Talk:Crown of Christian V

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Crown of Christian V. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080512145618/http://kongehuset.dk/publish.php?dogtag=k_en_col_ros to http://kongehuset.dk/publish.php?dogtag=k_en_col_ros

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:36, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 28 February 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:

• Christian V's Crown moved to Crown of Christian V.
• St Edward's Crown not moved.

The majority of this discussion pertained to St Edward's Crown, and led to a solid consensus that "St Edward's Crown" is the WP:COMMONNAME of that crown. By contrast, Christian V's Crown received a much smaller share of the discussion. The nominator's WP:CONSISTENT argument appears to have persuaded some editors, and the only opponent of moving Christian V's Crown didn't provide a rationale for that opposition, so I find a consensus to move that article as proposed. (non-admin closure) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:01, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

---

• Christian V's Crown → Crown of Christian V
• St Edward's Crown → Crown of St Edward

– Per WP:CONSISTENT; these are the only two articles that are titled using the format "NAME's crown" with the other 27 being titled "Crown of NAME":

1. Crown of Augustus III of Poland
2. Crown of Augustus II the Strong
3. Crown of Bahadur Shah II
4. Crown of Bolesław I the Brave
5. Crown of Charlemagne
6. Crown of Christian IV
7. Crown of Empress Eugénie
8. Crown of Eric XIV
9. Crown of Faustin I
10. Crown of Frederick I of Prussia
11. Crown of João VI
12. Crown of Louis XV of France
13. Crown of Napoleon
14. Crown of Napoleon III
15. Crown of Pedro I
16. Crown of Princess Blanche
17. Crown of Queen Adelaide
18. Crown of Queen Alexandra
19. Crown of Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother
20. Crown of Queen Maria Josepha
21. Crown of Queen Mary
22. Crown of Ranavalona III
23. Crown of Saint Wenceslas
24. Crown of Sancho IV
25. Crown of Stephen Bocskai
26. Crown of Wilhelm II
27. Crown of Zvonimir

Crown of St Edward is also the WP:COMMONNAME, per ngrams; Crown of Christian V is too obscure to determine the common name. BilledMammal (talk) 03:14, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I personally would not oppose moving the one about Christian V's crown, but I have not seen any reliable sources use "Crown of St Edward". User:Firebrace who's the major contributor to that page could provide some insight. Keivan.f^Talk 04:09, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

  Oppose the second. How come I get hundreds of results on Google Books for St Edward's Crown and yet none of those results show up in the Ngram? That being aside, I can clearly see that the majority of reliable online sources use the name "St Edward's Crown". A simple search on Google clearly demonstrates that. Keivan.f^Talk 15:22, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose the second. That ngram must be faulty because "St Edward's Crown" is by far and away the common name. All the citations in the article that I can access use that name. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:54, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

  I've checked all possible alternative spellings; the ngrams isn't faulty. The citations that you have access to in that article must not be representative - and I note that at least seven of them aren't independent and so aren't useful for determining the WP:COMMONNAME. BilledMammal (talk) 09:59, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

  @Celia Homeford: You were right; the ngrams was faulty. I have now corrected it, and the WP:COMMONNAME is still "Crown of Saint Edwards". BilledMammal (talk) 08:48, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

  The ngram is a tool that sometimes helps to determine the common name, not an automatic indicator of the common name. In this case, the evidence from specific sources (as cited by Celia Homeford and GrindtXX) still seem like more important evidence. Furius (talk) 09:27, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

  Citing specific sources isn't useful, because we don't know if they are representative. We need a systematic review, and ngrams provides us with one. BilledMammal (talk) 09:32, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose "Crown of St Edward". Your ngram clearly is deeply flawed. "St Edward's Crown" is both the official name (as [1], [2], [3]) and the common name (as [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], and hundreds more). And yet your ngram claims, not merely that it's a less common usage, but that it "can't be found". Something seriously wrong somewhere. GrindtXX (talk) 12:48, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose both (strongly for the second) - St Edward's Crown a simple Google Search yields 52,500 results for "Crown of St Edward" [10] and 157,000 results for "St Edward's Crown" [11]. And as said by others, it is also the official name not just the common name, and there is no reason for a move. Estar8806 (talk) 13:45, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support the first, oppose the second - Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:27, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support both, strongly support the first - It looks that WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONSISTENT are at odds with each other in this case. I would argue that even if "St. Edward's Crown" is the more common usage, "Crown of" is still a commonly understood and not inaccurate synonym, and the benefits of keeping this genre of articles consistent outweighs using a less used variation on the name. That being said, if there is some evidence towards "St. Edward's Crown" being a more officially named artifact, rather than just the more widely used variation, I would support keeping that as is. Aquova (talk) 20:03, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

  That's not how WP:COMMONNAME works; whatever name is 'more' common must be chosen as the article's title. Some users go to great lengths to remind us of this rule, so I thought it was necessary to repeat it. That alone overrides WP:TITLECON, which encourages consistency unless there's a good reason for a page to be titled with a different format. Well, the good reason here is that the most common name for St Edward's crown is "St Edward's Crown". And since you asked, St Edward's Crown is the official name of this artifact. You only need to look at the Royal Collection Trust's website and other official resources. Both independent and non-independent sources favor the current title. Keivan.f^Talk 20:55, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose "Crown of St Edward": WP:COMMONNAME trumps consistency. The ngram is obviously faulty to find no cases of a form that, as various users have noted, appears in a wide range of sources (I guess it's having some sort of problem with the apostrophe?). Google is only a tool, not an oracle. Furius (talk) 22:37, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
• Neutral on 1st, Oppose 2nd per very clear WP:COMMONNAME. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:40, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

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