Wikipedia

Talk:Elizabeth II/Archive 21

< Talk:Elizabeth II
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Stephen C Wells in topic Territories
Archive 15←Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23→Archive 25

Is she the Duchess of Edinburgh?

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Does she have that title? TheUnknown285 (talk) 17:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, put it's not shown as she's now monarch. PS: This discussion should be at the 'bottom' of the talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 18:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Now moved. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
The title Duchess of Edinburgh, Countess of Merioneth and Baroness Greenwich are still part of her full title. See Titles and Honours of Queen Elizabeth II. Surtsicna (talk) 20:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Territories

Latest comment: 14 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

She is also Queen regent of her nations' territories, this is not mentioned in the introduction. Flosssock1 (talk) 17:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

It's implied, given that it would be impossible for her not to be sovereign of her nations' territories. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Howdy Flossock1. Elizabeth II is Queen regnant, not Queen regent. GoodDay (talk) 17:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Long time no speak GoodDay. Ofcourse she is, I apologise, I was in a rush. And thanks Miesianiacal, it was just an observation. Flosssock1 (talk) 19:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Howdy. We haven't heard from you, since the last time we heard from you. GoodDay (talk) 20:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Well that would make sense wouldn't it :) Flosssock1 (talk) 01:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you are right. That does make a lot of sense!--Stephen C Wells (talk) 20:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Constitutional role

Latest comment: 14 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

I don't agree with this section. It will be expanded to include the other realms, which will cause conflict. It's against the previous consensus: Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Archive 17#Role in government. The article is about Elizabeth Windsor the person not the role of the monarch, which is covered in the articles on that subject. DrKiernan (talk) 15:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, such a section is at Monarchy of the United Kingdom. -- GoodDay (talk) 15:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that was precisely my motivation for removing it. Elizabeth's role in numerous goverments is extremely complex and isn't even unique to her. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
We could have a brief section though, which would be linked to the section at Monarchy of the United Kingdom, Monarchy of Canada, etc etc. -- GoodDay (talk) 16:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't see the point. Nor do I see an equivalent section in the bio articles for other monarchs. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Cool. GoodDay (talk) 16:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
That's because no other monarch has an equivalent role. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Requested move (March 2010)

Latest comment: 14 years ago212 comments56 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus in 30 days of much discussion. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom → Elizabeth II — Those editors whose attention span extends back into the mists of history, or January 2010 to be more precise, may vaguely recall that there was an abortive discussion over moving this subject, the only just-Elizabeth II we have an article on that anyone might have heard of, to just-Elizabeth II.

The arguments in favour of the move remain much as they were. Shorter but still unambiguous. Least amount of wounded national pride (obviously there's nothing can be done to please people who have a problem with the "II"). In line with the general guidance for titling articles. Probably other things which will be mentioned below I'm sure.

The arguments against remain the same too. Doesn't meet some obscure, badly written, and poorly thought-out guideline hidden away in a corner of Wikipedia behind a door marked "Beware of the Tiger", etc. Some other stuff too that someone will be along to tell you all about shortly.

Clearly there are many other articles which could be moved for the same reasons (Elizabeth I of England → Elizabeth I; Edward VIII of the United Kingdom → Edward VIII; George VI of the United Kingdom → George VI; blah; blah; blah), but this isn't about any of those. Points will not be deducted for repetition, hesitation or deviation, but it would be good to avoid these pitfalls all the same. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose. The UK is the Queen's primary realm by almost any standard except the strict letter of the law (and this article is not a constitutional treatise). It's the realm where she lives, has a personal involvement in government, and is her oldest realm, from which all the others are offshoots. It's the realm she's most famous for being queen of. And - looking at it from a different angle - out of all the realms the UK is the greatest power in the world - militarily and economically. ðarkuncoll 00:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
And so? We're not going to imply that the UK isn't where the Queen is primarily involved in by moving this to Elizabeth II. Also I don't see how the UK being the most powerful nation out of the 16 realms makes any difference. I wonder what your stance would be if the Queen lived and worked primarily in Jamaica instead of the UK. --~Knowzilla (Talk) 12:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Support The propsed move eliminates the pro-British POV inherent in the present title without causing confusion with any other monarch. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose First, because the criteria for article names exist to aid readers in finding whom they seek, and thus consist of common usage in conjunction with related factors, e.g. specificity (so not "The Queen") and suitability (so not "Queen Liz"), and consistency (so "Firstname Ordinal# of Realm"), etc: Second, because I am not convinced that the intent of this effort is to use the most common name so much as to substitute in the most common name which promotes a POV principle -- even though the principle in question (equality of a monarch's various realms) is one I support & promote, but which I believe is best explained directly in the article rather than subliminally through selection of a title that's misleading (by suggesting that these monarchs are not widely associated with one of their realms more than with the others) and out-of-synch with names of other monarchs in this sequence: third, the laboriously evolved and evolving Naming conventions seems the appropriate place to first discuss a change (or exception) which may have wider implications than this article. FactStraight (talk) 00:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I rather think that if any POV is operative here, it's anti-British POV. How can it possibly, by any reasonable stretch of the imagination, be POV to say that the Queen is British? ðarkuncoll 00:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
You always fall back on that argument, conveniently forgetting that nobody ever said the Queen isn't British. The point has always been that she isn't just British. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Since we're just talking about the adjective "British" here, then I would assert - with strong evidence from current citizenship law - that the Queen is indeed British, and nothing else. There is no logical reason why someone cannot be Queen of Canada say, and yet not actually hold Canadian nationality. The only thing that would prevent this would be a Canadian law doing so, and I know that such a law does not exist. ðarkuncoll 08:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
The Queen isn't subject to citizenship law; acts of parliament only bind the Crown when they say they do, and neither the British nor Canadian citizenship acts say any such thing. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Even though it's wrong, "Queen of England" is so common that it should get a mention in the first paragraph (pointing out its inaccuracy, of course). But once again, it shows the practical reality of the situation. ðarkuncoll 00:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Who's Charles II of Great Britain? GoodDay (talk) 00:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Emendavi. Although he did reign from Cornwall to Caithness - eventually. (But did GD have any actual trouble seeing who was meant?) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Not to get off track, but Charlie 2 was monarch of England, Scotland & Ireland seperately. GoodDay (talk) 01:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
No, to say he was "separately" monarch of those places ignores historical reality - he was head of a unified government for all those places. Furthermore, his official title was "King of Great Britain...(etc.)." ðarkuncoll 08:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
He usually called himself K of GB. His 2 separate independent realms usually called him K of E &/or S. Peter jackson (talk) 11:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Articles should not be named on the basis of consistency for consistency's sake. Elizabeth is better known as "Elizabeth II" than as "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom". That really should be enough. As to your point about expecting users to know that "Henry VII" is ambiguous and "Henry VIII" is not, that is absurd. We are not expecting any such thing. A typical user will search for "Henry VII" or "Henry VIII". In the case of the former, the search would be dealt with using a dab page; in the case of the latter, the user would be brought to the correct page. It is actually the status quo that involves unrealistic expectations. Current naming conventions assume the user searching for a monarch knows the subset of conventions used for royals. Even regular users of Wikipedia are led astray when they search for "Charles I (England)" or "Charles I (King of England)". -Rrius (talk) 01:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, but so what? Why does that inconsistency matter? -Rrius (talk) 01:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Inconsistency always matters; it makes article placement less predictable. How much it matters is the question at issue; if it did not matter at all, we could go to random numerical strings, as the Britannica does.
    • "But there's an redirect" is no argument in these matters; it always cuts both ways. Anyone who searches for Elizabeth II will be promptly redirected to this article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
      • No, inconsistency does not always matter. There are more important considerations. The whole royalty and nobility naming convention is inconsistent both internally and with the normal naming conventions. What's more, if predictability is truly the root problem, "Elizabeth II" is the one that is predictable. "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom" is only predictable if you are among the small subset of people who are familiar with how articles about royalty are named. Finally, you brought up redirects, I didn't. Please don't argue against points that weren't made, it wastes time. -Rrius (talk) 01:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
        • Why shouldn't I argue against points that weren't made, when Rrius has just spent a paragraph doing so? Consistency always matters; it is not the only thing that matters; and both of these are policy, and always have been practice. When Rrius stops burning straw men, perhaps he will say something germane. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
          • I'm afraid you aren't reading what I'm writing. You said that consistency is important. My first and second sentences address that point directly. My third sentence notes that the very guideline whose principles dictate the name you support retaining is itself inconsistent both internally (royal articles are treated differently from noble ones) and with broader naming conventions. I should have thought the relation of that to your point about consistency was self-evident. You said that consistency is important because it provides predictability. My fourth sentence notes that predictability actually supports moving the page. My fifth and sixth sentence responded directly to your out-of-the-blue point about redirects. So where, exactly, did I spend a paragraph addressing points that weren't made? Where exactly were the straw men? What exactly did I say that wasn't germane? Perhaps if you took care to actually read what was written, we wouldn't have this problem. Finally, if you want to quibble about whether consistency is important in cases where something else trumps it, I'll concede that point, but it is obviously the case that consistency must sometimes bend to other considerations when they dictate an inconsistent result. I believe this is such a case, and you have said nothing to explain why consistency is more important than the other considerations. -Rrius (talk) 01:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
          • "Consistency matters, even where something else trumps it." Precisely so. Insofar as Rrius has written denying this, he has not been germane; until he gives reasons to suppose that something else trumps it here, he will have been vacuous. The burden of proof is on the one who proposes a change, which is why we require consensus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
            • First of all, you don't appear to know what "germane" means (and your understanding of "vacuous" is suspect). I have already told you why I think the other considerations trump consistency, at least twice. At heart, you think consistency is important here because it brings predictability. I have told you that I believe "Elizabeth II" is more predictable than "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom". To your first point, where you took a quotation out of context, let me make this perfectly clear: I originally said that inconsistency doesn't always matter. You then said that it does matter, even when it is ultimately ignored in favour of some other consideration. I then conceded that your formulation is better, but made clear that I believe this is such a case where other considerations trump consistency. Now, are you ready to actually discuss honestly instead of taking me out of context and lying about what I've said? -Rrius (talk) 02:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose and I suggest that this should be closed immediately on the ground of abuse of procedure. We very recently had what was substantially the same move request, and after considerable discussion it was clear that there was no consensus for the move. Formally, the previous request applied to three monarchs, not just one, but it escapes me in what way there is a substantial distinction. PatGallacher (talk) 01:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I would suggest two monarchs (actually two articles) is a substantial difference. Arguments could be made about this one that did not apply with equal force to the others. Accusations of abusing process are not terribly helpful, so perhaps we could assume good faith here. -Rrius (talk) 01:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
The English Throne no longer exists. Comments like this should not be counted when closing the discussion, as they are factually incorrect --~Knowzilla (Talk) 12:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
you're dead wrong the numbering comes from the English throne. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes & no. When Scottish MPs raised the issue in the Commons in 1953, the government responded by saying that all monarchs since the union of 1707 had used the larger of English & Scottish numberings. So, if al-Qaeda wipe out most of the royal family & Lord Severn becomes king, is his article to be called James VIII of Scotland? Peter jackson (talk) 11:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose and Quick Close This debate has already taken place, and none too long ago either. I personally like the request because she is the reigning monarch for a large number of countries and although there is no disagreement that the principal realm is the United Kingdom, I don't see any reason to thumb the other realms either. However, I am going to oppose on the basis that rehashing discussion so soon after the last one is none too productive and sets a poor precedence. --Labattblueboy (talk) 04:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
The fact that this issue comes up so often is very troubling, it shows that something must be done about it. Close this one, and another will begin soon. --~Knowzilla (Talk) 12:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Something had been done. It was discussed in full and there was no consensus. Permitting requested moves to me made over and over again, in order achieve an intended change, is rather inappropriate.--Labattblueboy (talk) 05:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
This is more limited than the last discussion: that one applied to three monarchs, this one doesn't, so it is more focused. -Rrius (talk) 20:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
This is the 5th move discussion(early July 09, late July 09, late July 09 again,Dec 09) that has taken place in less than a year. This is the 4th that has involoved Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom → Elizabeth II. My view is that is excessive.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
But shines a light on an inherent problem with the title that will likely never go away so long at the title is as it is now. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
There will be people who prefer a different location regardless of where the article title is. This is far from the only article where there is such a disagreement. The real problem is the incessant raising of the same subject time after time after time instead of giving things a rest for a while, and umpteen RMs that give the impression of trying to grind down opposition in the hope of getting it through. Maybe we need vote against endless votes. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
That type of concerted organisation hints at a conspiracy theory. I highly doubt that's the case. If it's true, though, I feel left out, as nobody invited me to join. :( --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Support in principle though, for the first time in my wiki-career, I agree with MickMacNee. If we're going to depart from procedure, we might as well go the whole hog and give the article a title that is unambiguous, common and appropriate for an encyclopaedia- Queen Elizabeth II. It also saves on the national bias arguments and avoids the constitutional nit-picking. It's not overly pertinent, but it would be interesting if someone could compile viewing stats for all the redirects to this article (there must be quite a few). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Support for all the usual reasons - if we did need to disambiguate, then "of the United Kingdom" would be the least evil, but we don't need to, so let's get rid of the unsightly and unnecessarily biased tag.--Kotniski (talk) 07:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Query: What queens called Elizabeth (either king's wives or in their own right) have other countries had? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
See Queen Elizabeth (and 5 empresses of the same name may be found in a list under Elizabeth). FactStraight (talk) 11:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The logic of going by the most commonly used name would compel us to rename this article "Queen of England". The form "Elizabeth II" is actually quite rare, and even something like "Queen Elizabeth" is far more common - or, in the Commonwealth realms themselves, perhaps the most common term is simply "The Queen". It's this sort of problem that necessitated the guidlines being created in the first place. ðarkuncoll 08:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

It should be the most commonly used unambiguous name. That would be Elizabeth II, I think.--Kotniski (talk) 09:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
But the same could be said for Henry VIII or Richard III, say. It seems to me that the convention to omit the country when the monarch has a famous nickname, such as Alfred the Great or Ethelred the Unready is sensible, but to do so with a number - can anyone point to any other article that does this? It would set a very bad precedent. We'd have all sorts of people arguing that all monarchs in history who ruled more than one country should omit the country name. ðarkuncoll 09:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
And why would that be a bad thing? If there are good arguments in those cases too, then any precedent set would be good, not bad. (We presumably recall Sir Humphrey's interpretation of dangerous precedent - if we do the right thing now, we might be forced to do the right thing again in the future.)--Kotniski (talk) 10:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Well it's been 12 hours since Napoleon I was moved, and no-one's complained ... yet. DrKiernan (talk) 10:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Oh, but they will now you've told them about it... ;)--Kotniski (talk) 11:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Napoleon I looks just as stupid as Elizabeth II as a supposed common name. Per my reasoning above, that clearly should have been moved to Napoleon Bonaparte. MickMacNee (talk) 12:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't know what planet people live on if they think that very common real-world names like this look stupid, but that the Wikipedia made-up names (almost never encountered anywhere else) look perfectly acceptable.--Kotniski (talk) 14:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
It implies - well actually, it states - that she's Queen of the UK. Since this is the truth, that's exactly as it should be. And there's nothing made up about it, either. ðarkuncoll 13:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
No it doesn't - it states that she's the second of the UK. Since she isn't the second anything of the UK (she's that country's first Queen Elizabeth, and probably the several millionth Elizabeth), it is factually incorrect. It could be justified if it was what she was commonly or officially called, but it isn't.--Kotniski (talk) 14:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Interesting how thark implies that her being Queen of anywhere other than the UK isn't the truth. Oh, but then, he has said exactly that before; something about Jamaica, Australia, Tuvalu, Canada, & etc., not being "real" monarchies. Such a 19th century attitude. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
If the Name # idea is adopted for all multiple realm monarchies? It's gonna be interesting at Philip II of Spain, Philip III of Spain & Philip IV of Spain, who were all (1580-1640) monarchs of Portugal, aswell. GoodDay (talk) 15:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Referring to her as Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom is not factually incorrect; the UK is the successor state of the Kingdom of Great Britain which is the successor state of England and Scotland; Elizabeth II is thus properly numbered after the previous sovereign Elizabeth. Besides, if calling her Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom is factually incorrect, then calling her Elizabeth II is entirely incorrect as well. If she isn't Elizabeth II of the UK, in what country is she Elizabeth II? There are good arguments against the move and good arguments in favour of the move, but please let's not push it so far as saying that calling her Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom is incorrect or that she is the only Elizabeth II that has ever lived. Surtsicna (talk) 17:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
She is Elizabeth II, certainly, in all of her realms. But she isn't "Elizabeth II of" anywhere, strictly speaking, she's "Elizabeth II, Queen of (wherever and all the others)". Taking it upon ourselves to omit the word "Queen" in (one selected variant of) this formula is where we enter the world of original research. (OK, I'm sure we're not literally the first to do it, but it's never become anywhere near widely accepted.) And even if this obscure other Elisabeth II spelt her name Elizabeth, that shouldn't affect how we title the obviously primary article. --Kotniski (talk) 14:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
No reason to give the UK priority - that's an argument against the present name, surely?--Kotniski (talk) 14:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
The Princess-Abbess of Quedinburg's name is Elisabeth II, not Elizabeth II. GoodDay (talk) 17:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
The difference of a single letter is not distinctive enough, since it's the same name we're talking about, and in any case the Elisabeth to whom you refer could quite properly be called Elizabeth by English speakers. ðarkuncoll 18:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
It's gonna be interesting in the future, in Belgium. GoodDay (talk) 18:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm.... Try as I might, I can't get my head around that statement at all. ðarkuncoll 18:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
See Princess Elisabeth of Belgium. -- GoodDay (talk) 18:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Princess Elisabeth of Belgium is supposed to become Queen of Belgium one day. However, she won't be Elisabeth II, so I don't understand the argument completely myself. Anyway, the name Elisabeth is commonly Anglicized to Elizabeth (especially when dealing with royalty) and vice versa; the queen is sometimes called Elisabeth II (in Canadian French-language documents, for example) and the princess-abbess is sometimes called Elizabeth II. Surtsicna (talk) 18:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Thus, if somebody wanted a completely unambigious title that excludes "of the United Kingdom", one would have to choose Queen Elizabeth II. Surtsicna (talk) 18:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I was thinking of the Elizabeth I of England article, sorry 'bout that. GoodDay (talk) 18:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland was mentioned in her proclamation. GoodDay (talk) 23:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
In the Canadian proclamation, yes. Not in the British proclamation, though. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Cool. GoodDay (talk) 23:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Support per common name. The naming conventions on royalty are a crock of specialist shite that has little resemblance to common usage. older ≠ wiser 23:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
    If that's what you believe then raise it at WP:NCROY rather than here. Don't just say "people raised it there and were blocked", if nothing came of proposals there it was nobody came up with an alternative naming convention which was sensible, workable and had widespread support. PatGallacher (talk) 15:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
    I have commented on that in the past. I've no interest in banging my head against walls though. Entrenched interests have made the bar for changing that guideline next to impossible, even though any reasonable interpretation of the repeated discussions on that page would show that the guideline has at best only weak support. The bar for establishing consensus to change to something is such that the status quo remains, even though there are many objections. It is entirely reasonable to object on a case by case basis to the application of a stupid guideline. older ≠ wiser 15:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
    You might be on slightly stronger ground if you made it clear exactly what alternative guideline you are proposing. What is it? PatGallacher (talk) 18:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
    As far as I'm concerned, WP:UCN takes precedence over the ridiculosity of the naming conventions on royalty. older ≠ wiser 19:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Support per Miesianiacal and others. I agree with MickMacNee that Queen Elizabeth II would be preferable, but Elizabeth II is vastly better than the current title. Alkari (?), 27 February 2010, 08:24 UTC
  • Oppose No, leave it alone! It's been fine for the amount of time in which this page has been in existance so I fail to see the need to change it now. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 09:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. The current title is non-neutral and contains wholly unnecessary disambiguation. Most arguments against are arguments from inertia and are unconvincing. Ucucha 13:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Support 'Elizabeth' is so completely recognizable by anyone as to be unambiguous. So of course is 'Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom'. But the latter is unecessary when the first is clear enough, and satisfies the objection that she is equally monarch of the other realms.--Gazzster (talk) 03:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment It is clear that HRM has a very long, long, long title. This is especially true if one attempts to add them all up. :-) But, the one which I think remains consistent is "of the Commonwealth of Nations". I understand the motives for wanting to drop "of the United Kingdom" or any other of her realms, but would "Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth of Nations" be a better compromise instead? Since "Commonwealth of Nations" is recognised in all of her realms (Constitutional Monarchies), the British overseas territories, and the Commonwealth itself? She is after-all Head of the Commonwealth and I believe that all places that have a title for HRM also recognise the "of the Commonwealth of Nations" title too? CaribDigita (talk) 06:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
No, that doesn't work. She is queen of 16 of those 54 nations. But we can't even refer to her as "Queen of the Commonwealth Realms", because that makes those 16 form a single crown, when there are in fact 16 separate crowns. As for the remaining 38 Commonwealth Nations that are not Commonwealth Realms, she is most definitely NOT queen of them. She is Head of the Commonwealth, but most definitely NOT Queen of the Commonwealth. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 15:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Support per COMMONNAME. Kittybrewster ☎ 13:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment I have already voted to oppose. It is not clear whether people are arguing that she is a special case, or that they think the naming conventions for monarchs are wrong. If the latter, this should be raised at WP:NCROY. The most serious argument is that "Elizabeth II" is unambiguous, which it is. However this applies to a large number of monarchs e.g Louis XVI of France, James V of Scotland. Should we remove the pre-emptive disambiguation from all of them? This is not unworkable, it is the naming convention used by the German-language Wikipedia (although most major Wikipedias in other languages use the same convention as us) but I prefer our existing convention. However such a major change should be raised at WP:NCROY. PatGallacher (talk)
I would say both things are true, Queen Elizabeth II is special and the Monarch naming conventions are wrong. Many have tried to get the naming conventions changed, sadly progress is always blocked. BritishWatcher (talk) 02:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

ROYAL PROCLAMATION reciting the altered Style and Titles of the Crown. London, 29th May, 1953 (British and Foreign State Papers, vol. 160, p. 2; citing the Eleventh Supplement of The London Gazette of 26th May, 1953.)

BY THE QUEEN

A PROCLAMATION

ELIZABETH R.

— http://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/britstyles.htm#1953
The current article has problems that causes the continual repeating of this discussion as such we need to find an acceptable solution. Gnangarra 13:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
"Elizabeth R" (for "regina", queen) was presumably also used by Elizabeth I, and thus is ambiguous. Ucucha 13:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak Support but also split -- The convention of "Name Ordinal# Realm" doesn't work when the realm field takes more than one value at the same time, so there is a problem with our initial rule. We have enough information about her to keep more than one article, so in this case, I think the title Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom should be information about her role and place in the UK (as the name suggests) and we should move the general biographical information to it's own page. ----Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 22:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
And what would the name of that new page be? This seems to just move the problem sideways, as the fundamental issue would not be addressed. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Either just her name or "of the Commonwealth", there are pros and cons for each of them. My suggestion would require more talk, but I don't think that having her main page be here is a good solution either. ----Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 01:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Support The current name is inaccurate and misleading since it implies the subject of the article is only Queen of the United Kingdom. Xandar 23:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Not necessarily, see WP:NCROY: "Where a monarch has reigned over a number of states, use the most commonly associated ordinal and state. For example, Charles II of England, not Charles II of England, Scotland and Ireland; Philip II of Spain, not Philip I of Portugal, although there should be redirects from these locations."
  • Support - inherent POV in the current name. And just as specific notability guidelines never trump GNG, I think WP:NAME should overrule WP:NCROY where ther eis no ambiguity. dramatic (talk) 19:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose; I support changing the ridiculous styles-and-titles naming convention. But it needs to be changed by the consensus of contributors in that space, not by making a decision here that renders their convention null and void. Hesperian 01:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
One or two exceptions doesn't render anything null and void; guidelines are expected to have occasional exceptions (as the guideline template states).--Kotniski (talk) 08:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
If people were just arguing that she was an individual special case then it might not be worth getting into a huge argument. However, some people are putting forward arguments which would have implications for several other monarchs. Should we abandon the pre-emptive disambiguation by country for all monarchs where this is not strictly necessary? Even more problematic is the argument that we should abandon the naming convention that, in cases of monarchs of multiple countries, we give them the name of the country with which they were most closely associated. This would have implications for several monarchs, and in some cases raise the question of how we do disambiguate them from other monarchs with similar names. I am not happy that, after some discussion at WP:NCROY, nobody was able to come up with a reasonable alternative naming convention, so some people have just "turned guerrilla" against the present naming convention. PatGallacher (talk) 16:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure we could happily abandon the pre-emptive disambiguation for - at the very least - those monarchs who have unique name+numeral combinations and are not commonly referred to by the name presently implied by the convention. This seems far more "reasonable" to me than what we have at present. (There's also the problem about including "King/Queen" when there's no numeral, but that's a separate issue from the one here.)--Kotniski (talk) 18:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately that creates a very large grey area. I don't know whether Louis XVI of France is more often described as such or just as Louis XVI, I expect it depends on the context. This could lead to lengthy wrangles over several monarchs. One reason why we have naming conventions is so that we have a default option for how we name people, even if we end up deciding to deviate from it in a few cases. PatGallacher (talk) 20:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Did you read the whole discussion, because more than enough reasons have been given to why this article should be one of the exceptions to that naming convention (there are already exceptions anyhow). Also, the Queen is the only notable and primary meaning of Elizabeth II. --~Knowzilla (Talk) 11:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I may as well say something here, just for the heck of it (not that anyone will listen, but still...). I'd like to point out that, like all of our naming conventions, WP:NCROY lists it's primary criteria as: Most general rule overall: use the most common form of the name used in English if none of the rules below cover a specific problem.. That sentence is the first actual advice which appears on the Naming conventions (royalty) page, there's a good reason for that. It's generally agreed that Wikipedia:Use common names is, if not the most important consideration, at least the first consideration that we should have. Real, significant, and protracted disagreements about article titles tend to occur for topics where there really isn't a common name, but that's not universal (take a look at the significant issues around Catholic Church/Roman Catholic Church if you're feeling particularly adventurous... masochistic would probably be a better characterization). The main point is that we should title our articles to make it as easy as possible for our readers. In the area of Royalty the "rules" outlined in NCROY do facilitate the aim of making our articles easy and intuitive for readers to locate, which is why the formulaic article title construction outlined in that guideline are generally accepted. The fact that the formula works in most cases doesn't mean that we need to slavishly follow it everywhere, despite any apparent differences which may make a specific article an exception. For all of the reasons that I've outlined here, the proper action to take would be to rename this article to the proposed "Elizabeth II", meaning I Support the proposal. This does not, and should not, be used to repudiate the conventions in NCROY in my opinion, since for the majority of article (in terms of quantity) the normal convention will be most useful. This particular article is special is all, since the subject is so widely recognized (at least, in the Western world). I understand the argument to retain the current title, but in this single instance it's simply misplaced.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Support per common name and NPOV.--Ibagli (Talk) 00:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose. What makes the British monarchs any more special than monarchs of any other country in the world? Woogee (talk) 04:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Uh... The fact that the last four were not just British is a good start. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't understand? Woogee (talk) 05:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
They reigned/reign as sovereigns of more than one independent monarchy; wore/wear more crowns than just a British one; were/are head of more states than the United Kingdom; etc., etc. No monarch of any other country since at least 1931 has been in such a position (barring the similar but quite different circumstances for Andorra/France). --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 06:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
This is one of the things I find most annoying, that a person cannot even be bothered to read the article at hand before coming along and opposing the move request. --~Knowzilla (Talk) 11:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Surely he realizes thats an argument in favour?!? Astounding... Outback the koala (talk) 06:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Wow, it's amazing how all of the support editors have to resort to name-calling and offensive attacks since they have no other constructive arguments for their position. Woogee (talk) 20:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Ironic, isn't it, how you just attacked every single "supporter" here for something that's never been done. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Try not to paint all the supporters with the same brush. GoodDay (talk) 20:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Funny how you don't repudiate the attackers. Woogee (talk) 20:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps not everyone shares your definition of "attack". --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll be sure to use such language towards you and all of the other supporters of those comments the next time we have a discussion, and expect you to agree that my comments are appropriate. Astounding. Woogee (talk) 21:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Closing time

It's been about 5 days & once again, there's no consensus to move. GoodDay (talk) 15:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Consensus now seems to be building up in support of the move slowly. --~Knowzilla (Talk) 13:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
GoodDay and Knowzilla, please leave the assessment of consensus to the person who closes the discussion. Ucucha 13:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. An !vote can deliberately be left open until some moment when one side or the other is leading, and then be summarily closed. But that would undermine the poll's accuracy while contributing to the rancor which already surrounds this issue (as illustrated by the dismissive way in which the con argument was stated when this poll was opened: Whatever happened to the sense of duty and restraint Wikipedians felt to put questions neutrally and to fairly present the arguments of differing sides in a dispute, expressing one's own preference, and the rationale for it, subsequently and separately?). Consensus, not momentary majority, is the criterion for implementing change here. IMO, part of the reason "consensus now seems to be building up in support of the move slowly" is that those in opposition, always on the qui vive in anticipation that some of the advocates re-open this issue with unwonted frequency (as noted early on here by PatGallacher and Labattblueboy), therefore weigh in early in the debate with their !votes and rationales lest silence be misconstrued as consent, which does not diminish their arguments and should not sway the outcome. FactStraight (talk) 13:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
It's funner this way. GoodDay (talk) 15:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Lol. xD
Ok Ucucha. :] --~Knowzilla (Talk) 15:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
In any event, we're only hitting 7 days now; closing two days ago would have been premature. -Rrius (talk) 22:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Hum, I'm curious, how do we know if there is enough consensus to move the article or not? Is it a majority (50% + 1) of people in favor with solid arguments; about 60% or more in favor with solid arguments? --~Knowzilla (Talk) 14:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, we currently seem to be running 18:9 in favour of the move (discounting one oppose vote where the rationale given was for a support). The main (only?) substantial reason for the opposition seems to be "for consistency with other monarchs". Does this mean we ought to look at a more general reassessment of monarch article titles (for example, encouraging omission of the realm in all unique/primary topic cases)? This ought to leave everyone satisfied - we would still have about the same level of consistency (given that the realm is already omitted in various cases), while allowing this article to be moved to its natural title (and presumably those who support that would also be supportive of other similar moves). --Kotniski (talk) 14:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

If there's that much of editors in favor, with good arguments, then the consensus is enough to move the article, right? This discussion has been open for about a week now, and it's about closing time. Do we request a non participant admin to move the article? --~Knowzilla (Talk) 14:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I could respond to that at a lot more length, but I will just say that whatever the merits of such a proposal it should be raised at WP:NCROY. PatGallacher (talk) 14:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
It is up to an admin to close this matter and to determine how !votes and arguments should be weighted. That admin should assign appropriate consideration to the fact that on March 6 several persons who had previously !voted in favor of the January effort to move this article were canvassed to vote during this discussion (and some have done so), while no simultaneous invitation was extended to those who !voted against the move. FactStraight (talk) 15:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Could you please support that last allegation with diffs? Ucucha 15:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Consensus, is a loosely defined thing on Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 22:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Found the alleged canvassing here. Six users where asked about their opinion; all supported the previous move request; three have turned up again to support. Ucucha 22:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Now four. FactStraight (talk) 01:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
You don't have to count my vote given that I was canvised and not watching the page. I just wanted to give my two cents. ----Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 01:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
It was the third such notice I have recieved in the last week or so about discussions that I have previously participated in, the notice was neutral in wording I had no reason not to WP:AGF in its posting. This article is on my watchlist and I would have commented at some stage anyway, the thing is the current name is going to have a purpetual rfm every month/two months, at some stage a closing admin is going to need to make the hard decision. I have no problem with my opinion being discounted this time because of the notice, besides there will be another rfm if the move doesnt happen this time. Gnangarra 03:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
The problem isn't so much with the wording of the notice, but rather with the selection of people notified: all supported the move the previous time around. If Knowzilla had notified everyone who commented in the previous discussion, there would have been no problem (indeed, it may be a good idea for him to do so anyway). Ucucha 03:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
To tell the truth, I never looked at any previous discussion for their names. Those six people were some of those whom I remembered as having participated in previous move discussions. I didn't invite them to come support this move request either, all the messages I sent simply notified them of this discussion. I apologize if it looks like I've been trying to gather "support votes", but that was not my intention. I merely thought they may be interested in participating in this discussion, regardless of whether they would support or oppose. I didn't go back through previous discussions and ensure that all six of those people I notified supported all previous move requests. --~Knowzilla (Talk) 05:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Current count (unofficial) is 26 Support and 15 Oppose. Seems like a consensus to me... Bjmullan (talk) 20:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

When did that small a support percentage become anything close to a consensus? Woogee (talk) 20:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, when did a 63% majority be anything other than consensus? Bjmullan (talk) 20:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, for one. Woogee (talk) 21:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Which is better: something supported by 63% of editors or something supported by 37% of editors? You may not think an admin with 63% support should pass, but are you really arguing that one with 37% support should remain one? DrKiernan (talk) 21:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
You guys should go and read Wikipedia:Consensus when you get a chance (actually though, Consensus is written better). Beside that though, vote counting isn't going to solve anything over the long term, here or elsewhere. Read through the comments, beyond the votes, and then come back here and post a reply with "I think that this should be closed as <result>, because <reason>." Vote counting is why this RM request continually comes up.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The rationale is the same as it has always been:

  1. Per policy at Wikipedia:Article titles#Common names: it is the commonest unambiguous name used in most english-language reliable sources.
  2. In the case of Elizabeth II, disambiguation from other monarchs or articles by adding "of a Country" is unnecessary: Elizabeth II is the prime use of that term, and the suggested location is a redirect to the current title.
  3. Uniquely, Elizabeth II has been Head of State of 32 independent countries. No other person in history has ever held the office in so many separate nations. The current article title chooses one of these in preference to the others. Some editors perceive this as non-neutral. Per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Article titles where disputes arise over the neutrality of article titles, "the common English language name as found in verifiable reliable sources" should be used.
  4. In 1953, separate titles were adopted for each of the Queen's realms, so she is "of Australia" in Australia, "of Canada" in Canada, etc. The article titles relating to British monarchs already reflect changes in the styles of the monarch. Prior to the Union of the Crowns, monarchs are "of Scotland" or "of England". After the Act of Union 1707, monarchs are "of Great Britain". After the Act of Union 1800, monarchs are "of the United Kingdom". There is no inconsistency if article titles also reflect changes in the styles of the monarch since 1953.
  5. The main argument against the move is adherence to the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Sovereigns guideline, but the guideline is advisory only and permits exclusions where necessary or appropriate, such as the List of rulers of Lithuania, List of Polish monarchs, and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)#Single name. DrKiernan (talk) 07:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
    In regards to point #5, like all of the NC guidelines, the NCROY guideline actually states as its first criteria to "use the most Common English-language name", so it's not even about "permit[ting] exclusions where necessary or appropriate", since this wouldn't actually be an exception.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
    Yes, the fifth point can be reworked in line with that. DrKiernan (talk) 09:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Survey of reliable sources

Media
Canada
Ireland
United Kingdom
United States
Encyclopaedias
International organisations

Challenge

For those contemplating this move consider/justify moving in reverse from Elizabeth II to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, a name which ignores her position and association with every other country in which she is head of state.

  1. is that what would be expected of neutrally written international encyclopeadia,
  2. would a UK encyclopeadia call her "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom"

So what are the arguements to jusify for reversing the move?

  1. disambiguation, is there a usage thats as equally/sufficiently well known to cause confusion ie Perth
  2. common name, is there name the subject is better known as
  3. neutral(WP:NPOV)
  4. as the subject is living does WP:BLP come into play, is it offensive, or likely to cause harm
  5. is it verifiable

I'll let everyone else answer these questions Gnangarra 03:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Answers:
  1. Many don't consider this article neutrally written.
  2. I don't know, how many UK encylopedias are there?
Answers:
  1. I'm not sure.
  2. Her common name is Elizabeth
  3. Again, many would argue the article is British PoV
  4. We'd need to ask the Queen, which title she finds the least offensive
  5. Most likely

GoodDay (talk) 15:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Common name is clearly Elizabeth II. Go ahead, everyone, search for "Elizabeth II" and "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom". Google searches are imperfect, but when the numbers are overwhelming, they need to be dealt with. There are 2,770,000 hits for "Elizabeth II", but only 35,900 for "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom". For the latter, a large portion (most?) belong to the "Wikipedia and its clones" category.
As for neutrality, I don't understand GoodDay's point. I can't see how a lack of neutrality in the article means using a non-neutral title. The answer to a lack of neutrality is fixing it, not reinforcing it. -Rrius (talk) 20:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Answers:
1. This article title is certainly not neutral, and those who see Wikipedia as neutrally written may not expect this article to be at this title if we want complete neutrality.
2. I've yet to see any encyclopedia have it's article on QEII at "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom" expect Wikipedia (and those websites which copy WP).
Answers:
1. There is no other person who was known as Elizabeth II as notable as the Queen.
2. Elizabeth II, Queen Elizabeth, or Queen Elizabeth II, is what the Queen is best known as.
3. Again, it's not neutral (the current title).
4. I'm pretty sure HM would prefer the article title to be at "Elizabeth II" rather than "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom", which marks her off as only "of" one of her realms, and not the others, and the Queen has always wanted her realms to be equal in relation to her.
5. Not sure what about what your asking about? Is it if the new title is verifiable/if the answer to the preceding question verifiable?

--~Knowzilla (Talk) 13:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The core question

I see this as all boiling down to one question. We want to standardize article names as much as possible, and the rules for monarchs, which differ from the standard rules, say to use the name of the most common realm and no other realms. The name Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom is the one that matches the word of the rules. I see two situations where we would deviate from the standard naming conventions for monarchs:

  1. Will the name "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom" cause this article to be confused with another one? I think we can all agree that the answer to this is no.
  2. Is there a title that reflects the extent of her realms by which she is overwhelmingly well known? I think we can again agree that the answer is no. Inclusive titles like "Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth" exist, but they are not her common title the way something like "Alfred the Great" is his common title. We could still use something like "Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth", but not for this reason, we would have to be using it because of question 3.
  3. Will choosing name the name "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom", and thus saying that we see the UK as her "most commonly associated" realm, imply that we are taking sides in a debate when we could avoid doing so? Here is the tricky question. She is certainly best known for being queen of the UK in the UK, and the UK is certainly her biggest realm. However, the rest of her realms put together have a higher population than the UK. Is she better known for being queen of all of those places put together than she is for being queen of the UK? Maybe, but maybe not. If you ask who she is to a random educated person from a country that has no close connection to any commonwealth realm (like someone from South America or Japan), will they say that she is queen of the UK, or will they say that she is queen of a bunch of countries?

--Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Answers
  1. It wouldn't be the end of the world.
  2. The United Kingdom is the realms she's most identified with.
  3. Same as preceding answer.

GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Answers
1. It's no indeed, but the neutrality issue is the main one at hand here.
2. Not sure about "Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth" if it may imply that she is Queen of the Commonwealth whereas she is Head of the Commonwealth. "Elizabeth II" is an okay title for the article, but for one thing: This article should not stay at "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom" for sure.
3. If you ask someone, it all depends on just how educated they are, and if they are educated or not a in a certain field. An only averagely educated person may think she is "the Queen of England", because even some encyclopedias, and famous news channels and newspapers call her that, even government officials of countries which are not Commonwealth realms have made that mistake sometimes. Only if they're well educated and well aware of world politics, etc, for example, would they know that Queen Elizabeth II is sovereign of 16 nations in the world. --~Knowzilla (Talk) 13:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Before someone restarts this argument…

If someone wants to bring this up again, maybe it would be better to go to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility). There is never going to be consensus to deviate from the standard rules here, so if there is a problem with how Wikipedia names its articles about monarchs with multiple realms, we should get the rule itself changed. ----Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 01:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem with that suggestion is that there is a determined cabal of editors who seek to defend the status quo for no better reason than that is the status quo. No one can actually justify the convoluted "[Name] of [Place]", which is not adhered to at many articles already; they just "don't see the need to change". This, despite the fact that "[Name] of [Place]" is rarely the most common name and just as rarely the most likely way the name would be written in an article (thus requiring a pipe link for almost every instance of a name. Leave aside that, for no principled reason, the naming convention treats kings and queens differently from other monarchs. In the end, the problem we are seeing here and elsewhere is that the naming convention states we should preemptively disambiguate monarchs, and sets a specific style for doing so without ever explaining or justifying either decision. -Rrius (talk) 02:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
So those who do not share your view are members of a "cabal" determined to thwart you for no reason whatsoever other than that we prefer the "status quo"? It cannot possibly be that some of us see NCRN's naming conventions as an imperfect means of addressing multiple issues concerning royalty article names which, nonetheless in our view, is better than the alternatives we have yet heard? So there are no sincere differences in opinion among reasonable Wikipedians? We obstinately defend a set of article naming conventions for "no principled reason", which have never been "explained" or "justified" (despite seven years of discussion and evolving consensus as attested to by the 19 archives at NCRN)? No wonder you try to persuade us ignorant, insensitive, stubborn, dishonorable, irredeemably malevolent and lame Wikipedians with such earnest and persuasive arguments as disregard, argumentum ad nauseam, contempt, incivility and open resentment. No doubt Jimbo Wales will descend from Mount Olympus to relieve your suffering by exorcising us from Wikipedia forthwith. Meanwhile, is there any approach to reaching consensus -- other than "we're indisputably right and you're abjectly wrong!" -- that you want to consider giving a try? FactStraight (talk) 04:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
It would be nice if the minority (who have a friendly admin who will always close this as no consensus, in spite of being unable to spell it or, more importantly, give any kind of rationale for ignoring the clear majority view) made some sort of move towards reaching a consensus that would at least have majority support, instead of stubbornly resisting any proposals for change whatever. What do you propose?--Kotniski (talk) 08:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Don't be an ass. I'm not being paranoid. Rather, I'm judging the merits of arguments put forth at recent discussions. The arguments advanced for opposing specific article moves is that they would violate NCROY and create inconsistency. Discussions related to changes to the conventions themselves reveal a group of people on one side who support change, but oppose each other on the shape that change should take. The other group simply say they don't see a need to change, and refuse to actually defend the merits of the current system. In addition to the lack of any recent justifications in discussions, the conventions themselves offer no explanations. For instance, the convention most relevant to this move request is No. 3 under "Sovereign": preemptive disambiguation. The convention itself notes that it is an exception to standard naming convention rules, but simply fails to explain why such an exception is necessary. My frustration is with a system where a committed group of editors (if "cabal" makes you pissy, how about "faction"?) support the status quo without making any real effort to explain what's so great about it, but are helped along by disunity among those who oppose the current conventions, either in general or as applied at various articles. -Rrius (talk) 00:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I have requested advice from the Arbitration Committee about how to proceed from here: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Elizabeth II. DrKiernan (talk) 08:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

*Chokes on his food* What the..? No consensus?!? When well over two-thirds of the editors in this discussion were of opinion that the article should be moved? Amazing, just amazing. What does consensus on Wikipedia mean then? Or is something here not right... --~Knowzilla (Talk) 16:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it is simply that I do not properly understand WP:Consensus, but I confess to being rather puzzled. By my count, there were 23 support votes, nine oppose votes, one "oppose" with a supporting rationale, and one "weak support but also split"; furthermore, some of those who opposed "Elizabeth II" nevertheless indicated a desire for change. Clearly there will never be 100% agreement on a contentious issue such as Her Majesty, but it would seem to me that there is fairly clear consensus here. Alkari (?), 10 March 2010, 00:41 UTC
Closing admins who have not been engaged on one side or another of the debate assess and determine consensus in cases of serious contention. Not only is that because article names are not changed based upon a count of votes but upon the gravamen of arguments pro and con, but also because those involved will tote votes and assess consensus differently. If I were making the decision here it would reflect the fact that some votes and arguments were selectively solicited, resulting in additional votes for one side (votestacking), and their votes were immediately followed by a chorus of calls for the polling to be closed and a decision rendered based upon the enhanced count -- tainting and skewing, in my opinion, this move request. More importantly, my assessment would reflect the history of argumentation of this issue here and at NCROY), which has now involved repeated attempts to eliminate "of the United Kingdom" portion of this (and Queen Victoria's) article that have resulted in several failed attempts at change there and here including, most recently, admin actions being effectively challenged, and imbuing the debate with an unwonted sense of urgency, admitted determination to prevail (rather than to strive for consensus), attempts to substitute majority as the standard for change rather than consensus (whereas previously, when that majority was not perceived, other grounds were cited as compelling), failure to assume good faith toward those of differing opinions, incivility that rises to the level of intimidation, resort to methods other than consensus to impose the desired change (an arbitration case being filed immediately upon initial closure of this poll with the clear intent to drop "of the United Kingdom" by fiat despite the ongoing talk page process by which disagreements are normally resolved -- not to mention the unusually short interval since the last !vote on this issue). But I have been an open advocate in this debate and am no admin, so my interpretation of this debate will not and should not, decide the outcome. Nor should the insistence of others involved, howsoever sincere and passionate, be determinative here. FactStraight (talk) 14:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
It might just be me, but it seems like the above is merely a barely veiled attack specifically on the move supporters for their supposed incivility, bullying, and devious scheming, thereby oddly carrying out (albeit subtly) exactly what it purports to condemn. I believe editors have the right to question the system when the system produces what seems to be an odd result; it may expect too much when trying to fit page move requests under WP:CONSENSUS. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
The best way to change things? is one article at-a-time. See Mary, Queen of Scots for an example. GoodDay (talk) 18:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that the cabal has an evil plot to keep the status quo, but I do think that NC(RN) should be changed. I don't see any good reason why NC(RN) should deviate from Wikipedia's standard disambiguation style of parentheses. If it were up to me, NC(RN) would disambiguate using like so: Henry IV (England) and Henry IV (France). --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I've been harping for Name # (country), as a disambiguator. But, it's not getting traction. GoodDay (talk) 18:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I can't appreciate the argument that we need to obtain a consensus for the naming conventions. For a start, we would most likely have to argue the case for and against any number of heads of state (eg. is Charles Habsburg 'of Spain' or 'of the Holy Roman Empire; is Nicholas Romanoff Grand Duke of Finland or Tsar of Russia). That would take ages and most likely the cause would end before it had even begun. And secondly, but most importantly, articles stand on their own. This is an important wikipedia principle. Articles are not bound to follow the conventions where the conventions do not suit. We can feel perfectly free in dispensing with the convention. Note they are 'guidelines', not rules.--Gazzster (talk) 02:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
If we changed the standard for monarchs to Name # (country), then they would match the disambiguation style of all of the other articles in the encyclopedia and we could end the fight on this page because ERII wouldn't need disambiguation until another throne gets two Elizabeths. If the issue ever comes up again at NC(RN), GoodDay, you have my support. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 02:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


It would seem that the closing editor has reverted his closure of the move request discussion. But, for how much longer should it go on for, and once again, what exactly is enough consensus to move this article? Surely if more than two-thirds of participating editors support the move, then it's more than enough --~Knowzilla (Talk) 12:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, consensus is, if I understand it correctly, a result agreed upon by all; a compromise, if need be. However, having myself been overruled on numerous occasions simply because I was in the minority, I know first hand that consensus is regularly dispensed with in Wikipedia. I'm also unsure as to how a dispute like this could ever meet the requirements of WP:CONSENSUS; how does one compromise in a case like this? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I do know one thing, whatever the result of this current move request, we must all agree to cool it, for (at least) 6 months. Too many of these requests in a short span of time, cane come across as tentatious. GoodDay (talk) 15:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
ArbCom seems to think we should continue discussion with a new request; as a request for comment. DrKiernan (talk) 15:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
That's the way to go. We've exhausted the move request method. GoodDay (talk) 15:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I still vote that we make monarchs dimabiguate the same way as every other page. To WT:NC(RN), my good chums, ahoy! --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 04:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

We're now approaching 3-weeks (since the request was made). When is the RM gonna be closed & when are we gonna have a RfC? GoodDay (talk) 16:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The RfM can be resolved without the need for an RfC, the thing is an RfC is no more productive to finding a solution than a continuation of this RfM. The RfC is just a step on the way towards an ARBCOM ruling, something the broader WP:NC is long over due for. Gnangarra 16:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Exception

The opposition to renaming of this article hinges on the presumption that the change is intent upon forcing a change to the naming convention for monarchs. We should all know and recognise that while conventions exist to guide in the creation of articles they are only a guide and that circumstance will/do occur where the guide is unable to provide a satisfactory resolution. The question is how can the change be recognised for what it is an exception to the rule(guide), the closing Admin can make such a clarification when closing the RfM which would negate proposals to change the guide based on this decision. This addresses both the problems with this articles title and the concerns over ripple affects across other articles, all it needs is for those concerned about Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) to acknowledge this RfM as an exception rather than a wedge. Gnangarra 16:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for this constructive suggestion. My preference for the current article title is threefold: 1. For me, it best complies with the "most common name used in English" principle when balanced, as is typically done, with other factors in choosing article titles. Otherwise, Diana, Princess of Wales would be at "Princess Di" and Elizabeth II would be at "The Queen" (at least in English Wikipedia). 2. I consider that NCROY does not contradict the "most common name used in English" premise but implements it in light of the naming challenges unique to royalty: rare use of surnames, repetitive use of first names, frequent but disputable historical changes in names, titulature and reputation. NCROY has, over 7 years and 14 archives of discussion, laboriously raised, researched, debated and documented those challenges in an ever fallible but increasingly cogent effort to identify -- not prescribe -- which principles and formats most often comprehensively address the conflicting issues. So I do value the consistency with which NCROY informs our decision-making process. 3. That said, although I strongly support the efforts of editors, particularly those in non-UK realms of Elizabeth II, to reduce the misconception that she is only, merely queen of Britain, I do believe that she is in fact most strongly associated with England and Britain. Therefore an article move motivated by the desire to deprecate that fact, although understandable, misappropriates Wikipedia by enlisting it in a socio-political struggle which it is Wikipedia's duty to report upon and reflect the outcome of -- not to influence. I strongly believe that it is a mis-reading of Wikipedia's NPOV policy to argue that an article name should not reflect the association of a monarch with one realm more than others. I think in Wikipedia neutrality means giving no undue weight in articles, that is, objectively reflecting whatever is the prevalent and documentable association, not denying, hiding or minimizing it in any way. When most English-users no longer treat the UK as Elizabeth II's primary realm in reputable sources, WP should do likewise, but not until then. Choosing Elizabeth II as article title would take her out of the usual naming format for European monarchs by applying Wiki's "most common name" rule not to enhance ease in searching as originally intended, but to reduce the perception of her disproportionate association with one of her realms, even though that association is accurate. It is an abuse of process to promote a reality different than that which exists in the belief that doing so is more "fair" and therefore more "neutral" than reporting an unfair reality. Because Wikipedia has growing use and therefore influence, this burdens the struggle of those who are trying to ensure that Elizabeth's realms be treated equally vis-a-vis their common monarch. I acknowledge and regret this, but don't feel it justifies naming this article in a way that is inconsistent with current reality and Wikipedia's commitment to objectivity. The alternative I've proposed is that a section of the article (and others), properly sourced, be included which addresses the perception and treatment of the Commonwealth realms relative to their Queen, and any ways in which that treatment is inaccurate and/or subject to change or evolution. In light of the above 3 points, I would support a change to "Elizabeth II" as a one-off compromise that is agreed and understood not to deprecate NCROY's applicability otherwise, nor to create a precedent. Unfortunately, based upon the sincerely held differing convictions of others in this discussion, I do not think most of them can agree to such a compromise, since they will want to ride the momentum of a change here. But if they can, I will -- and gladly, even though I genuinely do prefer the article as it now is. FactStraight (talk) 21:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Just to let the editors know, this discussion has been adressed at the ANI noticeboard so hopfully the admins will see it close this discussion which (as far as I can see) should go for a no consensus decision. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

No consensus? How so? When two-thirds of participants support the move? In fact, nevermind the !voting, the arguments in favor of the move are far greater in number and importance than those against. --~Knowzilla (Talk) 11:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Notwithstanding the closure by a bias party, I have started a Request for Comment: Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Article title. DrKiernan (talk) 08:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elizabeth_II/Archive_21&oldid=1146706699"