirit of [[WP:BIAS]], the tools listed in WP:DPT exclude the perspectives of people that do not have access to Internet and can preclude users from checking online documents that have a [[Paywall|paywall]]. Consequently, entire groups of individuals’ “primary” usage of a term are disregarded via these resources, and this is against the mission of Wikipedia. Given that monarchs and their royal relatives are especially pertinent symbols of unity for a nation or sovereign state, '''every perspective should be brought to the table, ''especially of those without Internet'''''. In other words, namely for monarchs that share regnal names and numbers, ''we should not be omitting country names from article titles until those without Internet and otherwise excluded by WP:DPT’s resources have equitable access to voice their opinions on primary topics on Wikipedia to get a truly conclusive debate''. '''''[[User:AndrewPeterT|Hurricane]] [[User talk:AndrewPeterT|Andrew]] ([[Special:Contributions/AndrewPeterT|444]])''''' 00:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC) |
|||
'''Example of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC being (very) inconclusive: The simultaneous case of Albert II''' |
|||
To make it extremely clear how WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is flawed in the realm of WP:NCROY, consider the following situation. At the start of the 2010s, [[Albert II, Prince of Monaco|Monaco]] and [[Albert II of Belgium|Belgium]] were both ruled by monarchs named ''Albert II''. Suppose that Wikipedia community tried to determine a “primary topic” for ''Albert II''. There are useful arguments that could be made for either Albert II taking that article title ''per se''. |
|||
On one hand, |
|||
*Albert II of Belgium reigned for a longer period than Albert II, Prince of Monaco has. |
|||
*Albert II of Belgium was a king, a higher societal rank than being “just” a sovereign prince like Albert II of Monaco. |
|||
*'''Belgians are more likely to be familiar with Albert II of Belgium'''. |
|||
On the other hand, |
|||
*Albert II, Prince of Monaco is [[Constitutional monarchy#Executive constitutional monarch|an executive constitutional monarch]], whereas Albert II of Belgium was “just” a [[Constitutional monarchy#Ceremonial constitutional monarch|a ceremonial constitutional monarch]]. |
|||
*Albert II, Prince of Monaco is the daughter of [[Grace Kelly|a well-known Hollywood actress]]. In contrast, [[Astrid of Sweden|Albert II’s mother]] lived a comparatively unremarkable childhood life as a Swedish princess. |
|||
*'''Monacans are more likely to be familiar with Albert II, Prince of Monaco'''. |
|||
Evidently, in this situation, the Wikipedia community could choose a legitimate primary topic for ''Albert II'' for either sovereign. '''However, for the bolded reasons for each monarch, Wikipedia could perceived as being [[Nationalism|nationalistic]] toward either Belgium or Monaco by the opposing parties'''. Again, given how prominent European royals are to national unity, Wikipedia runs the same risk of nationalist accusations when moving any article title on a monarch so that a country name is excluded. '''''[[User:AndrewPeterT|Hurricane]] [[User talk:AndrewPeterT|Andrew]] ([[Special:Contributions/AndrewPeterT|444]])''''' 00:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC) |
|||
====It’s not just about WP:CONSISTENT, it’s about all of the other goals of WP:TITLE==== |
|||
When I requested that Elizabeth II’s article title be moved to ''Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom'', I made the following argument in my rationale: |
|||
{{Talk quote|Via all of the preceding paragraphs, I have strived to emphasize a central point. '''This central point is that using the structure "(ruler name) of (country)" for ''all'' deceased British monarchs: |
|||
#Establishes a format {{Talk quote inline|...that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles}} per Criterion 2 of WP:TITLE, |
|||
#{{Talk quote inline|...unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects}} per Criterion 3 of WP:TITLE, |
|||
#{{Talk quote inline|...is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects}} per Criterion 4 of WP:TITLE (as removing the "of country" part of this structure and just having a ruler name will beg the question of where this sovereign reigned), and |
|||
#Above all, {{Talk quote inline|...is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles}} (in this case, of late modern and contemporary Continental European monarchs) per Criterion 5 of WP:TITLE. |
|||
#In turn, having this consistent pattern helps to create a {{Talk quote inline|...description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize}}, per Criterion 1 of WP:TITLE.'''}} |
|||
Simply stated, consistency sets the tone for all other goals of WP:TITLE to be met. For example, If a reader has just read Wikipedia’s article on [[Margrethe II of Denmark]] and knows that her first cousin, Carl XVI Gustaf, rules over Sweden, ''would they not type in [[Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden]] into the search bar next per Criterion 5 of WP:TITLE?'' (In any case, in the spirit of Criterion 2 of WP:TITLE, “Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden” was more natural for me to type than “Carl XVI Gustaf”, and this will likely be the case for at least some other readers.) '''Moreover, I hope that we can all agree that titles like “Margrethe II of Denmark” and “Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden” unambiguously define who those monarchs are, per Criterion 3 of WP:TITLE'''. Furthermore, reflecting Criterion 4 of WP:TITLE, there should be agreement that “Margrethe II” and “Carl XVI Gustaf” do not tell the reader anything about the realms these cousins ruled over. Finally, per Criterion 1 of WP:TITLE, “Margrethe II of Denmark” and “Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden” should tell readers that they are about to read about some royal '''just as effectively as “Margrethe II” and “Carl XVI Gustaf” would'''. '''''[[User:AndrewPeterT|Hurricane]] [[User talk:AndrewPeterT|Andrew]] ([[Special:Contributions/AndrewPeterT|444]])''''' 00:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC) |
|||
====Evidence of omitting a monarch’s country from the article title being challenged by the community==== |
|||
For this section, I would like to direct readers’ attention to what happened after the community moved George III (of the United Kingdom)’s article to its current target (I also cited this RM in my RM for Elizabeth II’s article title). [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:George_III/Archive_1#Poor_move_decision Multiple policy-based oppositions quickly emerged]. Although I did not participate in this move discussion, I completely agree with the sentiments of the users that challenged the move for George III. Moreover, '''the opposition expressed on George III’s article talk was a key reason I initiated the RM for Elizabeth II and the other deceased British monarchs’ articles last July'''. '''''[[User:AndrewPeterT|Hurricane]] [[User talk:AndrewPeterT|Andrew]] ([[Special:Contributions/AndrewPeterT|444]])''''' 00:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC) |
|||
====Evidence of WP:TITLE itself deferring to WP:NCROY==== |
|||
If it is not convincing enough that WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC either do not take a stance or even overtly discourage this new trend in titling European monarchs’ articles, perhaps these four quotes from WP:TITLE should settle some concerns: |
|||
#{{Talk quote|'''Consistency''' – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. <u>Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) as [[Wikipedia:Article titles#nameconbox|'''topic-specific naming conventions on article titles''']] [including WP:NCROY]</u>...}} <small>(Underlined emphasis mine)</small> |
|||
#{{Talk quote|When titling articles in specific fields, or with respect to particular problems, there is often previous consensus that can be used as a precedent. '''Look to the guideline pages referenced [including WP:NCROY]'''.}} <small>(Emphasis mine)</small> |
|||
#{{Talk quote|Exceptions to the precision criterion may sometimes result from the application of some other [[WP:NAMINGCRITERIA|naming criteria]]. Most of these exceptions are described in specific Wikipedia guidelines or by Wikipedia projects, such as [[Wikipedia:Primary topic|Primary topic]], [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)|Geographic names]], or '''[[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)|Names of royals and nobles]]'''.}} <small>(Emphasis mine)</small> |
|||
#{{Talk quote|Comma-separated titles are also used in other contexts (e.g. '''[[Diana, Princess of Wales]] uses a substantive title as part of the usual [[WP:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)|Names of royals and nobles]] conventions''', not as a disambiguating term).}} <small>(Emphasis mine)</small> |
|||
#{{Talk quote|'''Consistency''' – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. <u>Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) as [[Wikipedia:Article titles#nameconbox|'''topic-specific naming conventions on article titles''']] [including WP:NCROY]</u>...}} <small>(Underlined emphasis mine)</small> |
|||
'''''[[User:AndrewPeterT|Hurricane]] [[User talk:AndrewPeterT|Andrew]] ([[Special:Contributions/AndrewPeterT|444]])''''' 00:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC) |
|||
====Final thoughts by AndrewPeterT==== |
|||
*In the spirit of [[WP:IAR]], I would like for [[WP:SOVEREIGN]] Guidelines 3 and 5 to take precedence over WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC when titling pertinent articles, as I have elaborated on. Moreover, [[WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT]] should be invoked if necessary. |
|||
*I have accepted by now that my opinion is in the minority. However, I ask that everyone who disagrees with me adhere to [[WP:5P4]] when making counterarguments to my rationale. |
|||
*'''I encourage all editors who have been citing WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:COMMONNAME to ''read the fine print of each guideline'' in addition to considering their spirit'''. Neither WP:PRIMARYTOPIC nor WP:COMMONNAME (and for that matter, WP:NCROY and WP:CONSISTENT) have unilateral authority on titling Wikipedia articles. |
|||
*'''Regardless of where we stand on this issue, I hope that we can all agree that this RfC should bring closure to a debate that has been in the making for the years. <u>I will respect the final decision and will offer my services to amend WP:NCROY as appropriate depending on what the community agrees to</u>.''' '''''[[User:AndrewPeterT|Hurricane]] [[User talk:AndrewPeterT|Andrew]] ([[Special:Contributions/AndrewPeterT|444]])''''' 00:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC) |
|||
====Side issues that AndrewPeterT believes the community also needs to address==== |
|||
*'''Moratorium on all RMs for articles under scope of WP:NCROY''' - At this point, the community needs to establish a clear consensus on what this guideline states in writing. Any active RMs in this field will only detract from this goal. '''If possible, could an administrator close any RMs that are ongoing regarding article titles for European monarchs, royals, and nobles?''' |
|||
*'''Amending Guideline I of [[WP:SOVEREIGN]]''' - I also have taken issue with the vague language of this guideline: {{Talk quote inline|If there is an overwhelmingly common name, use it}} '''What is considered “overwhelmingly” more common'''? Is a difference of two Google hits enough to keep [[Mary, Queen of Scots]] at that title as opposed to [[Mary I of Scotland]]? Is being mentioned by 150% more primary sources the threshold for not renaming [[William the Conqueror]] to [[William I of England]]? ''I recommend that another RfC be opened after this one elapses to settle this ambiguity.'' |
|||
*'''The matter of [[Personal union|personal unions]] in general''' - When I opened the RM for Elizabeth II’s article, some users opposed the move on the basis that [[Commonwealth realm|Elizabeth reigned over a multitude of realms]]. However, [[Personal union#Monarchies in personal union|she is ''far'' from the only monarch to have done so]]. Are we, as Wikipedians, going to remove the country names from ''every'' monarch that ruled over two or more countries? If so, how are we going to determine the ''primary'' regnal number? '''This debacle is a major reason I oppose amending Guideline 3 of WP:SOVEREIGN whatsoever.''' |
|||
These are simply the top three concerns I personally have about WP:NCROY. For the sake of everyone’s focus, I will refrain from commenting on more matters until this RfC is resolved. '''''[[User:AndrewPeterT|Hurricane]] [[User talk:AndrewPeterT|Andrew]] ([[Special:Contributions/AndrewPeterT|444]])''''' 00:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC) |
|||
====APPENDIX A: Evidence of omitting a monarch’s country from the article title violating the spirit of WP:CONSISTENT, and by extension, WP:TITLE==== |
|||
I respect that multiple users believe that article title formats like ''Elizabeth II'' is more in the spirit of WP:COMMONNAME. '''However, WP:COMMONNAME must be balanced against WP:CONSISTENT, [[WP:PRECISION]], and [[WP:NPOVTITLE]]'''. An analysis of the titles of various sovereigns of current European monarchs shows how ''WP:CONSISTENT and WP:PRECISION are being disregarded for the sake of adhering to WP:COMMONNAME'': |
|||
'''NOTES: First, to avoid overwhelming readers not familiar with European royalty, rulers of former monarchies are excluded. Also, as alluded to previously, sovereigns of the Vatican City are excluded because they are popes instead covered by [[WP:NCCL]]. Furthermore, the Presidents of France and Bishops of Urgell, the Co-Princes of Andorra, are excluded because they are instead subjected to [[WP:NCP]] and WP:NCCL, respectively.''' |
|||
'''Monarchs of Belgium''' |
|||
''All sovereigns that have reigned since Belgium’s independence from the Netherlands in 1830 are included.'' |
|||
{| class="wikitable sortable" |
|||
|+ Monarchs of Belgium |
|||
|- |
|||
! style="max-width:2em" |Title !! Reign !! Adherence to WP:NCROY |
|||
|- |
|||
|[[Leopold I of Belgium]] |
|||
|1831-1865 |
|||
|Yes |
|||
|- |
|||
|[[Leopold II of Belgium]] |
|||
|1865-1909 |
|||
|Yes |
|||
|- |
|||
|[[Albert I of Belgium]] |
|||
|1909-1934 |
|||
|Yes |
|||
|- |
|||
|[[Leopold III of Belgium]] |
|||
|1934-1951 |
|||
|Yes |
|||
|- |
|||
|[[Baudouin of Belgium]] |
|||
|1951-1993 |
|||
|Yes (only monarch with name) |
|||
|- |
|||
|[[Albert II of Belgium]] |
|||
|1993-2013 |
|||
|Yes |
|||
|- |
|||
|[[Philippe of Belgium]] |
|||
|2013-present |
|||
|Yes (only monarch with name) |
|||
|} |
|||
'''Monarchs of Denmark''' |
|||
''All sovereigns that have reigned since the establishment of the Danish House of Glücksburg in 1863 are included.'' |
|||
{| class="wikitable sortable" |
|||
|+ Monarchs of Denmark |
|||
|- |
|||
! style="max-width:2em" |Title !! Reign !! Adherence to WP:NCROY |
|||
|- |
|||
|[[Christian IX of Denmark]] |
|||
|1863-1906 |
|||
|Yes |
|||
|- |
|||
|[[Frederick VIII of Denmark]] |
|||
|1906-1912 |
|||
|Yes |
|||
|- |
|||
|[[Christian X of Denmark]] |
|||
|1912-1947 |
|||
|Yes |
|||
|- |
|||
|[[Frederick IX of Denmark]] |
|||
|1947-1972 |
|||
|Yes |
|||
|- |
|||
|[[Margrethe II of Denmark]] |
|||
|1972-present |
|||
|Yes |
|||
|- |
|||
|} |
|||
'''Monarchs of the Netherlands''' |
|||
''All sovereigns that have reigned since the establishment of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in 1815 are included.'' |
|||
{| class="wikitable sortable" |
|||
|+ Monarchs of the Netherlands |
|||
|- |
|||
! style="max-width:2em" |Title !! Reign !! Adherence to WP:NCROY |
|||
|- |
|||
|[[William I of the Netherlands]] |
|||
|1815-1840 |
|||
|Yes |
|||
|- |
|||
|[[William II of the Netherlands]] |
|||
|1840-1849 |
|||
|Yes |
|||
|- |
|||
|[[William III of the Netherlands]] |
|||
|1849-1890 |
|||
|Yes |
|||
|- |
|||
|[[Wilhelmina of the Netherlands]] |
|||
|1890-1948 |
|||
|Yes (only monarch with name) |
|||
|- |
|||
|[[Juliana of the Netherlands]] |
|||
|1948-1980 |
|||
|Yes (only monarch with name) |
|||
|- |
|||
|[[Beatrix of the Netherlands]] |
|||
|1980-2013 |
|||
|Yes (only monarch with name) |
|||
|- |
|||
|[[Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands]] |
|||
|2013-present |
|||
|Yes (only monarch with name) |
|||
|- |
|||
|} |
|||
'''Monarchs of Norway''' |
|||
''All sovereigns that have reigned since the dissolution of the [[Personal union|personal union]] of Norway with Sweden in 1905 are included.'' |
|||
{| class="wikitable sortable" |
|||
|+ Monarchs of Norway |
|||
|- |
|||
! style="max-width:2em" |Title !! Reign !! Adherence to WP:NCROY |
|||
|- |
|||
|[[Haakon VII of Norway]] |
|||
|1905-1957 |
|||
|Yes |
|||
|- |
|||
|[[Olav V of Norway]] |
|||
|1957-1991 |
|||
|Yes |
|||
|- |
|||
|[[Harald V of Norway]] |
|||
|1991-present |
|||
|Yes |
|||
|- |
|||
|} |
|||
'''Monarchs of Spain''' |
|||
''All sovereigns that have reigned in Spain since the establishment of the House of Bourbon-Anjou in 1700 are included, excluding monarchs from other royal houses.'' |
|||
{| class="wikitable sortable" |
|||
|+ Monarchs of Spain |
|||
|- |
|||
! style="max-width:2em" |Title !! Reign !! Adherence to WP:NCROY |
|||
|- |
|||
|[[Philip V of Spain]] |
|||
|1700-1724 and 1724-1746 |
|||
|Yes |
|||
|- |
|||
|[[Louis I of Spain]] |
|||
|1724-1724 |
|||
|Yes |
|||
|- |
|||
|[[Ferdinand VI of Spain]] |
|||
|1746-1759 |
|||
|Yes |
|||
|- |
|||
|[[Charles III of Spain]] |
|||
|1759-1788 |
|||
|Yes |
|||
|- |
|||
|[[Charles IV of Spain]] |
|||
|1788-1808 |
|||
|Yes |
|||
|- |
|||
|[[Ferdinand VII of Spain]] |
|||
|1808-1808 and 1813-1833 |
|||
|Yes |
|||
|- |
|||
|[[Isabella II of Spain]] |
|||
|1833-1868 |
|||
|Yes |
|||
|- |
|||
|'''[[Alfonso XII]]''' |
|||
|1874-1885 |
|||
|'''No''' |
|||
|- |
|||
|'''[[Alfonso XIII]]''' |
|||
|1886-1931 |
|||
|'''No''' |
|||
|- |
|||
|'''[[Juan Carlos I]]''' |
|||
|1975-2014 |
|||
|'''No''' |
|||
|- |
|||
|'''[[Felipe VI]]''' |
|||
|2014-present |
|||
|'''No''' |
|||
|} |
|||
'''Monarchs of Sweden''' |
|||
''All sovereigns that have reigned in Sweden since the establishment of the House of Bernadotte in 1818 are included.'' |
|||
{| class="wikitable sortable" |
|||
|+ Monarchs of Sweden |
|||
|- |
|||
! style="max-width:2em" |Title !! Reign !! Adherence to WP:NCROY |
|||
|- |
|||
|'''[[Charles XIV John]]''' |
|||
|1818-1844 |
|||
|'''No''' (and fails to acknowledge Norwegian regnal number) |
|||
|- |
|||
|[[Oscar I of Sweden]] |
|||
|1844-1859 |
|||
|Yes |
|||
|- |
|||
|'''[[Charles XV]]''' |
|||
|1859-1872 |
|||
|'''No''' (and fails to acknowledge Norwegian regnal number) |
|||
|- |
|||
|'''[[Oscar II]]''' |
|||
|1872-1907 |
|||
|'''No''' |
|||
|- |
|||
|'''[[Gustaf V]]''' |
|||
|1907-1950 |
|||
|'''No''' |
|||
|- |
|||
|'''[[Gustaf VI Adolf]]''' |
|||
|1950-1973 |
|||
|'''No''' |
|||
|- |
|||
|'''[[Carl XVI Gustaf]]''' |
|||
|1973-present |
|||
|'''No''' |
|||
|- |
|||
|} |
|||
'''Monarchs of Great Britain or the United Kingdom''' |
|||
''All sovereigns that have reigned since the unification of the Kingdoms of England and Scotland in 1707 are included.'' |
|||
{| class="wikitable sortable" |
|||
|+ British monarchs |
|||
|- |
|||
! style="max-width:2em" |Title !! Reign !! Adherence to WP:NCROY |
|||
|- |
|||
|[[Anne, Queen of Great Britain]] |
|||
|1707-1714 |
|||
|Yes (only monarch with name) |
|||
|- |
|||
|[[George I of Great Britain]] |
|||
|1714-1727 |
|||
|Yes |
|||
|- |
|||
|[[George II of Great Britain]] |
|||
|1727-1760 |
|||
|Yes |
|||
|- |
|||
|'''[[George III]]''' |
|||
|1760-1820 |
|||
|'''No''' |
|||
|- |
|||
|'''[[George IV]]''' |
|||
|1820-1830 |
|||
|'''No''' |
|||
|- |
|||
|'''[[William IV]]''' |
|||
|1830-1837 |
|||
|'''No''' |
|||
|- |
|||
|'''[[Queen Victoria]]''' |
|||
|1837-1901 |
|||
|'''No''' |
|||
|- |
|||
|'''[[Edward VII]]''' |
|||
|1901-1910 |
|||
|'''No''' |
|||
|- |
|||
|'''[[George V]]''' |
|||
|1910-1936 |
|||
|'''No''' |
|||
|- |
|||
|'''[[Edward VIII]]''' |
|||
|1936-1936 |
|||
|'''No''' |
|||
|- |
|||
|'''[[George VI]]''' |
|||
|1936-1952 |
|||
|'''No''' |
|||
|- |
|||
|'''[[Elizabeth II]]''' |
|||
|1952-2022 |
|||
|'''No''' |
|||
|- |
|||
|'''[[Charles III]]''' |
|||
|2022-present |
|||
|'''No''' |
|||
|} |
|||
'''Monarchs of Luxembourg''' |
|||
''All sovereigns that have reigned since the dissolution of the [[Personal union|personal union]] of Luxembourg with the Netherlands in 1890 are included.'' |
|||
{| class="wikitable sortable" |
|||
|+ Monarchs of Luxembourg |
|||
|- |
|||
! style="max-width:2em" |Title !! Reign !! Adherence to WP:NCROY |
|||
|- |
|||
|[[Adolphe, Grand Duke of Luxembourg]] |
|||
|1890-1905 |
|||
|Yes (only monarch with name) |
|||
|- |
|||
|[[William IV, Grand Duke of Luxembourg]] |
|||
|1905-1912 |
|||
|Yes |
|||
|- |
|||
|[[Marie-Adélaïde, Grand Duchess of Luxembourg]] |
|||
|1912-1919 |
|||
|Yes (only monarch with name) |
|||
|- |
|||
|[[Charlotte, Grand Duchess of Luxembourg]] |
|||
|1919-1964 |
|||
|Yes (only monarch with name) |
|||
|- |
|||
|[[Jean, Grand Duke of Luxembourg]] |
|||
|1964-2000 |
|||
|Yes (only monarch with name) |
|||
|- |
|||
|[[Henri, Grand Duke of Luxembourg]] |
|||
|2000-present |
|||
|Yes (only monarch with name) |
|||
|} |
|||
'''Sovereign Princes of Liechtenstein''' |
|||
{| class="wikitable sortable" |
|||
|+ Sovereign Princes of Liechtenstein |
|||
|- |
|||
! style="max-width:2em" |Title !! Reign !! Adherence to WP:NCROY |
|||
|- |
|||
|[[Karl I, Prince of Liechtenstein]] |
|||
|1627-1684 |
|||
|Yes |
|||
|- |
|||
|[[Karl Eusebius, Prince of Liechtenstein]] |
|||
|1662-1701 |
|||
|Yes (only monarch with name) |
|||
|- |
|||
|[[Hans-Adam I, Prince of Liechtenstein]] |
|||
|1684-1712 |
|||
|Yes |
|||
|- |
|||
|[[Joseph Wenzel I, Prince of Liechtenstein]] |
|||
|1712-1718 and 1748-1772 |
|||
|Yes |
|||
|- |
|||
|[[Anton Florian, Prince of Liechtenstein]] |
|||
|1718-1721 |
|||
|Yes (only monarch with name) |
|||
|- |
|||
|[[Joseph Johann Adam, Prince of Liechtenstein]] |
|||
|1721-1732 |
|||
|Yes (only monarch with name) |
|||
|- |
|||
|[[Johann Nepomuk Karl, Prince of Liechtenstein]] |
|||
|1732-1748 |
|||
|Yes (only monarch with name) |
|||
|- |
|||
|[[Franz Joseph I, Prince of Liechtenstein]] |
|||
|1772-1781 |
|||
|Yes |
|||
|- |
|||
|[[Aloys I, Prince of Liechtenstein]] |
|||
|1781-1805 |
|||
|Yes |
|||
|- |
|||
|[[Johann I Joseph, Prince of Liechtenstein]] |
|||
|1805-1836 |
|||
|Yes |
|||
|- |
|||
|[[Aloys II, Prince of Liechtenstein]] |
|||
|1836-1858 |
|||
|Yes |
|||
|- |
|||
|[[Johann II, Prince of Liechtenstein]] |
|||
|1858-1929 |
|||
|Yes |
|||
|- |
|||
|[[Franz I, Prince of Liechtenstein]] |
|||
|1929-1938 |
|||
|Yes |
|||
|- |
|||
|[[Franz Joseph II, Prince of Liechtenstein]] |
|||
|1938-1989 |
|||
|Yes |
|||
|- |
|||
|[[Hans-Adam II, Prince of Liechtenstein]] |
|||
|1989-present |
|||
|Yes |
|||
|} |
|||
'''Rulers of Monaco''' |
|||
''Sovereigns since Monaco became a principality in 1633 are listed, excluding periods of occupation.'' |
|||
{| class="wikitable sortable" |
|||
|+ Rulers of Monaco |
|||
|- |
|||
! style="max-width:2em" |Title !! Reign !! Adherence to WP:NCROY |
|||
|- |
|||
|[[Honoré II, Prince of Monaco]] |
|||
|1633-1662 |
|||
|Yes |
|||
|- |
|||
|[[Louis I, Prince of Monaco]] |
|||
|1662-1701 |
|||
|Yes |
|||
|- |
|||
|[[Antonio I, Prince of Monaco]] |
|||
|1701-1731 |
|||
|Yes |
|||
|- |
|||
|[[Louise Hippolyte, Princess of Monaco]] |
|||
|1731-1731 |
|||
|Yes (only monarch with name) |
|||
|- |
|||
|[[Jacques I, Prince of Monaco]] |
|||
|1731-1733 |
|||
|Yes |
|||
|- |
|||
|[[Honoré III, Prince of Monaco]] |
|||
|1733-1793 |
|||
|Yes |
|||
|- |
|||
|[[Honoré IV, Prince of Monaco]] |
|||
|1814-1819 |
|||
|Yes |
|||
|- |
|||
|[[Honoré V, Prince of Monaco]] |
|||
|1819-1841 |
|||
|Yes |
|||
|- |
|||
|[[Florestan, Prince of Monaco]] |
|||
|1841-1856 |
|||
|Yes (only monarch with name) |
|||
|- |
|||
|[[Charles III, Prince of Monaco]] |
|||
|1856-1889 |
|||
|Yes |
|||
|- |
|||
|[[Albert I, Prince of Monaco]] |
|||
|1889-1922 |
|||
|Yes |
|||
|- |
|||
|[[Louis II, Prince of Monaco]] |
|||
|1922-1949 |
|||
|Yes |
|||
|- |
|||
|[[Rainier III, Prince of Monaco]] |
|||
|1949-2005 |
|||
|Yes |
|||
|- |
|||
|[[Albert II, Prince of Monaco]] |
|||
|2005-present |
|||
|Yes |
|||
|} |
|||
'''''[[User:AndrewPeterT|Hurricane]] [[User talk:AndrewPeterT|Andrew]] ([[Special:Contributions/AndrewPeterT|444]])''''' 00:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC) |
|||
====APPENDIX B: Evidence of WP:COMMONNAME already being disregarded for multiple European royals (and WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT being used)==== |
|||
''As I have mentioned, some users have argued WP:COMMONNAME. However, as I will demonstrate in this section, '''it is already a precedent that WP:NCROY supersedes WP:COMMONNAME when it comes to naming English Wikipedia articles on royals'''. |
|||
Below, I have listed select princes and princesses from five current European monarchies. Moreover, using Google search results, '''I show that each of their Wikipedia article titles are less common than some alternatives but are still used regardless'''. I see no reason why monarchs’ titles should not follow the same trend in the spirit of WP:CONSISTENT:'' |
|||
{| class="wikitable sortable" |
|||
|+ Page views for select European princes and princesses |
|||
|- |
|||
! style="max-width:2em" |Title !! Google hits for Title !! Alternative name !! Google hits for Alternative name !! Percentage comparison of Google Title hits with Google Alternative hits |
|||
|- |
|||
|[[William, Prince of Wales]] |
|||
|[https://www.google.com/search?q=%22william%2C+prince+of+wales%22&sca_esv=566133074&ei=73wHZd6WDqagptQPnOiP2A0&ved=0ahUKEwieyuWQ2LKBAxUmkIkEHRz0A9sQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=%22william%2C+prince+of+wales%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiGiJ3aWxsaWFtLCBwcmluY2Ugb2Ygd2FsZXMiMgYQABgHGB4yBRAAGIAEMgYQABgHGB4yBhAAGAcYHjIGEAAYBxgeMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIEEAAYHki0B1CbAljwBXABeAGQAQCYAUOgAcIBqgEBM7gBA8gBAPgBAcICChAAGEcY1gQYsAPiAwQYACBBiAYBkAYD&sclient=gws-wiz-serp 659,000] |
|||
|'''Prince William''' |
|||
|[https://www.google.com/search?q=%22prince+william%22&sca_esv=566133074&ei=9XwHZdqQIL-sptQPsKOYgAs&ved=0ahUKEwia3-WT2LKBAxU_lokEHbARBrAQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=%22prince+william%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiECJwcmluY2Ugd2lsbGlhbSIyBxAAGIoFGEMyBxAAGIoFGEMyBRAuGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAuGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAuGIAEMgUQABiABEiOHlC6DlifHHACeACQAQCYAWugAc8JqgEEMTMuMrgBA8gBAPgBAcICChAAGEcY1gQYsAPCAgYQABgHGB7CAgYQLhgHGB7CAgwQLhgHGB4YxwEY0QPCAhUQLhgHGB4YlwUY3AQY3gQY4ATYAQHCAgcQLhiKBRhDwgIWEC4YigUYQxiXBRjcBBjeBBjfBNgBAcICCBAAGAcYHhgTwgIIEC4YBxgeGBPiAwQYACBBiAYBkAYDugYGCAEQARgU&sclient=gws-wiz-serp 129,000,000] |
|||
|0.5% of Google Alternative hits |
|||
|- |
|||
|[[Catherine, Princess of Wales]] |
|||
|[https://www.google.com/search?q=%22catherine%2C+princess+of+wales%22&sca_esv=566133074&ei=ln0HZdbEMKuqptQP_YW8-A8&ved=0ahUKEwjW59jg2LKBAxUrlYkEHf0CD_8Q4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=%22catherine%2C+princess+of+wales%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiHiJjYXRoZXJpbmUsIHByaW5jZXNzIG9mIHdhbGVzIjIGEAAYBxgeMgUQABiABDIEEAAYHjIEEAAYHjIEEAAYHjIEEAAYHjIEEAAYHjIEEAAYHjIEEAAYHjIEEAAYHkjNCVCuA1jMB3ABeAGQAQCYAWOgAcYBqgEBM7gBA8gBAPgBAcICChAAGEcY1gQYsAPCAgkQABgNGBMYgATiAwQYACBBiAYBkAYF&sclient=gws-wiz-serp 1,220,000] |
|||
|'''Kate Middleton''' |
|||
|[https://www.google.com/search?q=%22kate+middleton%22&sca_esv=566133074&ei=m30HZbWRC6ekptQPmqKRmAs&ved=0ahUKEwj1yuTi2LKBAxUnkokEHRpRBLMQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=%22kate+middleton%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiECJrYXRlIG1pZGRsZXRvbiIyBxAAGIoFGEMyBxAAGIoFGEMyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABEiJFlDzA1j_E3ABeAGQAQCYAWagAZIIqgEEMTMuMbgBA8gBAPgBAcICChAAGEcY1gQYsAPCAgYQABgHGB7CAgcQLhiKBRhDwgIWEC4YigUYQxiXBRjcBBjeBBjfBNgBAcICBRAuGIAEwgIIEAAYBxgeGBPCAggQLhgHGB4YE8ICFxAuGAcYHhgTGJcFGNwEGN4EGN8E2AEB4gMEGAAgQYgGAZAGBboGBggBEAEYFA&sclient=gws-wiz-serp 152,000,000] |
|||
|0.8% of Google Alternative hits |
|||
|- |
|||
|[[Diana, Princess of Wales]] |
|||
|[https://www.google.com/search?q=%22diana%2C+princess+of+wales%22&sca_esv=566133074&ei=An4HZfKtAdLcptQPyo--gAU&ved=0ahUKEwjytumT2bKBAxVSrokEHcqHD1AQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=%22diana%2C+princess+of+wales%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiGiJkaWFuYSwgcHJpbmNlc3Mgb2Ygd2FsZXMiMgsQLhiABBjHARivATIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgsQLhiABBjHARivATIEEAAYHjIEEAAYHjIEEAAYHjIEEAAYHjIEEAAYHjIEEAAYHjIaEC4YgAQYxwEYrwEYlwUY3AQY3gQY4ATYAQFIiQxQ2gZYrApwAngBkAEAmAFroAGDAqoBAzIuMbgBA8gBAPgBAcICChAAGEcY1gQYsAPCAgkQABgNGBMYgATCAggQABgHGB4YE-IDBBgAIEGIBgGQBgi6BgYIARABGBQ&sclient=gws-wiz-serp 4,940,000] |
|||
|'''Princess Diana''' |
|||
|[https://www.google.com/search?q=%22princess+diana%22&sca_esv=566133074&ei=B34HZb-4GZKZptQPqcOV8AQ&ved=0ahUKEwj_17KW2bKBAxWSjIkEHalhBU4Q4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=%22princess+diana%22&gs_lp=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&sclient=gws-wiz-serp 53,500,000] |
|||
|9.23% of Google Alternative hits |
|||
|- |
|||
|[[Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex]] |
|||
|[https://www.google.com/search?q=%22prince+harry%2C+duke+of+sussex%22&sca_esv=566133074&ei=3X4HZbbJDvygptQP96q02As&ved=0ahUKEwj2q6382bKBAxV8kIkEHXcVDbsQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=%22prince+harry%2C+duke+of+sussex%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiHiJwcmluY2UgaGFycnksIGR1a2Ugb2Ygc3Vzc2V4IjIMEAAYExiABBhGGPsBMgcQABgTGIAEMgcQABgTGIAEMgcQABgTGIAEMgcQABgTGIAEMgcQABgTGIAEMgcQABgTGIAEMgcQABgTGIAEMgcQABgTGIAEMgcQABgTGIAESKQOULECWO8McAJ4AZABAJgBQaAB-QGqAQE0uAEDyAEA-AEBwgIKEAAYRxjWBBiwA8ICDhAAGA0YExiABBhGGPsBwgIIEAAYBxgeGBPCAgkQABgNGBMYgATiAwQYACBBiAYBkAYC&sclient=gws-wiz-serp 1,850,000] |
|||
|'''Prince Harry''' |
|||
|[https://www.google.com/search?q=%22prince+harry%22&sca_esv=566133074&ei=4n4HZd7NKpKdptQPxbG6yAk&ved=0ahUKEwjexvr-2bKBAxWSjokEHcWYDpkQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=%22prince+harry%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiDiJwcmluY2UgaGFycnkiMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABEjEBVDbAljbAnABeAGQAQCYAZ8BoAGfAaoBAzAuMbgBA8gBAPgBAcICChAAGEcY1gQYsAPiAwQYACBBiAYBkAYC&sclient=gws-wiz-serp 170,000,000] |
|||
|1.09% of Google Alternative hits |
|||
|- |
|||
|[[Meghan, Duchess of Sussex]] |
|||
|[https://www.google.com/search?q=%22meghan%2C+duchess+of+sussex%22&sca_esv=566133074&ei=Xn8HZav5PPWyptQP85aykAk&ved=0ahUKEwiroJ262rKBAxV1mYkEHXOLDJIQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=%22meghan%2C+duchess+of+sussex%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiGyJtZWdoYW4sIGR1Y2hlc3Mgb2Ygc3Vzc2V4IjIMEAAYExiABBhGGPsBMgcQLhgTGIAEMgcQABgTGIAEMgcQABgTGIAEMgcQABgTGIAEMgcQABgTGIAEMgcQABgTGIAEMgcQABgTGIAEMgcQABgTGIAEMgcQABgTGIAESN8HULYCWPsFcAF4AZABAJgBR6ABzgGqAQEzuAEDyAEA-AEBwgIKEAAYRxjWBBiwA8ICDhAAGA0YExiABBhGGPsBwgIJEC4YDRgTGIAEwgIJEAAYDRgTGIAE4gMEGAAgQYgGAZAGBA&sclient=gws-wiz-serp 4,870,000] |
|||
|'''Meghan Markle''' |
|||
|[[https://www.google.com/search?q=%22meghan+markle%22&sca_esv=566133074&ei=YX8HZbrcIbSfptQP_ueOmAk&ved=0ahUKEwj6kLm72rKBAxW0j4kEHf6zA5MQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=%22meghan+markle%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiDyJtZWdoYW4gbWFya2xlIjIFEC4YgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQLhiABDIFEAAYgAQyFBAuGIAEGJcFGNwEGN4EGOAE2AEBSIcOUOcCWMwLcAF4AZABAJgBUKABkwSqAQE4uAEDyAEA-AEBwgIKEAAYRxjWBBiwA8ICBhAAGAcYHsICFBAuGIAEGJcFGNwEGN4EGN8E2AEBwgIIEC4YBxgeGBPCAggQABgHGB4YE8ICChAAGAcYHhgTGArCAhcQLhgHGB4YExiXBRjcBBjeBBjfBNgBAeIDBBgAIEGIBgGQBgS6BgYIARABGBQ&sclient=gws-wiz-serp 347,000,000] |
|||
|1.40% of Google Alternative hits |
|||
|- |
|||
|[[Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon]] |
|||
|[https://www.google.com/search?q=%22princess+margaret%2C+countess+of+snowdon%22&sca_esv=566133074&ei=_H8HZe3UMs61ptQPp4eK8AQ&ved=0ahUKEwjtwr6F27KBAxXOmokEHaeDAk4Q4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=%22princess+margaret%2C+countess+of+snowdon%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiKCJwcmluY2VzcyBtYXJnYXJldCwgY291bnRlc3Mgb2Ygc25vd2RvbiIyBxAAGBMYgAQyBxAAGBMYgAQyBxAAGBMYgAQyBxAAGBMYgAQyBxAAGBMYgAQyBxAAGBMYgAQyBxAAGBMYgAQyBxAAGBMYgAQyBxAAGBMYgAQyBxAAGBMYgARIoQ9QigJYwQ1wAngBkAEAmAFToAGXAqoBATS4AQPIAQD4AQHCAgoQABhHGNYEGLADwgIIEAAYBxgeGBPCAgkQABgNGBMYgATiAwQYACBBiAYBkAYC&sclient=gws-wiz-serp 122,000] |
|||
|'''Princess Margaret''' |
|||
|[https://www.google.com/search?q=%22princess+margaret%22&sca_esv=566133074&ei=AYAHZfuQAdWiptQP_ZiG-Ac&ved=0ahUKEwi7lb6H27KBAxVVkYkEHX2MAX8Q4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=%22princess+margaret%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiEyJwcmluY2VzcyBtYXJnYXJldCIyChAAGIAEGEYY-wEyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgsQLhiABBjHARivATIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgARIpz9QjjtYjjtwCHgBkAEAmAFEoAFEqgEBMbgBA8gBAPgBAcICChAAGEcY1gQYsAPiAwQYACBBiAYBkAYC&sclient=gws-wiz-serp 12,200,000] |
|||
|1% of Google Alternative hits |
|||
|- |
|||
|[[Anne, Princess Royal]] |
|||
|[https://www.google.com/search?q=%22anne%2C+princess+royal%22&sca_esv=566133074&ei=K4AHZeKfCaStptQPyr6IgAQ&ved=0ahUKEwii4cmb27KBAxWklokEHUofAkAQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=%22anne%2C+princess+royal%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiFiJhbm5lLCBwcmluY2VzcyByb3lhbCIyCBAAGAcYHhgKMgUQLhiABDIEEAAYHjIEEAAYHjIEEAAYHjIEEAAYHjIEEAAYHjIEEAAYHjIEEAAYHjIEEAAYHkj6HFCmAljJGnABeAGQAQCYAaEBoAHhC6oBBDE3LjO4AQPIAQD4AQHCAgoQABhHGNYEGLADwgIHEC4YigUYQ8ICBxAAGIoFGEPCAgUQABiABMICCxAuGIAEGMcBGK8BwgIWEC4YigUYQxiXBRjcBBjeBBjgBNgBAcICBhAAGAcYHsICFhAuGIoFGEMYlwUY3AQY3gQY3wTYAQHCAggQLhiABBjUAsICCBAAGAcYHhgTwgIHEC4YExiABMICCRAuGBMYgAQYCsICCRAAGBMYgAQYCsICBxAAGBMYgATiAwQYACBBiAYBkAYIugYGCAEQARgU&sclient=gws-wiz-serp 452,000] |
|||
|'''Princess Anne''' |
|||
|[https://www.google.com/search?q=%22princess+anne%22&sca_esv=566133074&ei=hIAHZfDFHJCmptQPoOCdkAI&ved=0ahUKEwjwl5XG27KBAxUQk4kEHSBwByIQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=%22princess+anne%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiDyJwcmluY2VzcyBhbm5lIjIFEC4YgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyCxAuGIAEGMcBGK8BMgsQLhiABBjHARivATIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyFBAuGIAEGJcFGNwEGN4EGOAE2AEBSPUTUMwDWKIScAF4AJABAJgB5wGgAdQJqgEGMTMuMC4xuAEDyAEA-AEBwgIKEAAYRxjWBBiwA8ICBhAuGAcYHsICBhAAGAcYHsICBxAAGIoFGEPCAgwQLhgHGB4YxwEY0QPCAhUQLhgHGB4YlwUY3AQY3gQY4ATYAQHCAgcQLhiKBRhDwgIWEC4YigUYQxiXBRjcBBjeBBjfBNgBAcICCxAuGIAEGMcBGNEDwgIHEAAYgAQYCsICBxAuGIAEGArCAggQLhgHGB4YE8ICCBAAGAcYHhgTwgIJEC4YExiABBgKwgIJEAAYExiABBgKwgIKEAAYBxgeGBMYCsICFxAuGAcYHhgTGJcFGNwEGN4EGN8E2AEB4gMEGAAgQYgGAZAGA7oGBggBEAEYFA&sclient=gws-wiz-serp 14,900,000] |
|||
|3.03% of Google Alternative hits |
|||
|- |
|||
|[[Prince Andrew, Duke of York]] |
|||
|[https://www.google.com/search?q=%22prince+andrew%2C+duke+of+york%22&sca_esv=566133074&ei=DoEHZZGjAbukptQPi-Kb6Ac&ved=0ahUKEwiR4uCH3LKBAxU7kokEHQvxBn0Q4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=%22prince+andrew%2C+duke+of+york%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiHSJwcmluY2UgYW5kcmV3LCBkdWtlIG9mIHlvcmsiMgcQABgTGIAEMgcQABgTGIAEMgcQABgTGIAEMgcQABgTGIAEMgcQABgTGIAEMgcQABgTGIAEMgcQABgTGIAEMgcQABgTGIAEMggQABgHGB4YEzIHEAAYExiABEirClCsAliLB3ABeAGQAQCYAVagAc8BqgEBM7gBA8gBAPgBAcICChAAGEcY1gQYsAPCAgkQABgNGBMYgATiAwQYACBBiAYBkAYI&sclient=gws-wiz-serp 310,000] |
|||
|'''Prince Andrew''' |
|||
|[https://www.google.com/search?q=%22prince+andrew%22&sca_esv=566133074&ei=EIEHZaqYKNanptQPpJehqAE&ved=0ahUKEwiq4IGJ3LKBAxXWk4kEHaRLCBUQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=%22prince+andrew%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiDyJwcmluY2UgYW5kcmV3IjIFEC4YgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEC4YgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgARIygRQ0AJY0AJwAXgBkAEAmAEzoAEzqgEBMbgBA8gBAPgBAcICChAAGEcY1gQYsAPiAwQYACBBiAYBkAYD&sclient=gws-wiz-serp 78,800,000] |
|||
|0.39% of Google Alternative hits |
|||
|- |
|||
|[[Prince Edward, Duke of Edinburgh]] |
|||
|[https://www.google.com/search?q=%22prince+edward+duke+of+edinburgh%22&sca_esv=566133074&ei=KoEHZfXcKNO8ptQP-cS7kAU&ved=0ahUKEwj1mbWV3LKBAxVTnokEHXniDlIQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=%22prince+edward+duke+of+edinburgh%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiISJwcmluY2UgZWR3YXJkIGR1a2Ugb2YgZWRpbmJ1cmdoIjIHEAAYExiABDIHEAAYExiABDIHEAAYExiABDIHEAAYExiABDIHEAAYExiABDIHEAAYExiABDIHEAAYExiABDIHEAAYExiABDIHEAAYExiABDIHEAAYExiABEitRVD9Blj4Q3ACeAGQAQCYAWKgAbYRqgECMzS4AQPIAQD4AQHCAgoQABhHGNYEGLADwgIGEAAYBxgewgIHEC4YDRiABMICCBAAGAcYHhgKwgIHEAAYDRiABMICBhAAGB4YDcICCBAAGB4YDRgKwgIWEC4YDRiABBiXBRjcBBjeBBjfBNgBAcICCRAAGA0YExiABMICChAAGB4YDRgPGBPCAggQABgeGA0YE8ICChAAGAgYHhgNGBPCAgwQABgIGB4YDRgTGArCAggQABgHGB4YE8ICChAAGAcYHhgPGBPCAgoQABgIGAcYHhgTwgIMEAAYCBgHGB4YExgKwgIIEAAYHhgPGBPCAgYQABgeGBPCAggQABgIGB4YE8ICCBAAGAcYHhgPwgIIEAAYCBgHGB7CAgUQABiABMICBBAAGB7CAgUQLhiABMICCxAuGIAEGMcBGK8BwgIUEC4YgAQYlwUY3AQY3gQY4ATYAQHCAhQQLhiABBiXBRjcBBjeBBjfBNgBAeIDBBgAIEGIBgGQBga6BgYIARABGBQ&sclient=gws-wiz-serp 184,000] |
|||
|'''Prince Edward''' |
|||
|[https://www.google.com/search?q=%22prince+edward%22&sca_esv=566133074&ei=6YEHZbKfM5mhptQP_M-7mAY&ved=0ahUKEwjyt8nw3LKBAxWZkIkEHfznDmMQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=%22prince+edward%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiDyJwcmluY2UgZWR3YXJkIjIFEC4YgAQyBRAuGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAuGIAEMgsQLhiABBjHARivATIGEAAYBxgeMgUQABiABDIFEC4YgAQyCxAuGIAEGMcBGK8BMhQQLhiABBiXBRjcBBjeBBjgBNgBAUi-BFCeAlieAnABeACQAQCYAVqgAYkBqgEBMrgBA8gBAPgBAcICChAAGEcY1gQYsAPiAwQYACBBiAYBkAYIugYGCAEQARgU&sclient=gws-wiz-serp 95,500,000] |
|||
|0.19% of Google Alternative hits |
|||
|- |
|||
|[[Frederik, Crown Prince of Denmark]] |
|||
|[https://www.google.com/search?q=%22frederik+crown+prince+of+denmark%22&sca_esv=566133074&ei=BYIHZdbkCOicptQP5dqy-As&ved=0ahUKEwiW-8v93LKBAxVojokEHWWtDL8Q4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=%22frederik+crown+prince+of+denmark%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiIiJmcmVkZXJpayBjcm93biBwcmluY2Ugb2YgZGVubWFyayIyBxAAGBMYgAQyBxAAGBMYgAQyBxAAGBMYgAQyBxAAGBMYgAQyBxAuGBMYgAQyBxAAGBMYgAQyBxAAGBMYgAQyBxAAGBMYgAQyBxAAGBMYgAQyBxAAGBMYgARI-TBQjghYgy9wAXgBkAEBmAGYA6ABkRaqAQgyNS42LjQtMbgBA8gBAPgBAcICChAAGEcY1gQYsAPCAgYQABgHGB7CAgcQABiKBRhDwgIHEC4YigUYQ8ICBRAAGIAEwgIFEC4YgATCAhQQLhiABBiXBRjcBBjeBBjfBNgBAcICCBAAGAcYHhgKwgIEEAAYHsICCBAAGAgYBxge4gMEGAAgQYgGAZAGCLoGBggBEAEYFA&sclient=gws-wiz-serp 62,000] |
|||
|'''Prince Frederik''' |
|||
|[https://www.google.com/search?q=%22prince+frederik%22&sca_esv=566133074&ei=VoIHZdQSt4qm1A_wk7CACg&ved=0ahUKEwjUlZOk3bKBAxU3hYkEHfAJDKAQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=%22prince+frederik%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiESJwcmluY2UgZnJlZGVyaWsiMgUQLhiABDIFEAAYgAQyBBAAGB4yBBAAGB4yBBAAGB4yBBAAGB4yBBAAGB4yBBAAGB4yBBAAGB4yBBAAGB4yFBAuGIAEGJcFGNwEGN4EGN8E2AEBSKIbUPECWKoYcAF4AJABAJgBZqABjAmqAQQxNS4xuAEDyAEA-AEBwgIKEAAYRxjWBBiwA8ICBhAAGAcYHsICBhAuGAcYHsICDBAuGAcYHhjHARjRA8ICFRAuGAcYHhiXBRjcBBjeBBjgBNgBAcICBxAuGIoFGEPCAhYQLhiKBRhDGJcFGNwEGN4EGN8E2AEBwgIKEC4Y1AIYigUYQ8ICCBAAGAcYHhgTwgIJEC4YExiABBgKwgIJEAAYExiABBgKwgIIEAAYBxgeGArCAhgQLhgTGIAEGAoYlwUY3AQY3gQY4ATYAQHiAwQYACBBiAYBkAYEugYGCAEQARgU&sclient=gws-wiz-serp 640,000] |
|||
|9.69% of Google Alternative hits |
|||
|- |
|||
|[[Haakon, Crown Prince of Norway]] |
|||
|[https://www.google.com/search?q=%22haakon%2C+crown+prince+of+norway%22&sca_esv=566133074&ei=1oIHZZHkBcShptQPkeygoAM&ved=0ahUKEwiRp53h3bKBAxXEkIkEHRE2CDQQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=%22haakon%2C+crown+prince+of+norway%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiICJoYWFrb24sIGNyb3duIHByaW5jZSBvZiBub3J3YXkiMgcQABgTGIAEMgcQABgTGIAEMgcQABgTGIAEMgcQABgTGIAEMgcQABgTGIAEMgcQABgTGIAEMgcQABgTGIAEMgcQABgTGIAEMgYQABgeGBMyBhAAGB4YE0i8BlDsAViPBXABeACQAQCYATagAaABqgEBM7gBA8gBAPgBAcICCRAAGAcYHhiwA8ICBxAAGB4YsAPCAggQABgHGB4YE8ICCRAAGA0YExiABOIDBBgBIEGIBgGQBgo&sclient=gws-wiz-serp 18,600] |
|||
|'''Prince Haakon''' |
|||
|[https://www.google.com/search?q=%22prince+haakon%22&sca_esv=566133074&ei=2IIHZf7iHOqYptQPo56tcA&ved=0ahUKEwj-rq7i3bKBAxVqjIkEHSNPCw4Q4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=%22prince+haakon%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiDyJwcmluY2UgaGFha29uIjIFEC4YgAQyBRAuGIAEMgQQABgeMgQQABgeMgQQABgeMgQQABgeMgQQABgeMgQQABgeMgQQABgeMgQQABgeMhQQLhiABBiXBRjcBBjeBBjfBNgBAUjgIVCqEFjJH3ACeACQAQCYAXqgAfwHqgEEMTEuMrgBA8gBAPgBAcICCRAAGAcYHhiwA8ICBxAAGB4YsAPCAgYQABgHGB7CAgYQLhgHGB7CAgwQLhgHGB4YxwEY0QPCAhUQLhgHGB4YlwUY3AQY3gQY4ATYAQHCAgcQLhiKBRhDwgIWEC4YigUYQxiXBRjcBBjeBBjfBNgBAcICCBAuGAcYHhgTwgIIEAAYBxgeGBPCAhcQLhgHGB4YExiXBRjcBBjeBBjfBNgBAcICCBAAGAcYHhgK4gMEGAEgQYgGAZAGCroGBggBEAEYFA&sclient=gws-wiz-serp 271,000] |
|||
|6.86% of Google Alternative hits |
|||
|- |
|||
|[[Prince Carl Philip, Duke of Värmland]] |
|||
|[https://www.google.com/search?q=%22prince+carl+philip+duke+of+varmland%22&sca_esv=566133074&ei=NIMHZZTTOrKZptQPo_eXsAM&ved=0ahUKEwiUvbuO3rKBAxWyjIkEHaP7BTYQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=%22prince+carl+philip+duke+of+varmland%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiJSJwcmluY2UgY2FybCBwaGlsaXAgZHVrZSBvZiB2YXJtbGFuZCIyBhAAGBYYHjIGEAAYFhgeMgYQABgWGB4yBhAAGBYYHjIGEAAYFhgeMgYQABgWGB4yBhAAGBYYHjIGEAAYFhgeMgYQABgWGB4yBhAAGBYYHkj5FFD0BFi5EnABeACQAQCYAUOgAbMBqgEBM7gBA8gBAPgBAcICBxAAGB4YsAPCAgcQLhgTGIAEwgIWEC4YExiABBiXBRjcBBjeBBjfBNgBAcICCBAAGBYYHhgT4gMEGAEgQYgGAZAGAboGBggBEAEYFA&sclient=gws-wiz-serp 26,200] |
|||
|'''Prince Carl Philip''' |
|||
|[https://www.google.com/search?q=%22prince+carl+philip%22&sca_esv=566133074&ei=OYMHZfaoEr-pptQPwdmP0AE&ved=0ahUKEwi2qcSQ3rKBAxW_lIkEHcHsAxoQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=%22prince+carl+philip%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiFCJwcmluY2UgY2FybCBwaGlsaXAiMggQABgHGB4YCjIFEC4YgAQyBRAAGIAEMgQQABgeMgQQABgeMgQQABgeMgQQABgeMgQQABgeMgQQABgeMgQQABgeSLQFUPkCWPkCcAF4AJABAJgBNKABNKoBATG4AQPIAQD4AQHCAgcQABgeGLAD4gMEGAEgQYgGAZAGAQ&sclient=gws-wiz-serp 797,000] |
|||
|3.29% of Google Alternative hits |
|||
|- |
|||
|[[Leonor, Princess of Asturias]] |
|||
|[https://www.google.com/search?q=%22leonor+princess+of+asturias%22&sca_esv=566133074&ei=o4MHZf20Kp6fptQP46e-2AM&ved=0ahUKEwi9kqLD3rKBAxWej4kEHeOTDzsQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=%22leonor+princess+of+asturias%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiHSJsZW9ub3IgcHJpbmNlc3Mgb2YgYXN0dXJpYXMiMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBBAAGB4yBBAAGB4yBBAAGB4yBBAAGB4yBBAAGB4yBBAAGB4yBBAAGB4yBBAAGB5IsyhQigNYsCdwAXgAkAEAmAGuAaAB9g6qAQQyNi4xuAEDyAEA-AEBwgIJEAAYBxgeGLADwgIIEC4YgAQYsAPCAggQABiABBiwA8ICBxAAGB4YsAPCAgkQLhgHGB4Y1ALCAgYQABgHGB7CAgYQLhgHGB7CAgUQLhiABMICGBAuGAcYHhjUAhiXBRjcBBjeBBjgBNgBAcICBxAuGIoFGEPCAgcQABiKBRhDwgIIEAAYBxgeGArCAhYQLhiKBRhDGJcFGNwEGN4EGOAE2AEBwgIIEAAYBxgeGBPCAhQQLhiABBiXBRjcBBjeBBjfBNgBAeIDBBgBIEGIBgGQBgq6BgYIARABGBQ&sclient=gws-wiz-serp 130,000] |
|||
|'''Princess Leonor''' |
|||
|[https://www.google.com/search?q=%22princess+leonor%22&sca_esv=566133074&ei=DIQHZeXBKKulptQPhoma6A0&ved=0ahUKEwjl96j13rKBAxWrkokEHYaEBt0Q4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=%22princess+leonor%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiESJwcmluY2VzcyBsZW9ub3IiMgQQABhHMgQQABhHMgQQABhHMgQQABhHMgQQABhHMgQQABhHMgQQABhHMgQQABhHSNMOUKoMWKoMcAJ4ApABAJgBAKABAKoBALgBA8gBAPgBAcICChAAGEcY1gQYsAPiAwQYACBB4gMFEgExIECIBgGQBgg&sclient=gws-wiz-serp 954,000] |
|||
|13.63% of Google Alternative hits |
|||
|} |
|||
'''''[[User:AndrewPeterT|Hurricane]] [[User talk:AndrewPeterT|Andrew]] ([[Special:Contributions/AndrewPeterT|444]])''''' 00:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC) |
Revision as of 00:03, 18 September 2023
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 7 sections are present. |
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)
- It's odd to create a standard, and then list 99 exceptions like this. Maybe we should just rework the page to say "{Monarch's first name and ordinal} of {Country}" is the default, unless otherwise dictated by WP:COMMONNAME and WP:D. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:58, 12 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)
- 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)
- Back then, I suspect it was more politically motivated. Shall we call it, realm pride. GoodDay (talk) 00:05, 7 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)
- 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)
- "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)
- Same here. Deb (talk) 09:16, 20 September 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- "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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- They were all good moves because they better complied with our article titling policies. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:42, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Would be quite happy to see all those RM's reversed. GoodDay (talk) 15:55, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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 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)
- 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)
- (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)
- 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)
- @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)
- 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)
- "
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)
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)
- Gloria, Princess of Thurn and Taxis → Gloria von Thurn und Taxis
- Princess Maria Theresia of Thurn and Taxis (born 1980) → Maria Theresia Wilson
- Johannes, 11th Prince of Thurn and Taxis → Johannes von Thurn und Taxis
- Albert, 12th Prince of Thurn and Taxis → Albert von Thurn und Taxis
- Princess Iniga of Thurn and Taxis → Iniga von Thurn und Taxis
- Friedrich Wilhelm, Prince of Hohenzollern → Friedrich Wilhelm Prinz von Hohenzollern
- Karl Friedrich, Prince of Hohenzollern → Karl Friedrich von Hohenzollern
- Prince Luitpold of Bavaria (b. 1951) → Luitpold Prinz von Bayern
- Princess Irmingard of Bavaria → Irmingard von Bayern
- Franz, Duke of Bavaria → Franz von Bayern
- Prince Max, Duke in Bavaria → Max Emanuel in Bayern
- Prince Leopold of Bavaria (born 1943) → Leopold Prinz von Bayern
- Prince Konstantin of Bavaria → Konstantin Prinz von Bayern
- Prince Ernst August of Hanover (born 1954) → Ernst August von Hannover (born 1954)
- Prince Ludwig Rudolph of Hanover → Ludwig Rudolph von Hannover
- Prince Heinrich of Hanover → Heinrich Prinz von Hannover
- Alexander, Prince of Saxony → Alexander Prinz von Sachsen
- Albert, Margrave of Meissen (1934–2012) → Albert von Sachsen
- Rüdiger, Margrave of Meissen → Rüdiger von Sachsen
– 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)
- Support per wp:NCROY we shouldn't use hypothetical titles by default, if are the persons common name we can move it back with an individual request—blindlynx 02:47, 8 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)
- 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)
- 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
- RND (german)
- T-online (german)
- Spiegel (german)
- TownAndCountryMag
- MansionGlobal.com
- WMagazine
- Telegraph
- d'Elora, Camille (31 January 1995). "Point de Vue". _Gloria von Thurn und Taxis: La Mal Aimée_ (in French)
- Bild.de (german)
- Vatican
- 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)
- @Sceptre:, I noticed that of the items in this request, Princess Irmingard of Bavaria was the only one not moved. Was this an oversight or was this the edge case mentioned in the closing comment?98.228.137.44 (talk) 04:34, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
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)
- Princess Margaretha, Mrs. Ambler
- Princess Désirée, Baroness Silfverschiöld
- 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)
RfC: Should the guideline explicitly accept Elizabeth II, Carl XVI Gustaf, etc titles?
For over a decade now the titles of articles about British monarchs have been at Elizabeth II, George VI, Edward VIII, etc. Likewise it has been 13 years since Maria Theresa of Austria was moved to Maria Theresa (discussion) and Louis-Philippe I of France to Louis-Philippe I (discussion), longer still since Napoleon I of France was abandoned for Napoleon. Three years ago the country qualifiers were dropped for titles such as Juan Carlos I and others (discussion), Carl XVI Gustaf and others (discussion), Elizabeth I (discussion) and others, Louis XIV and others (discussion), etc.
This year multiple attempts to move articles back to the Name Number of Country format failed: Alfonso XIII to Alfonso XIII of Spain and similar (discussion), Napoleon III to Napoleon III of France and similar (discussion), Elizabeth II to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom and similar (discussion)
Should a point be added to WP:SOVEREIGNS to reflect these changes and explicitly endorse the use of shorter titles where no disambiguation is needed? Surtsicna (talk) Surtsicna (talk) 07:50, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- Query. Just to be clear: is the proposal to set out a list of articles where this exception applies or is it a statement added explicitly accepting that exceptions can be agreed locally at each article (without listing the articles). The former would be quite unusual, I think. DeCausa (talk) 08:10, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- DeCausa: it is an open proposal, where hopefully we can hammer out the best course of action in a joint effort. I am not fond of the former option you listed; it does not help make the guideline relevant again. See my comment below for my idea on how to approach this. Surtsicna (talk)
- DeCausa: I have now included an explicit proposal of action in the opening for clarity and simplicity. I still invite everyone to share alternative ideas. Surtsicna (talk) 09:30, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, I believe the guideline should be updated to reflect the present (and long-standing) reality. As it stands now, NCROY is out of touch and consequently largely irrelevant. The change could be as simple as listing some of the examples under point 2 of the Sovereigns section; alternatively (and preferably), we could add a new point explicitly endorsing the disambiguation-less format for subjects with unambiguous or primary-usage names. Surtsicna (talk) 08:23, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- Query I was bought here by a notification at an article I watch. Please be more specific about which part of WP:NCROY is under review and the specific text that might be changed. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:48, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- WP:SOVEREIGN; the question is whether the guideline should be modified to take into account the apparent preference for shortening the biography titles over the past decade. What specific text could/should be changed is open for discussion; see my idea above. Surtsicna (talk)
- Cinderella157: I have now included an explicit proposal of action in the opening for clarity and simplicity. I still invite everyone to share alternative ideas. Surtsicna (talk) 09:29, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- Yes but where there needs to be distinguishing, then you could use the longer terms unless there is a clear WP:PRIMARY case for leaving it alone (like Charles III). The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 09:17, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- The C of E: I have now included an explicit proposal of action in the opening for clarity and simplicity. I still invite everyone to share alternative ideas. Surtsicna (talk) 09:29, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- Already the guideline says "If there is an overwhelmingly common name, use it: William the Conqueror, John Balliol, Peter the Great, Henry the Fowler, Mary, Queen of Scots, Gustavus Adolphus, Eric of Pomerania, Charlemagne. This is in line with WP:COMMONNAME." So, maybe all that's needed is to expand on the treatment of British monarchs in this way, such as Queen Victoria. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:22, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- Andrew Davidson: I have now included an explicit proposal of action in the opening for clarity and simplicity. I still invite everyone to share alternative ideas. Surtsicna (talk) 09:29, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, omit the country name in general, with two exceptions that I can think of. The first, already mentioned above, would be where the use of the country name or the like would be necessary for disambiguation, e.g., with all the various ones named Charles IV. The second would be where someone is overwhelmingly known by such a name, and such would therefore clearly constitute the common name. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:57, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, but per Seraphimblade's suggestion. The addition of the country is often clunky and unnecessary. It should be added "when neccessary" (per Seraphimblade) rather than the default with permitted exceptions. DeCausa (talk) 10:25, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- Yes Project naming conventions should provide context specific guidance but remain consistent with the superior WP:P&G (WP:AT). Disambiguation is only required when there is an actual conflict in titles. Concision is preferred over unnecessary precision. When there is more than one fourth (IV) Henry, we have WP:PRIMARYTARGET. A preferred pattern of disambiguation ("{Monarch's first name and ordinal} of {Country}") should only be applied when necessary. The guidance at WP:SOVEREIGN should be amended such that it is in harmony with WP:AT in every respect. By my reading, this is more than just a simple copy-edit but a general review. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:22, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- Yes. Current guideline language (
normally have article titles in the form "{Monarch's first name and ordinal} of {Country}"
) is misleading by omission. The community has upheld "{Monarch's first name and ordinal}" across a range of articles, a pattern which cannot be swept under the rug as exceptions. Even something as simple as, "in most cases, they have article titles of the form '{Monarch's first name and ordinal} of {Country}'...; in other cases, they have article titles of the form '{First name and ordinal}' (examples: Elizabeth II, Napoleon III)", would be a helpful start. I'm not proposing to bring back the overly rigid-sounding prescriptive language ("if xyz is unambiguous, use xyz") from 2–3 years ago. Rather, the problem is that the guideline should be more accurately descriptive of actual practice. Spending some words on this is not unnecessary creep; it's a significant point that has naturally arisen repeatedly. Adumbrativus (talk) 11:27, 5 September 2023 (UTC) - Yes. As said above, it’s already the precedent without disambiguation. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:10, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- No. It’s a slippery path to the worse outcome. The expense is poor adherence to CONSISTENCY and RECOGNIZABILITY. The loss of “King”, “Queen”, and “of <country>” hurts RECOGNIZABILITY, and has created frequent conundrums of inconsistency, the worst being that non-regnant queens are given more formality than regnant queens. This path was, is, tempting, because sources tend to use shortforms. However, sources, whether primary cotemporary sources, or modern biographies, are written from a perspective of high familiarity. Unfortunately, the real world sources do not have consistency in referring to royalty, and so this is an unusual case of Wikipedia having to choose a consistent style. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:21, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- Talk:Elizabeth II/Archive 48#Requested move 30 July 2023 is an interesting discussion. I haven’t read it thoroughly, but I believe it does make the case that there is a problem, even if the solution was rejected. I don’t know the solution, but I suspect that “of <country>” should be for non anglophone countries. For the Anglophone countries, the country could be assumed to be of the language of this Wikipedia, and the anglophone country name changes too often, over centuries. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:31, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- I don’t see why we need “formality” from spelling out everything in the title. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:37, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- We don’t. Is that the slippery slope fallacy you’re applying. If it’s not minimalist, it’s ridiculously long? SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:05, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- How is this a slippery slope? I’m simply responding to
the worst being that non-regnant queens are given more formality than regnant queens
; why is that bad? I don’t understand your third sentence. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:35, 5 September 2023 (UTC)- You used the construction “spelling out everything”, which sounds like going to an extreme. Some princesses have many names and titles. It sounded like you equate putting in anything unnecessary means putting everything in the title and making it ridiculously long.
- Maybe I misunderstand you. What do you mean by “formality”. For me, formality for title for royalty is something that contributes consistency and connection to reliable source usage.
- On non-regnant queens getting more “formality” than regnant queens, I am referring to how a non-regnant queen is more likely to be titled with her title, and worse he childhood title, than is a Queen regnant. For example, I think the comparison of Matilda of Flanders and Empress Matilda is confusing. Which one would you guess was queen of England? Which one would a reader not encultured to Wikipedia guess? SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:54, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- You are not supposed to guess which one was queen of England from the article title. That is what the lead sentence is for. Recognizability means that a reader familiar with the subject would recognize that they arrived at the correct article upon seeing the title. Someone familiar with Matilda of Flanders would know that they are at the right place because that is her common name. Ditto for Olav V, Louis XVI, Edward III, etc. Surtsicna (talk) 17:32, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- Agree you are not supposed to guess.
- Someone familiar with Queens of England might be hindered in Matilda being titled by origin not highest notable rank.
- I know the purpose of a lead sentence. Can you state the purpose of an article title? SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:01, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Article titles:
Article titles should be recognizable, concise, natural, precise, and consistent
, with "recognizable" defined as recognizable to people familiar with the subject. On preciseness it explicitly saysSaint Teresa of Calcutta is too precise, as Mother Teresa is precise enough to indicate exactly the same topic.
So according to that policy we should just drop the origin unless there is a clear need to disambiguate, which I don't see with Queen Victoria. The other three are way less well-known than the one of the UK. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:17, 5 September 2023 (UTC)- Extreme cases make bad law. Mother Theresa and King Carl XVI are extreme at the end of extremely notable. I don’t think there is serious disagreement on Mother Theresa or Carl XVI, unless someone argues that there can be only on e suitable article title.
- Matilda of Flanders is a more middle of the road example. Obscure to most readers, passingly familiar to many English historians, familiar to very few. Is there a kernel of agreement between us that her article title is non-ideal? Someone bluelinked Matilda, Queen Consort of William I of England. I suggest Matilda, queen consort of William the Conqueror might be the best title, by using the current Wikipedia article title of her husband king. Put into the title text her substantive highest position, in a way that might be suitable for consistency and easy recognisability with all other historical Queen consorts. There are a number of other possibilities, all with pros and cons, but all are non-minimalist. To note one piece of annoying noise, her COMMONNAME probably uses “Maud”. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:24, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Ah, I get what you were saying in the reply right below this one now. However, none of the royal consorts mention that they are a consort in their article title, partly because "you are not supposed to guess". For someone familiar to queen consorts Matilda should also be recognizable. I have no clue on English royal history so would you kindly enlighten me on why COMMONNAME would be Maud? Aaron Liu (talk) 01:18, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Maud is the diminutive form for Matilda. She seems to have been actually called Maud. It’s like Harry for Henry. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:58, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Ah, I get what you were saying in the reply right below this one now. However, none of the royal consorts mention that they are a consort in their article title, partly because "you are not supposed to guess". For someone familiar to queen consorts Matilda should also be recognizable. I have no clue on English royal history so would you kindly enlighten me on why COMMONNAME would be Maud? Aaron Liu (talk) 01:18, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Article titles:
- Additionally, I didn’t mean absolutely everything; I think adding title, position and origin is already “spelling out everything”. Wikipedia prioritizes COMMONNAME way over formality. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:03, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- Title, position, and origin, agree that would be too much.
- Carl XVI is minimal, unambiguous, but it is too little.
- Prominent cases should set good example. Minimal titles are unworkable for the general case, the work for unusual names, which tend to be obscure cases.
- Queen Victoria is an excellent example. England/Britain/UK/Empress of India can be assumed, for the English Wikipedia.
- Queen Victoria of Sweden would be a good future title. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:58, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- You are not supposed to guess which one was queen of England from the article title. That is what the lead sentence is for. Recognizability means that a reader familiar with the subject would recognize that they arrived at the correct article upon seeing the title. Someone familiar with Matilda of Flanders would know that they are at the right place because that is her common name. Ditto for Olav V, Louis XVI, Edward III, etc. Surtsicna (talk) 17:32, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- How is this a slippery slope? I’m simply responding to
- We don’t. Is that the slippery slope fallacy you’re applying. If it’s not minimalist, it’s ridiculously long? SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:05, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- What I do not understand is why Carl XVI Gustaf should need "of Sweden" appended to his name for recognizability if Park Geun-hye, for example, does not need "of South Korea" appended to hers. Surtsicna (talk) 12:54, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- You do not understand why there is a separate guideline for royalty and nobility? Or you don’t understand why a national President is not considered royalty? I don’t think you are being genuine here.
- The question you appear to be alluding to is whether the style of titling should indicate royalty.
- Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden looks reasonable. I think King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden has a strong line of merit. But why not Kung Carl XVI Gustaf?
- President Park Geun-hye of South Korea? I agree, Park Geun-hye of South Korea looks wrong, unlike Carl of Sweden, but both are shorthand, hurting recognisability, and making it really hard to have consistency between well known cases and obscure cases.
- I submit that title RECOGNISABILITY and CONSISTENCY are much more valuable to readers than brevity, and have no pretence that there is an easy answer to this persistent problem. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:25, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- Fairly obviously, Surtsicna isn't raising either of the 2 questions you pose. The question is why should a monarch have a country designation and a non-royal head of state should not? The answer is they shouldn't - unless disambiguation is needed. It's unnecessary otherwise. DeCausa (talk) 13:59, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- Fuzzy — I prefer to add the title first (especially for Queen Victoria as vs. Victoria — what if someone seeks a London train station, a Canadian provincial capital, or an Australian state?); and retaining it for the article title (Queen Elizabeth II) even when relatively unambiguous (as in Elizabeth II).
- On the other hand, adding the country name where one rulet is overwhelmingly sought is just clumsy (to non-enthusiasts). When someone outside the Wikiverse seeks King Henry VIII or Tsar Nicholas II she or he normallly wouldn't think to add "of England" or "of Russia". There was a long drawn-out debate before "of the United Kingdom" was dropped from Queen Victoria.
- —— Shakescene (talk) 14:16, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- We don't currently add King or Queen except in rare circumstances like Queen Victoria - it's not part of the existing guideline. DeCausa (talk) 14:19, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, and not just heads of state. If we argue that Carl XVI Gustaf needs "of Sweden" for recognizability while a simple personal name (e.g. Björn Ulvaeus) suffices for all other unambiguously named Swedes (so no Björn Ulvaeus of Sweden or Björn Ulvaeus of ABBA), we come to the absurd yet inevitable conclusion that the king of Sweden is the least recognizable Swede on Wikipedia. Surtsicna (talk) 14:49, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- We're discussing the existing guideline, so that's hardly a reason it itself to stop proposing changes. —— Shakescene (talk) 15:36, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- Surtsicna, you appear to be operating under the assumption that a short Wikipedia title implies an important subject, and a long Wikipedia title implies an obscure subject. Is that right? What makes you think readers understand this convention? SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:09, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- The simple logic that titles are usually made longer only to disambiguate from more well-known subjects. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:20, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- “simple logic” is a term usually indicating a starting point for analysis, not the end point.
- It seems to me that an awful lot of backroom Wikipedians, as soon as “disambiguate” is mentioned, abandon consideration of the balancing of the five titling criteria.
- Titles should be made longer as required to better fit a balance of the five titling criteria, and the simple logic explanation does not align with the five titling criteria.
- - SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:30, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- The simple logic that titles are usually made longer only to disambiguate from more well-known subjects. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:20, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- DeCausa, there is a real world convention, historically, for royalty to be suffixed “of country”, but not for civilian leaders. That’s a reason to do it. There are reasons to not do it. Why do you say it shouldn’t? What are your working assumptions?
- Unless disambiguation is needed it is unnecessary. Those are commonly repeatedly words, but a lot of good things are unnecessary. Is necessity a criterion? What about CONSISTENCY and RECOGNIZABILITY? A few more words in short titles, like Edward VIII could dramatically improve CONSISTENCY and ROCOGNIZABILITY. “of the United Kingdom” is problematic due to the country having several different names over the course of the multiple King Edwards, which means CONSISTENCY is lost, for that suffix. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:05, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
There is a real world convention, historically, for royalty to be suffixed “of country”
. No there isn't. That's just an unsupported assertion. "George V of the United Kingdom". Nope. What you're missing is the regnal number does all the heavy lifting where there's no need for disambiguation. (Lack of a regnal number may be one of the circumstances where more is needed eg John, King of England.) Otherwise it's just clunky and pointless. DeCausa (talk) 22:30, 5 September 2023 (UTC)- Unsupported assertion? Do you read history?
- eg “Queen Mary of Scotland and Prince Francis of France”
- eg “Mary of Teck”
- Are you really denying familiarity with this convention, it’s existence?
- Regnal number is another convention, with its own pros and cons.
- Clunky, an aesthetic quality, yes, avoid clunky. Carl XVI of Sweden is not clunky.
- Pointless? No, “of country”, you may dislike it, is but “pointless” really your claim? SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:47, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- That is not just because it's their origin country, it's because it's their house. Teck is not the country (which is Germany), but the house name is the Duke of Teck. An equivalent for King Carl would be "Carl XVI of Bernadotte" which doesn't disambiguate or add to recognizability much. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:24, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- WP:RECOGNIZABILITY says the article title should be the name which someone familiar with the subject will recognize. Someone familiar with Louis XIV will recognize the title Louis XIV. Recognizability is not a factor here. Surtsicna (talk) 22:55, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- Title policy as written today may not be the font of all wisdom.
- Louis XIV is an extraordinarily notable example.
- What about King Louis X? There is only one. I am familiar with the Kings of France, and I find King Louis X ambiguous because I don’t know all other Louis X were not king.
- I think the prominent examples should align with obscure examples, and minimalism can’t do that. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:11, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- Fairly obviously, Surtsicna isn't raising either of the 2 questions you pose. The question is why should a monarch have a country designation and a non-royal head of state should not? The answer is they shouldn't - unless disambiguation is needed. It's unnecessary otherwise. DeCausa (talk) 13:59, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- On review, I’d like to alter my “no” to “tentatively only”.
- My problems with this guideline is almost entirely with consorts, and I’m not seeing this proposal apply to consorts.
- I think with all the examples of shortened Tes to be noted, there was a good COMMONNAME justification. It doesn’t follow that all titles should be shorted where disambiguation is not needed.
- explicitly endorse the use of shorter titles where there is a COMMONNAME justification.
no disambiguation is needed
- explicitly endorse the use of shorter titles where there is a COMMONNAME justification.
- SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:20, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- I think there are two scenarios where no disambiguation might not be needed. In some cases the name is unique and there have been no other monarchs with that name (ex. Louis XVI). In other cases there have been rulers with a similar name but one subject is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (ex. Henry VIII). I think we should definitely cover this matter in some form in NCROY guidelines because the issue has been raised multiple times recently. I'm just not sure how it can be worded. But overall I agree with the nominator's proposal. Keivan.fTalk 14:56, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- No "explicitly endorse the use of shorter titles" No the shorter title are highlyy problematic, since they do not mention either the country or the person's title. Dimadick (talk) 17:59, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- Name # of country- Is the style I have & continue to support, for all the monarch bios titles. GoodDay (talk) 22:34, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- Yes "a point [should] be added to WP:SOVEREIGNS to ... endorse the use of shorter titles where no disambiguation is needed", since that is the proper kind of titling to use per WP:DAB and WP:CONCISE. This rarely consulted guideline page should not be confusing anyone to the contrary. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:23, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Yes we should definitely update this naming convention to align with actual practice, which tends (quite rightly) to be much closer to WP:AT. As Cinderella157 points out, this will entail a general review of the guideline, not just a simple copyedit. Rosbif73 (talk) 17:05, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Hard no - these titles should not be endorsed. They are abhorrent. They explicitly went against the existing guildeline, and should not be the norm, not be an exception and should not be encouraged. Some article titles have become worryingly western-centric and systematically biased, which is not something I wish to enshrine into a guideline which really needs to be shown a bit more respect, and not stamped on by the ever-irrelevant WP:COMMONNAME. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:16, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- And why is the existing guideline better? Titles only have to be recognizable to those in their field, they don't have to be recognizable to everyone. The bias argument only applies when it is prioritized over other similar titles, which the proposed also avoids. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:39, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- The field of kings and queens, nobles and royalty, is extensively familiar, I don’t think restricting the scope of relevant readers works here.
- I think Anglophone bias on en.wiki is ok.
- I think “abhorrent” is extreme exaggeration, but agree that the trend, to case by case minimalism, is not beautiful. Technically, it is to completely abandon consistency as a criterion, it is unbalanced, which is ugly if not quite abhorrent. Consistency in the reader-facing result should not be confused with a simple consistent rule.
- No one need argue that the existing (the old) guideline is better. The old guideline did not work well. The reason, I submit, is that it was based on mixing primary source usage with expert jargon (or “shorthand”).
- I think a changed guideline is needed. Ideas include: different rules for anglophone vs nonanglophone; use of King Queen etc for regnants; use of native language titles for foreign monarchs and nobles; something, I make no claim that the answer is obvious. Perhaps a tertiary work on global royalty and nobility should be studied for style possibilities. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:37, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- For current regnants, sure, and these already usually have COMMONNAMEs. For past ones they are likely to be not familiar to non-historians, so I still think no additional dab is better. Probably add country to each one if a past anglophone name conflicts with another one. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:16, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- I honestly do not understand this reasoning. The community has been consistently rejecting the superfluous disambiguation preached by this guideline for over a decade. Do you think that this guideline burying its head in the sand will do anything to restore in practice the format that you like? The allegations of bias are just preposterous. Surtsicna (talk) 09:31, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- And why is the existing guideline better? Titles only have to be recognizable to those in their field, they don't have to be recognizable to everyone. The bias argument only applies when it is prioritized over other similar titles, which the proposed also avoids. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:39, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, the guideline should reflect how articles are actually named, and not omit examples because they don't fit with some editors' ideas of how they should be named. Andejons (talk) 06:14, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- No, these titles should not be accepted. I thank the nominator for opening this RfC, as I have also noticed how problematic this issue has become. I am in a hurry right now, so my response will be brief for the time being. However, when I have a spare moment, I will present a detailed argument with plenty of policy-based and discussion evidence to substantiate my answer. Hurricane Andrew (444) 16:53, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
Statement by AndrewPeterT
NOTE A: This is my first time participating in an RfC. I apologize if I have done anything improperly, and I especially apologize if posting a rationale in this format is inappropriate. However, I am very passionate about the issue at hand, and I want to make my stance as clear and unambiguous as possible.
NOTE B: The following argument is intended to speak only for my viewpoint on the subject of this RfC. I recognize that this issue is very contentious, and I have taken a stance on this matter, as I explain below. However, I will accept the outcome of this RfC, even if it is not my preferred one. In addition, I am aware that there are some other editors that agree with the opinions expressed below. However, I would like for these contributors to speak on their own behalf. Hurricane Andrew (444) 00:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
AndrewPeterT’s attempt to neutrally summarize the issue
As the nominator noted, there has been disagreement about what the appropriate title should be for certain European monarchs that have reigned since the end of the Middle Ages. At the core of this debate is an argument over whether WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:COMMONNAME or WP:NCROY and WP:CONSISTENT should take precedence when naming articles on European royalty and nobility. As illustrated in the RMs linked in the next section, both sides of the involved parties have cited WP:PRIMARYTOPIC/WP:COMMONNAME or WP:NCROY/WP:CONSISTENT to justify their reasonings to support their viewpoints. Hurricane Andrew (444) 00:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Evidence to illustrate that the RfC issue raised has indeed been contentious
- All of the RMs that the nominator has mentioned (In the interest of full disclosure, I opened the Elizabeth II RM that is linked in the explanation. I will return to this matter later.)
- An RM was initiated on Charles III’s article on July 23, 2023 that was unsuccessful
- An RM was initiated on George I of Great Britain’s article on July 30, 2023 that was unsuccessful
- An RM was initiated on Victor Emmanuel III of Italy’s article on August 4, 2023 that was unsuccessful
- An RM was initiated on Oscar I of Sweden’s article on August 17, 2023 that was unsuccessful
As I will elaborate on later, the linked RMs show that neither the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC/WP:COMMONNAME camp nor the WP:NCROY/WP:CONSISTENT camp in this argument have a monopoly on article title naming for European sovereigns, other royals, and nobles. Hurricane Andrew (444) 00:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
AndrewPeterT’s concise opinion on the RfC matter
No, titles such as Elizabeth II and Carl XVI Gustaf are unacceptable for English Wikipedia purposes and should not be explicitly accepted. These titles violate the spirit of WP:NCROY, WP:CONSISTENT, and all of the four other goals of WP:TITLE. Also, as I will argue later, even WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:COMMONNAME make a case for alternative names such as Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom and Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden. Furthermore, given the contentiousness of this RfC matter, WP:IAR should be invoked so that WP:NCROY and WP:CONSISTENT takes precedence when titling articles covered by the scope of WP:NCROY. If an arguable “primary topic” or “common name” exists for a given post-classical European royal or noble, that title can exist as a redirect to the given individual’s article. This practice has precedence on Wikipedia, as I will illustrate in a later section. Hurricane Andrew (444) 00:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Concessions to the opposition that AndrewPeterT will make
- I accept that this RfC only pertains to WP:NCROY. I will not comment on the appropriateness of article titles in other subject areas here, such as the pages under the scope of WikiProject Tropical cyclones. If another editor wants to debate the merits of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC or WP:COMMONNAME in that field (which I would welcome), this discussion will need to take place in another RfC.
- WP:NCROY itself does not apply to the entire scope of royalty and nobility, as the guideline page explains in multiple locations:
(Emphasis mine)Most of the conventions below are intended to apply to medieval and modern European rulers and nobility, since in these civilizations the same given names are often shared between countries, so some disambiguation is often required, and disambiguation by territory is convenient.
(Bolded emphasis mine)These following conventions (i.e. WP:SOVEREIGN) apply to European monarchs since the fall of the Western Roman Empire (but not to the Byzantine emperors), because they share much the same stock of names. For example, there are several kings and an emperor who are most commonly called Henry IV; their articles are titled Henry IV of England, Henry IV of France, and so on. …
For guidance on East Asian monarchs, see Names and titles outside the West below. Roman emperors are covered by Naming conventions (ancient Romans), and Byzantine emperors by Naming conventions (Greek).
(Emphasis mine)Monarchies which use a completely different namestock, such as Lithuania and that of the Merovingians, need not follow this convention; there is no disambiguation to pre-empt. Kings of a people, rather than a country or a nation, (for example, the late antique Germanic tribes) usually have no disambiguator, but "of the Goths" etc. should be added to the name if disambiguation is necessary.
Therefore, for the following groups of royals and nobles, I will accept WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:COMMONNAME taking precedence over WP:NCROY in titling their articles, regardless of what is decided in this RfC:
- Any European monarch/royal or noble that primarily reigned/lived before the fall of the Western Roman Empire
- Any European monarch whose realm does not use regnal numbers as differentiation as WP:NCROY mentions, and the royals or nobles of these realms
- Any pope (i.e. sovereign of the Vatican City)
- Any Byzantine royal or noble
- Any Middle Eastern/North African royal or noble
- Any Central Asian royal or noble
- Any Far Eastern (i.e. East, Southeast, or South Asian) royal or noble
- Any Sub-Saharan African royal or noble
- Any indigenous Oceanian royal or noble
- Any indigenous North or South American royal or noble
However, once again, I do not accept WP:PRIMARYTOPIC or WP:COMMONNAME taking precedence over WP:NCROY or WP:CONSISTENT for post-classical European sovereigns, royals, or nobles for reasons that I will elaborate on in subsequent sections. Hurricane Andrew (444) 00:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NCROY, and WP:CONSISTENT are all guidelines, not rigid rules
On multiple occasions, WP:PRINCIPLE makes the case that the four guidelines in the previous header are not Wikipedia laws:
(Underlined emphasis mine)Wikipedia rules [i.e. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NCROY, WP:CONSISTENT et al.] are principles, not laws. Policies and guidelines exist only as rough approximations of their underlying principles. They are not intended to provide an exact or complete definition of the principles in all circumstances. They must be understood in context…
(Underlined emphasis mine)Each individual case will have its own context. While the rules are useful for the most common circumstances, often there is no hard and fast rule that can be applied.
(Underlined emphasis mine)We are encouraged to use some common sense and discretion. It is impossible to make hard rules that cover every context. We must use some rational thought and judgment in our decisions, rather than slavishly following the wording of policy without thought
(Underlined emphasis mine)Rules cannot cover every possible circumstance and sometimes may impede us from improving the encyclopedia. In those cases, we should be bold and do what is best.
With these quotes in mind, neither camp in this RfC debate, including my own side, can use our policy preferences to claim a monopoly on how article titles for European royals and nobles should be called. That being said, with certain accommodations, I will argue how WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:COMMONNAME cannot objectively “cover the context” that WP:NCROY describes. Hurricane Andrew (444) 00:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:COMMONNAME do not have the best interest of (European) royal and noble article titles in mind
As WP:PGE explains, a common misconception that Wikipedia users have is that a sitewide guideline takes precedence over a local one:
...editors need to follow the most relevant advice. A broadly worded policy page, intended to provide only the most general outline of the goals, is not necessarily a better source of advice than a guideline that directly and explicitly addresses the specific issue at hand
(Emphasis mine)
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:COMMONNAME are both examples of a broadly worded policy page
. I concede that these pages provide advice that can provide useful considerations in some contexts outside of royalty. However, neither WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:COMMONNAME offer any explicit guidance on a preferred way to refer to European royals and nobles via article titles. In contrast, the local guideline WP:NCROY, among other things, provides a preferred template on titling European sovereigns whose realms use regnal numbers for differentiation and explicitly states how princes with territorial suffixes should be called on Wikipedia.
In addition, WP:COMMONNAME itself concedes that the most “common” name of a subject is not always acceptable for a Wikipedia article title, namely that Ambiguous … or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources
(Emphasis mine). As I demonstrate below, formats such as Elizabeth II are ambiguous and therefore do not adhere to this guidance from WP:COMMONNAME when for royals and nobles that share the same name:
- Charles III can refer to either Charles III of Spain or Charles III of the United Kingdom,
- Elizabeth I can refer to either Elizabeth I of England or Elizabeth I of Russia,
- Elizabeth II can refer to either Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom or Elisabeth II, Abbess of Quedlinburg, and
- Maria Theresa can refer to, among even other people, Maria Theresa, Queen of Hungary, Maria Theresa of Spain, and Maria Theresa of Naples and Sicily.
Hurricane Andrew (444) 00:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
There is no uniform way to adhere to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in general, and this is especially problematic for WP:NCROY
Simply stated, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, as written, will never be conclusive when it comes to European royalty. This is supported by the fact that the guideline page mentions (at least) three times that no uniform definition of a primary topic exists:
(Underlined emphasis mine)Although a word, name, or phrase may refer to more than one topic, sometimes one of these topics can be identified as the term's primary topic
(Emphasis mine)...Wikipedia has no single criterion for defining a primary topic…
(Emphasis mine)There are no absolute rules for determining whether a primary topic exists and what it is
In addition, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, via WP:DPT, lists several ways to determine a “primary topic”. However, all of these tools involve Internet resources, which is especially restrictive in the context of royalty and nobility. Even when only considering a European context, many sovereigns and nobles ruled before the advent of the Internet. There are likely lost written or verbal manuscripts, speeches, and other primary/secondary sources over the centuries that may indicate a “primary” term could have referred to a different ruler than what Internet results may indicate.
Moreover, in the spirit of WP:BIAS, the tools listed in WP:DPT exclude the perspectives of people that do not have access to Internet and can preclude users from checking online documents that have a paywall. Consequently, entire groups of individuals’ “primary” usage of a term are disregarded via these resources, and this is against the mission of Wikipedia. Given that monarchs and their royal relatives are especially pertinent symbols of unity for a nation or sovereign state, every perspective should be brought to the table, especially of those without Internet. In other words, namely for monarchs that share regnal names and numbers, we should not be omitting country names from article titles until those without Internet and otherwise excluded by WP:DPT’s resources have equitable access to voice their opinions on primary topics on Wikipedia to get a truly conclusive debate. Hurricane Andrew (444) 00:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Example of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC being (very) inconclusive: The simultaneous case of Albert II
To make it extremely clear how WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is flawed in the realm of WP:NCROY, consider the following situation. At the start of the 2010s, Monaco and Belgium were both ruled by monarchs named Albert II. Suppose that Wikipedia community tried to determine a “primary topic” for Albert II. There are useful arguments that could be made for either Albert II taking that article title per se. On one hand,
- Albert II of Belgium reigned for a longer period than Albert II, Prince of Monaco has.
- Albert II of Belgium was a king, a higher societal rank than being “just” a sovereign prince like Albert II of Monaco.
- Belgians are more likely to be familiar with Albert II of Belgium.
On the other hand,
- Albert II, Prince of Monaco is an executive constitutional monarch, whereas Albert II of Belgium was “just” a a ceremonial constitutional monarch.
- Albert II, Prince of Monaco is the daughter of a well-known Hollywood actress. In contrast, Albert II’s mother lived a comparatively unremarkable childhood life as a Swedish princess.
- Monacans are more likely to be familiar with Albert II, Prince of Monaco.
Evidently, in this situation, the Wikipedia community could choose a legitimate primary topic for Albert II for either sovereign. However, for the bolded reasons for each monarch, Wikipedia could perceived as being nationalistic toward either Belgium or Monaco by the opposing parties. Again, given how prominent European royals are to national unity, Wikipedia runs the same risk of nationalist accusations when moving any article title on a monarch so that a country name is excluded. Hurricane Andrew (444) 00:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
It’s not just about WP:CONSISTENT, it’s about all of the other goals of WP:TITLE
When I requested that Elizabeth II’s article title be moved to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, I made the following argument in my rationale:
Via all of the preceding paragraphs, I have strived to emphasize a central point. This central point is that using the structure "(ruler name) of (country)" for all deceased British monarchs:
- Establishes a format
...that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articlesper Criterion 2 of WP:TITLE, ...unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjectsper Criterion 3 of WP:TITLE, ...is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjectsper Criterion 4 of WP:TITLE (as removing the "of country" part of this structure and just having a ruler name will beg the question of where this sovereign reigned), and- Above all,
...is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles(in this case, of late modern and contemporary Continental European monarchs) per Criterion 5 of WP:TITLE.- In turn, having this consistent pattern helps to create a
...description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize, per Criterion 1 of WP:TITLE.
Simply stated, consistency sets the tone for all other goals of WP:TITLE to be met. For example, If a reader has just read Wikipedia’s article on Margrethe II of Denmark and knows that her first cousin, Carl XVI Gustaf, rules over Sweden, would they not type in Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden into the search bar next per Criterion 5 of WP:TITLE? (In any case, in the spirit of Criterion 2 of WP:TITLE, “Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden” was more natural for me to type than “Carl XVI Gustaf”, and this will likely be the case for at least some other readers.) Moreover, I hope that we can all agree that titles like “Margrethe II of Denmark” and “Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden” unambiguously define who those monarchs are, per Criterion 3 of WP:TITLE. Furthermore, reflecting Criterion 4 of WP:TITLE, there should be agreement that “Margrethe II” and “Carl XVI Gustaf” do not tell the reader anything about the realms these cousins ruled over. Finally, per Criterion 1 of WP:TITLE, “Margrethe II of Denmark” and “Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden” should tell readers that they are about to read about some royal just as effectively as “Margrethe II” and “Carl XVI Gustaf” would. Hurricane Andrew (444) 00:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Evidence of omitting a monarch’s country from the article title being challenged by the community
For this section, I would like to direct readers’ attention to what happened after the community moved George III (of the United Kingdom)’s article to its current target (I also cited this RM in my RM for Elizabeth II’s article title). Multiple policy-based oppositions quickly emerged. Although I did not participate in this move discussion, I completely agree with the sentiments of the users that challenged the move for George III. Moreover, the opposition expressed on George III’s article talk was a key reason I initiated the RM for Elizabeth II and the other deceased British monarchs’ articles last July. Hurricane Andrew (444) 00:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Evidence of WP:TITLE itself deferring to WP:NCROY
If it is not convincing enough that WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC either do not take a stance or even overtly discourage this new trend in titling European monarchs’ articles, perhaps these four quotes from WP:TITLE should settle some concerns:
(Underlined emphasis mine)Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) as topic-specific naming conventions on article titles [including WP:NCROY]...
(Emphasis mine)When titling articles in specific fields, or with respect to particular problems, there is often previous consensus that can be used as a precedent. Look to the guideline pages referenced [including WP:NCROY].
(Emphasis mine)Exceptions to the precision criterion may sometimes result from the application of some other naming criteria. Most of these exceptions are described in specific Wikipedia guidelines or by Wikipedia projects, such as Primary topic, Geographic names, or Names of royals and nobles.
(Emphasis mine)Comma-separated titles are also used in other contexts (e.g. Diana, Princess of Wales uses a substantive title as part of the usual Names of royals and nobles conventions, not as a disambiguating term).
(Underlined emphasis mine)Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) as topic-specific naming conventions on article titles [including WP:NCROY]...
Hurricane Andrew (444) 00:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Final thoughts by AndrewPeterT
- In the spirit of WP:IAR, I would like for WP:SOVEREIGN Guidelines 3 and 5 to take precedence over WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC when titling pertinent articles, as I have elaborated on. Moreover, WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT should be invoked if necessary.
- I have accepted by now that my opinion is in the minority. However, I ask that everyone who disagrees with me adhere to WP:5P4 when making counterarguments to my rationale.
- I encourage all editors who have been citing WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:COMMONNAME to read the fine print of each guideline in addition to considering their spirit. Neither WP:PRIMARYTOPIC nor WP:COMMONNAME (and for that matter, WP:NCROY and WP:CONSISTENT) have unilateral authority on titling Wikipedia articles.
- Regardless of where we stand on this issue, I hope that we can all agree that this RfC should bring closure to a debate that has been in the making for the years. I will respect the final decision and will offer my services to amend WP:NCROY as appropriate depending on what the community agrees to. Hurricane Andrew (444) 00:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Side issues that AndrewPeterT believes the community also needs to address
- Moratorium on all RMs for articles under scope of WP:NCROY - At this point, the community needs to establish a clear consensus on what this guideline states in writing. Any active RMs in this field will only detract from this goal. If possible, could an administrator close any RMs that are ongoing regarding article titles for European monarchs, royals, and nobles?
- Amending Guideline I of WP:SOVEREIGN - I also have taken issue with the vague language of this guideline:
If there is an overwhelmingly common name, use it
What is considered “overwhelmingly” more common? Is a difference of two Google hits enough to keep Mary, Queen of Scots at that title as opposed to Mary I of Scotland? Is being mentioned by 150% more primary sources the threshold for not renaming William the Conqueror to William I of England? I recommend that another RfC be opened after this one elapses to settle this ambiguity. - The matter of personal unions in general - When I opened the RM for Elizabeth II’s article, some users opposed the move on the basis that Elizabeth reigned over a multitude of realms. However, she is far from the only monarch to have done so. Are we, as Wikipedians, going to remove the country names from every monarch that ruled over two or more countries? If so, how are we going to determine the primary regnal number? This debacle is a major reason I oppose amending Guideline 3 of WP:SOVEREIGN whatsoever.
These are simply the top three concerns I personally have about WP:NCROY. For the sake of everyone’s focus, I will refrain from commenting on more matters until this RfC is resolved. Hurricane Andrew (444) 00:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
APPENDIX A: Evidence of omitting a monarch’s country from the article title violating the spirit of WP:CONSISTENT, and by extension, WP:TITLE
I respect that multiple users believe that article title formats like Elizabeth II is more in the spirit of WP:COMMONNAME. However, WP:COMMONNAME must be balanced against WP:CONSISTENT, WP:PRECISION, and WP:NPOVTITLE. An analysis of the titles of various sovereigns of current European monarchs shows how WP:CONSISTENT and WP:PRECISION are being disregarded for the sake of adhering to WP:COMMONNAME:
NOTES: First, to avoid overwhelming readers not familiar with European royalty, rulers of former monarchies are excluded. Also, as alluded to previously, sovereigns of the Vatican City are excluded because they are popes instead covered by WP:NCCL. Furthermore, the Presidents of France and Bishops of Urgell, the Co-Princes of Andorra, are excluded because they are instead subjected to WP:NCP and WP:NCCL, respectively.
Monarchs of Belgium
All sovereigns that have reigned since Belgium’s independence from the Netherlands in 1830 are included.
Title | Reign | Adherence to WP:NCROY |
---|---|---|
Leopold I of Belgium | 1831-1865 | Yes |
Leopold II of Belgium | 1865-1909 | Yes |
Albert I of Belgium | 1909-1934 | Yes |
Leopold III of Belgium | 1934-1951 | Yes |
Baudouin of Belgium | 1951-1993 | Yes (only monarch with name) |
Albert II of Belgium | 1993-2013 | Yes |
Philippe of Belgium | 2013-present | Yes (only monarch with name) |
Monarchs of Denmark
All sovereigns that have reigned since the establishment of the Danish House of Glücksburg in 1863 are included.
Title | Reign | Adherence to WP:NCROY |
---|---|---|
Christian IX of Denmark | 1863-1906 | Yes |
Frederick VIII of Denmark | 1906-1912 | Yes |
Christian X of Denmark | 1912-1947 | Yes |
Frederick IX of Denmark | 1947-1972 | Yes |
Margrethe II of Denmark | 1972-present | Yes |
Monarchs of the Netherlands
All sovereigns that have reigned since the establishment of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in 1815 are included.
Title | Reign | Adherence to WP:NCROY |
---|---|---|
William I of the Netherlands | 1815-1840 | Yes |
William II of the Netherlands | 1840-1849 | Yes |
William III of the Netherlands | 1849-1890 | Yes |
Wilhelmina of the Netherlands | 1890-1948 | Yes (only monarch with name) |
Juliana of the Netherlands | 1948-1980 | Yes (only monarch with name) |
Beatrix of the Netherlands | 1980-2013 | Yes (only monarch with name) |
Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands | 2013-present | Yes (only monarch with name) |
Monarchs of Norway
All sovereigns that have reigned since the dissolution of the personal union of Norway with Sweden in 1905 are included.
Title | Reign | Adherence to WP:NCROY |
---|---|---|
Haakon VII of Norway | 1905-1957 | Yes |
Olav V of Norway | 1957-1991 | Yes |
Harald V of Norway | 1991-present | Yes |
Monarchs of Spain
All sovereigns that have reigned in Spain since the establishment of the House of Bourbon-Anjou in 1700 are included, excluding monarchs from other royal houses.
Title | Reign | Adherence to WP:NCROY |
---|---|---|
Philip V of Spain | 1700-1724 and 1724-1746 | Yes |
Louis I of Spain | 1724-1724 | Yes |
Ferdinand VI of Spain | 1746-1759 | Yes |
Charles III of Spain | 1759-1788 | Yes |
Charles IV of Spain | 1788-1808 | Yes |
Ferdinand VII of Spain | 1808-1808 and 1813-1833 | Yes |
Isabella II of Spain | 1833-1868 | Yes |
Alfonso XII | 1874-1885 | No |
Alfonso XIII | 1886-1931 | No |
Juan Carlos I | 1975-2014 | No |
Felipe VI | 2014-present | No |
Monarchs of Sweden
All sovereigns that have reigned in Sweden since the establishment of the House of Bernadotte in 1818 are included.
Title | Reign | Adherence to WP:NCROY |
---|---|---|
Charles XIV John | 1818-1844 | No (and fails to acknowledge Norwegian regnal number) |
Oscar I of Sweden | 1844-1859 | Yes |
Charles XV | 1859-1872 | No (and fails to acknowledge Norwegian regnal number) |
Oscar II | 1872-1907 | No |
Gustaf V | 1907-1950 | No |
Gustaf VI Adolf | 1950-1973 | No |
Carl XVI Gustaf | 1973-present | No |
Monarchs of Great Britain or the United Kingdom
All sovereigns that have reigned since the unification of the Kingdoms of England and Scotland in 1707 are included.
Title | Reign | Adherence to WP:NCROY |
---|---|---|
Anne, Queen of Great Britain | 1707-1714 | Yes (only monarch with name) |
George I of Great Britain | 1714-1727 | Yes |
George II of Great Britain | 1727-1760 | Yes |
George III | 1760-1820 | No |
George IV | 1820-1830 | No |
William IV | 1830-1837 | No |
Queen Victoria | 1837-1901 | No |
Edward VII | 1901-1910 | No |
George V | 1910-1936 | No |
Edward VIII | 1936-1936 | No |
George VI | 1936-1952 | No |
Elizabeth II | 1952-2022 | No |
Charles III | 2022-present | No |
Monarchs of Luxembourg
All sovereigns that have reigned since the dissolution of the personal union of Luxembourg with the Netherlands in 1890 are included.
Title | Reign | Adherence to WP:NCROY |
---|---|---|
Adolphe, Grand Duke of Luxembourg | 1890-1905 | Yes (only monarch with name) |
William IV, Grand Duke of Luxembourg | 1905-1912 | Yes |
Marie-Adélaïde, Grand Duchess of Luxembourg | 1912-1919 | Yes (only monarch with name) |
Charlotte, Grand Duchess of Luxembourg | 1919-1964 | Yes (only monarch with name) |
Jean, Grand Duke of Luxembourg | 1964-2000 | Yes (only monarch with name) |
Henri, Grand Duke of Luxembourg | 2000-present | Yes (only monarch with name) |
Sovereign Princes of Liechtenstein
Title | Reign | Adherence to WP:NCROY |
---|---|---|
Karl I, Prince of Liechtenstein | 1627-1684 | Yes |
Karl Eusebius, Prince of Liechtenstein | 1662-1701 | Yes (only monarch with name) |
Hans-Adam I, Prince of Liechtenstein | 1684-1712 | Yes |
Joseph Wenzel I, Prince of Liechtenstein | 1712-1718 and 1748-1772 | Yes |
Anton Florian, Prince of Liechtenstein | 1718-1721 | Yes (only monarch with name) |
Joseph Johann Adam, Prince of Liechtenstein | 1721-1732 | Yes (only monarch with name) |
Johann Nepomuk Karl, Prince of Liechtenstein | 1732-1748 | Yes (only monarch with name) |
Franz Joseph I, Prince of Liechtenstein | 1772-1781 | Yes |
Aloys I, Prince of Liechtenstein | 1781-1805 | Yes |
Johann I Joseph, Prince of Liechtenstein | 1805-1836 | Yes |
Aloys II, Prince of Liechtenstein | 1836-1858 | Yes |
Johann II, Prince of Liechtenstein | 1858-1929 | Yes |
Franz I, Prince of Liechtenstein | 1929-1938 | Yes |
Franz Joseph II, Prince of Liechtenstein | 1938-1989 | Yes |
Hans-Adam II, Prince of Liechtenstein | 1989-present | Yes |
Rulers of Monaco
Sovereigns since Monaco became a principality in 1633 are listed, excluding periods of occupation.
Title | Reign | Adherence to WP:NCROY |
---|---|---|
Honoré II, Prince of Monaco | 1633-1662 | Yes |
Louis I, Prince of Monaco | 1662-1701 | Yes |
Antonio I, Prince of Monaco | 1701-1731 | Yes |
Louise Hippolyte, Princess of Monaco | 1731-1731 | Yes (only monarch with name) |
Jacques I, Prince of Monaco | 1731-1733 | Yes |
Honoré III, Prince of Monaco | 1733-1793 | Yes |
Honoré IV, Prince of Monaco | 1814-1819 | Yes |
Honoré V, Prince of Monaco | 1819-1841 | Yes |
Florestan, Prince of Monaco | 1841-1856 | Yes (only monarch with name) |
Charles III, Prince of Monaco | 1856-1889 | Yes |
Albert I, Prince of Monaco | 1889-1922 | Yes |
Louis II, Prince of Monaco | 1922-1949 | Yes |
Rainier III, Prince of Monaco | 1949-2005 | Yes |
Albert II, Prince of Monaco | 2005-present | Yes |
Hurricane Andrew (444) 00:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
APPENDIX B: Evidence of WP:COMMONNAME already being disregarded for multiple European royals (and WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT being used)
As I have mentioned, some users have argued WP:COMMONNAME. However, as I will demonstrate in this section, it is already a precedent that WP:NCROY supersedes WP:COMMONNAME when it comes to naming English Wikipedia articles on royals. Below, I have listed select princes and princesses from five current European monarchies. Moreover, using Google search results, I show that each of their Wikipedia article titles are less common than some alternatives but are still used regardless. I see no reason why monarchs’ titles should not follow the same trend in the spirit of WP:CONSISTENT:
Title | Google hits for Title | Alternative name | Google hits for Alternative name | Percentage comparison of Google Title hits with Google Alternative hits |
---|---|---|---|---|
William, Prince of Wales | 659,000 | Prince William | 129,000,000 | 0.5% of Google Alternative hits |
Catherine, Princess of Wales | 1,220,000 | Kate Middleton | 152,000,000 | 0.8% of Google Alternative hits |
Diana, Princess of Wales | 4,940,000 | Princess Diana | 53,500,000 | 9.23% of Google Alternative hits |
Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex | 1,850,000 | Prince Harry | 170,000,000 | 1.09% of Google Alternative hits |
Meghan, Duchess of Sussex | 4,870,000 | Meghan Markle | [347,000,000 | 1.40% of Google Alternative hits |
Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon | 122,000 | Princess Margaret | 12,200,000 | 1% of Google Alternative hits |
Anne, Princess Royal | 452,000 | Princess Anne | 14,900,000 | 3.03% of Google Alternative hits |
Prince Andrew, Duke of York | 310,000 | Prince Andrew | 78,800,000 | 0.39% of Google Alternative hits |
Prince Edward, Duke of Edinburgh | 184,000 | Prince Edward | 95,500,000 | 0.19% of Google Alternative hits |
Frederik, Crown Prince of Denmark | 62,000 | Prince Frederik | 640,000 | 9.69% of Google Alternative hits |
Haakon, Crown Prince of Norway | 18,600 | Prince Haakon | 271,000 | 6.86% of Google Alternative hits |
Prince Carl Philip, Duke of Värmland | 26,200 | Prince Carl Philip | 797,000 | 3.29% of Google Alternative hits |
Leonor, Princess of Asturias | 130,000 | Princess Leonor | 954,000 | 13.63% of Google Alternative hits |