Wikipedia

Talk:Elizabeth II/Archive 20

< Talk:Elizabeth II
(Redirected from Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Archive 20)
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Ds1994 in topic Requested move
Archive 15←Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22→Archive 25

Disputed Name

Latest comment: 14 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

There has been no resolution of the name for this article therefore there should be box at the top to say that the title is disputed and probably one to question the neutrality of the title as well. 78.86.226.253 (talk) 12:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no current dispute and no need for tags. The matter was withdrawn first and then when discussed again it was closed as no-consensus.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 12:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes but that means no consensus on the current name either. 78.86.226.253 (talk) 20:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Her Majesty the Queen is not Elizabeth of the United Kingdom. The Union of the Crowns was in 1603 and the Union of Parliament in 1707. Both these dates are after Queen Elizabeth I of England. The present Queen should be described as Elizabeth, Her Majesty the Queen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radleybaggirl (talk • contribs) 13:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It's Eilzabeth II of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 14:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes it's Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom etc. I wish people would read a little bit more history and stop clogging up the discussion. The Union of the two Crowns, together with the Union of the English and Scottish Parliaments, did not take place until the Act of Union in 1707.Ds1994 (talk) 17:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Descended from Alfred the Great

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

This needs to be added. Queen Elizabeth II is directly descended from King Alfred the Great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.167.81.221 (talk) 10:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Why? GoodDay (talk) 22:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes indeed, why? Or, why stop at Alfred the Great, how about King Cerdic of Wessex? (early sixth century). How long do you want the piece of string to be? Ds1994 (talk) 17:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Church of England, Church of Scotland

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

This should simply read "Anglican" - the Church of England and Church and Scotland are but two churches within the Anglican communian, of which Queen Elizabeth II is the head. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.137.138 (talk) 16:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The Sovereign of the UK is not head of the Anglican Communion, but of the Church of England.--Gazzster (talk) 21:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The Church of Scotland is not part of the Anglican Communion nor can it be described as Anglican. Plus the Queen is not head of the Kirk but rather is just an ordinary member. Scroggie (talk) 22:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Anon seems to be confusing the Scottish Episcopal Church with the CofS. David Underdown (talk) 22:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen...

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I just came here from Australia, I was planning to add a note about the head of state to the intro when I realised I would have to link it to 'Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom'. Kind of odd when I was discussing her role as Queen of Australia. I do realise there's probably a precedent or policy here, but I feel the title as it stands is less then brilliant, and certainly less than neutral. Elizabeth II would rarely be referred to as Queen of the United Kingdom almost anywhere in the anglophone world (even in the US, where the less correct Queen of England prevails), the title is clumsy. It also doesn't aptly describe the article, which deals with the person in all her regal capacities, not just that as Queen of the UK. I would suggest this be moved to the more simple and more common "Elizabeth II", for reasons of neutrality and accessibility (I'd like to know how many people would first type all that when looking for this article, assuming obviously they were not previously aware of its obscure location). —what a crazy random happenstance 11:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. The current article name is a violation of NPOV and is also a made up one, 'Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom' has never before been used in any notable sources, and if I remember right it is against WP policy to make up titles/names. Elizabeth II is shorter, completely neutral, and probably the best name for the article. The reason it hasn't been moved is usually because of biased people with their own agenda stopping it from happening. There has not been any monarch or anyone else with the name 'Elizabeth II' who come even close to being as notable as The Queen. --~Knowzilla (Talk) 12:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Thar this issue keeps coming up again and again should say something to those who always claim it's irrelevant. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

Latest comment: 14 years ago145 comments37 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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.

Casting vote do not move. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

"Casting vote"? Who has one of those? Presumably this means simply no consensus to move?--Kotniski (talk) 16:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Quite an odd poll closure, I've briefly reopened it. The discussion has indeed headed to a close, but perhaps another admin should do the honours. Very strange. —what a crazy random happenstance 17:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
  1. In contrast to monarchs succeeding to the British throne prior to the Statute of Westminster 1931, these three monarchs all succeeded to the shared throne of the Commonwealth, and as such ruled over multiple independent states from accession. The current article titles choose one of these states in preference to the others. This could be perceived as nationalistic, non-neutral and bias.
  2. In these three cases, disambiguation from other monarchs or articles by adding "of a Country" is unnecessary. Edward VIII is the only person of that name. George VI is obviously and unambiguously the prime use of that term google scholar search for "George VI of Georgia". Elizabeth II is the prime use of that term. All three suggested locations are redirects to the current titles.
  3. The main reason cited by opposition to the moves in the past is adherence to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles). However, the guideline permits exclusions, such as the List of rulers of Lithuania and List of Polish monarchs, and states that an unambiguous name without a country can be used.
  4. The article titles relating to British monarchs already reflect changes in the political structure of the British monarchy. 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 political structure of the British monarchy since 1931. DrKiernan (talk) 12:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[1]

Discussion

I was wondering the same thing. Perhaps it should be moved as well. George V redirects to George V of the United Kingdom anyhow. --~Knowzilla (Talk) 15:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Incredibly strong support - I have explained my reasons so many times. In short: Moving these articles to those names, of which those persons are the only notable ones who hold them anyway, will make all those article names fully NPOV, simple, and factually correct, especially for EIIR. --~Knowzilla (Talk) 15:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Seriously, incredibly, majestically, strong support: for all the reasons set out above. – ukexpat (talk) 15:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Haha! Damn you both for your one-upmanship! --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose, European monarch bios are titled as X of country. More importantly, the British monarch bios are titled as X of country. Also, wheither we like it or not, the United Kingdon (though equal among 16) is commonly seen as the Queen's primary realm. GoodDay (talk) 18:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
The point is that Elizabeth isn't merely a European monarch, let alone merely a British monarch. England is commonly known as the Queen's primary realm. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
My current stance remains. We've got the multiple monarchy stuff properly mentioned in the infobox & the article content. GoodDay (talk) 19:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps your stance does remain the same; however, it's clearly irrational. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
IMHO, my reasoning is rational & that's what matters most to me. GoodDay (talk) 21:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Ah, but, in these situations, it's convincing others that matters more than convincing yourself. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not budging. GoodDay (talk) 21:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Nobody asked you to; in fact, I've been prompting you to try and budge me (and others on my side of this debate). --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
That's not my style. GoodDay (talk) 21:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Which greatly weakens your argument. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
That's your opinon. The closing administrator shall have the final say on what's valid & what's not. GoodDay (talk) 23:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I know, and it was his/her opinion I had in mind when urging you to explain yours. However, if you feel you've said enough, so be it. No worries on my part. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, for your concerns. GoodDay (talk) 23:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose per all the arguments made in umpteen previous attempted moves. These three are not unique examples of monarchs with multiple separate thrones and no-one has put forward a convincing reason for exceptionalism. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Indeed; I'd be intrigued to hear Timroll explain how unique does not warrant exceptionalism. He might also offer some light on why he thinks this proposal has come up "umteen" times, and is bound to come up again. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
That was a typo, now corrected. And just look through the talkpage archives to find the basic same proposal coming up many times. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Please provide some examples of other monarchs with unambiguous names and numerals that rule over multiple states. I'd like to propose that they also be moved. DrKiernan (talk) 08:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose I think undue importance is being placed on the Statute of Westminster 1931 as a constitutional document. Yes, its equality provisions would give the dominions much more theoretical political autonomy, but it would not be until Queen Elizabeth II that the Crown would be seen as divisible; Edward VIII would not style himself as "Edward VIII of New Zealand" for example. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 20:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
  • So, in other words, you support the move to Elizabeth II, but not the other two. I would also point out the Edward VIII of New Zealand is not one of the options. DrKiernan (talk) 20:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm neutral on the Elizabeth II article, but for the reasons laid out by other editors I'd be inclined to oppose. My understanding was that the current titles are being opposed because these monarchs were heads of state of multiple countries - though in my opinion, this doesn't change the fact that before Elizabeth succeeded to the throne, post-Statute of Westminster monarchs were still all styled exclusively as kings of the United Kingdom. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 22:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
That's actually incorrect; they were "of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas," not exclusively of the United Kingdom. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose WP has a convention that articles on monarchs should usually have a title in this form. If other forms exist, they should exist only as redirects. The convention was adopted for a good reason: we need a stable format, otherwise we get an anarchy of renaming, which is not good for WP. Peterkingiron (talk)
DrKiernan already pointed in his OP out how there is no stable format. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
No, he didn't; the format differs for James I and, say, Edward VII, but the same process that leads to James I of England and Edward VII of the United Kingdom results in Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. Describing this as instability is (at best) misleading; this has been stable for years. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Indeed he did; he mentioned two deviations and a guideline that says why they're okay. He then asked why these articles should not also be allowed exceptions to the rule, and the question has, so far, not really been answered. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose This proposal is an incredible can of worms, don't go there. There is a strong presumption on Wikipedia that monarchs are "Joe X of Ruritania", it needs a strong case to overturn this. The nominator claims that deciding that one country was a monarch's primary realm is nationalistic bias, this ignores the fact that some monarchs before this are described as "of England", "of Great Britain" or "of the United Kingdom" even though they were also monarch of Ireland or Hanover. Several French kings were also king of Navarre. George VI is not unambiguous, is it nationalistic bias to regard the UK king as primary meaning of this name even though we also have George VI of Georgia and George VI of Imereti? The Statute of Westminster is a relatively minor technical re-adjustment, it could come as a surprise to most people that it marked a fundamental shift in the nature of the UK monarchy. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, but our naming conventions should be robust enough to cope with some developments which may well take place fairly soon without having to be fundamentally re-adjusted e.g. if we get "Charles III of the UK" competing with Charles III of Spain. We have several monarchs already who are the sole or primary meaning of a given name e.g. George III, IV and V of the UK, Robert III and James V of Scotland, should they all be moved? Or does the "Commonwealth Realms" have a unique character? If you read guidelines, you will see that Lithuania gets through because its monarchs had a completely different namestock with the rest of Europe. PatGallacher (talk) 02:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
There was once a strong perception that men were better then women, and boy was solving that a can of worms. Yes, melodramatic, but just because a convention has been enshrined by a select group of traditional monarchist editors doesn't mean that said convention is right or neutral. The other monarchs named as such are named for a very simple reason - that was their most common English name. "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom" in NOT the most common name of said queen anywhere in the anglophone world, especially not in the non-British Commonwealth realms, the population of which incidentally exceeds that of the UK. Though I doubt Canadians and Australians will search Wikipedia for "Elizabeth II of Canada" or "of Australia", they will be quite surprised to find her at this location, as I was. The arrangement is a violation of neutrality. —what a crazy random happenstance 02:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually, educated Australians are very aware that, in relation to the British Isles, she's not "Queen of England" but "Queen of the UK". They're just as aware that, in relation to our country, she's Queen of Australia. They know she wears many hats. But she's still very much thought of as a British person, who lives in Britain where she continues the tradition of monarchs of those faraway isles, speaks with a decidedly British accent, consults with her British PM far, far more often than she does with any of her other PMs, and visits Australia only every now and then, and when she does have occasion to acknowledge the existence of her Australian realm, she does not pronounce the name of the country the way her antipodean subjects do. So it's not all that shocking for us to find our monarch referenced as "Queen of the UK". (Disclaimer: This should not be seen as support for the NO case, as I'm currently on the fence about it). -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 05:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I found your response fantastic and humorous, but I'm sure the monarchists would disagree, and they're obviously a (the?) stakeholder group here. We're not proposing that Elizabeth II of the UK be moved to Elizabeth II of Australia, merely to Elizabeth II. It makes sense, how often have you heard her referred to as 'Elizabeth II of the UK', both in Australia and overseas? I don't think I've ever heard 'Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom' in my life. The Queen should be placed at the most common name, the one where the most people are likely to go looking for her, and though you don't find the neutrality thing to be an issue yourself, I'm sure you can see how it may be considered one by some. This vote comes up every few months, and the only argument the oppose-voters really have is 'we want to keep the status quo, change is hard and scary'. —what a crazy random happenstance 15:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
If I may correct you, I did not say or claim it was nationalistic bias. I said it could be perceived as bias. Racism/nationalism is often in the eye of the beholder, rather than in the thought of the doer. My point is that if we can easily avoid offending people who are sensitive to such matters, then we should avoid offending them. So, if we can easily avoid offending readers simply by removing a few words that are unnecessary anyway, and without any loss of meaning or understanding, then we should do it. DrKiernan (talk) 09:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Strong oppose Monarchs are of a particular country. --IdiotSavant (talk) 03:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
You're right, I propose this be moved to 'Elizabeth II of Barbados', or perhaps 'Elizabeth II of Tuvalu'. The queen does not rule those nations in her capacity as Queen of the United Kingdom but completely separately as Queen of Tuvalu and Queen of Barbados. They are entirely independent nations, with their own succession laws and their own monarchy. —what a crazy random happenstance 03:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Monarchs are of a particular country? This just shows you couldn't even be bothered to read the article at hand. QEII is Queen and Head of State, equally, of 16 sovereign countries. --~Knowzilla (Talk) 04:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
This is a problem I perceive in this discussion (and have in others like it); people "vote" without familiarising themselves either with the article or the argument for the move, giving a knee-jerk reaction rather than a formulated reply. It's depressing. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. The present naming convention for royalty is silly. We should be using the name most commonly used by reliable sources, disambiguated as necessary. I understand this is difficult for royalty, but that is no reason to throw our hands in the air and give up. Hesperian 05:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support for Elizabeth II. Extraordinary circumstances call for extraordinary solutions. Neutral on others.--Ibagli (Talk) 05:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Should we not include the title of Queen, in the page title if we are eliminating the UK part at the end? I see it as her most widely used title regardless of country. Plus it seems fairly neutral to me.Outback the koala (talk) 05:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose per the fact that I sympathize with the reasons behind the proposal, but I do not think it is in wikipedia's best interests to make these pages an exception to the present naming conventions, at this time. Outback the koala (talk) 04:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment I quote 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. When several states are so associated, it is proper and often desirable to give the others compensating prominence in the introduction of the article." Earlier it states explicitly that pre-emptively disambiguating monarchs by country is an exception to the general rule of most common name on Wikipedia. If I understand people correctly, they are objecting to the guideline that in cases of dual, triple monarchy etc. we refer to the monarch by their most important country, on the grounds that this introduces bias. This would have implications for dozens of monarchs and in many cases would raise the question of how we do disambiguate them. At the very least, this should have been raised on the talk page for WP:NCROY instead of inserting the thin end of a very thick wedge in relation to just 3 monarchs. Also, "Elizabeth II" is not her most common name, in Britain she is usually just known as "the Queen", and BBC News 24, aimed at an international audience, calls her "Queen Elizabeth". I am genuinely puzzled by the claim that she is "exceptional", in what way? PatGallacher (talk) 10:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment DrKiernan did have the merit of recognising that this proposal could have wider implications when he said "Please provide some examples of other monarchs with unambiguous names and numerals that rule over multiple states. I'd like to propose that they also be moved." Actually, George VI of the UK is not unambiguous although he is the primary meaning of George VI, there were also kings of Georgia and Imereti. Examples are: Louis XIII, Louis XIV, Louis XV and Louis XVI of France, all unambiguous names and numerals who were also king of Navarre, George III and George IV of the United Kingdom, not unambigous but the primary meaning who were also king of Hanover, and Anne of Great Britain, the only monarch of this name who was also Queen of Ireland. You can probably find other examples e.g. from Scandinavia. Should they all be moved? PatGallacher (talk) 11:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
"King of Navarre" is a title, in the same way that "King of Bohemia" was a title of the Austrian emperors. It doesn't mean that Navarre or Bohemia were independent sovereign states. Similarly, Ireland was not an independent sovereign state; its parliament was subordinate to that of Westminster. These examples are not pertinent. You are correct that Georges III and IV were kings of two independent sovereign states, but does anyone from Hanover complain that the article titles are wrong? There does not appear to be a perception of bias in those two cases. DrKiernan (talk) 12:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually Navarre was an independent sovereign state at the start of the reign of Louis XIII, up to 1620. The Irish parliament was subordinate to Westminster during the period we are discussing, but the Scottish parliament was not, it retained some degree of genuine independence up to 1707. Wikipedia guidelines should be sufficiently robust and impartial that we should not have to wait from complaints from specific countries before avoiding bias. PatGallacher (talk) 01:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Exactly, so we agree. Louis XIII, etc are not valid examples because Navarre was subordinate to France from that point on, and Ireland is not a valid example because it was subordinate to England. DrKiernan (talk) 09:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
That still doesn't answer the point about Scotland during 1603-1707. With Louis XIII, do we deal with the situation at the start of his reign, when Navarre was a state, or the end of his reign when it was not? The Kingdom of Hanover was not that unimportant, it was independent enough have different laws of succession from the UK (unlike the Commonwealth Realms today) and get a different monarch in 1837. I used to think it was a small strip of territory myself, it was only when I looked at the map in the article a few minutes ago that I realised it covered a large part of northern Germany. See WP:BIAS, opposing systemic bias on Wikipedia is to be encouraged, we do not have to wait for complaints from the people who have been biased against. PatGallacher (talk) 13:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
I think we should stick in Louis XIII's case to the end of the reign for simplicity's sake. I think it's fine just to add "and Scotland" to Charles I, Charles II and Mary II. It is just an extra two words on top of four words and really isn't too onerous. I'm not sure what to do in the other cases, as their article titles would increase to eight or more words, which is beginning to get a little unwieldy. Anyway, we can't propose changes in this discussion for other pages beyond the three mentioned above. For other pages, a new discussion will have to be started. DrKiernan (talk) 13:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - no reason to have the bizarre disambiguators when these are clearly primary topics. All the oppose arguments seem to be "we can't do this because it's against the rules", which is ridiculous - if the rules would lead us to do stupid things, then we either tweak the rules or make an exception. If consistency is an issue, then it's far more valuable to be consistent with Wikipedia's global naming principles than with one specific topic guideline (which has also spawned the even more atrocious article title Victoria of the United Kingdom).--Kotniski (talk) 11:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
You mean don't change the article without changing the convention, presumably, but the convention would naturally be updated to reflect the changes, so this is another example of what I regard as a non-argument.--Kotniski (talk) 12:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
No, I do not mean that, and I request that you do not regard my point as "a non-argument". My point is that if a convention is problematic, then you need to seek a consensus to change it, otherwise the convention will be reapplied to any change made here, because it forms the basis of right and wrong at a macro level. No consensus = no change. A convention has and always will have more weight than a article talk page. As stated in WP:MOS, "consistency promotes professionalism... and eases navigation for our readers"; the selective application of conventions is unwise as it sets precedent for irrational debate and irrational users to cite as an example to enforce unreasonable changes. I'm not saying I support the convention, but if it is not serving its purpose then it would be more productive and sustainable to change it before anything else. For that reason, I maintain my strong opposition to changing the title on the basis that we have a convention that should not be broken. --Jza84 |  Talk  14:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
That's a little backwards. Policies, guidelines and conventions on Wikipedia describe actual practices. When the guidelines are out of synch with practice, that indicates the guideline needs to be changed. older ≠ wiser 14:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
...or that an action needs to be reverted back to established convention? But you make my point for me: change the guideline first, article second; it will have much more longevity. What is there to fear? --Jza84 |  Talk  14:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Where a guideline does not reflect actual practice, it should be changed, not vice versa. Changing a guideline without the context of actual practice is difficult at best.
While I don't object to a change in the guideline, for this proposal specifically, the guideline already allows for exceptions (and exceptions do exist). In other words, the guideline is actually a seperate matter all together. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support per Hesperian, Kotinski and others. The naming conventions for royalty (and other nobility) are bizarrely counterintuitive and often result in completely unnecessary pre-emptive disambiguation when the common name should be used instead. older ≠ wiser 12:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Naming conventions allow of exceptions. 'Elizabeth II' is unambiguous. There is no risk of confusion with any other current or historical figures. She is a monarch of 16 sovereign countries, all of which have their own titles for Elizabeth II.--Gazzster (talk) 13:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support as per the comments above but more importantly per WP:NPOV the article titles are not neutral it recognise one country over all others, if there is a reason to disambiguate between multiple people then the disambiguation should by the period of reign. Gnangarra 13:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
What a good idea! Actually, on further reflection, I've come to see how that wouldn't work, as it would only lead to the question of: period of which reign? Elizabeth II, for instance, has reigned over thirty-odd countries in her time, all beginning and ending at different points. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
yeah that could end even more complicated, but we do need to resolve the issue of WP:NPOV Gnangarra 13:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support per Kotniski and others. Wikipedia rules are one thing, common sense is second thing. There is a difference between monarch of one small territory and monarch-head of state of 16 different countries. This should be reflected. - Darwinek (talk) 13:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Because your argument is that "Elizabeth II" is her most common name - and it isn't. Deb (talk) 18:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
We have to interpret "most common name" as "name most commonly expected to be used as the title of an encyclopedia article". Barack Obama is commonly referred to in the US as "the President", just as E2 is referred to as "the Queen", but that does not mean there should be articles titled "The President" or "The Queen". The person people mean when they say "the Queen" is the person they would expect to find in an encyclopedia as "Elizabeth II" or "Queen Elizabeth II". Just as they would expect to find Queen Victoria referenced as, surprise, "Queen Victoria". And if they did come across an article called "Elizabeth II" while browsing, they would assume it was about the one who currently lives in Buckingham Palace, not some obscure eastern European they'd never heard of before. For these reasons, I have decided to ...
Per Deb, most models of automobile are most commonly known by the common noun "car"; but if you actually read the "use the most common name" guideline, you'll discover that we're to use the most common name as used by reliable sources. The reliable sources we would use when writing an article about a specific model of automobile are going to refer to that model by its model name or number, not by the generic "car". How this relates to "the Queen" I shall leave as an exercise for the reader.... Hesperian 06:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - as per the foregoing. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - these are clearly the primary topics and the names "X of the United Kingdom" are misleading and inaccurate. Elizabeth II is Queen of many other realms, and the present article title implies differently. It also tends to make a POV political inference that she is not properly Queen of the other countries. The only other alternative would be "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdon, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Grenada etc." Xandar 00:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose the numbering comes from being monarch of England, so it should be Elizabeth II of England, etc. The numbering of Scottish monarchs differed, and this is the first queen regnant by the name of Elizabeth for the Dominions of Canada, Australia and New Zealand, so... II never did make sense. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 05:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
The above contribution should be stricken as both incorrect and irrelevant. The proposal has nothing to do with regnal numbers. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Not to worry Mies, Wikipedia is not a democracy, and this is not a vote. If there are completely incorrect and irrelevant statements, they can and will be ignored when seeing what the current consensus is here. --~Knowzilla (Talk) 05:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Isn't the numbering for whichever country would be higher? ----Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 06:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
No, because then we'd have James VI and VII rather than I and II. The numbering is another weakness of the present name; if we said "Elizabeth II, Queen of the United Kingdom" (which I believe is the official form) that wouldn' be so bad, but the name we've invented implies that she's the second Elizabeth of the UK.--Kotniski (talk) 09:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
And I don't believe the closing admin reads all the arguments. It won't make any difference here because we all know the result will be "no consensus", but I think the strong oppose above should be struck or at least asterisked or something, since the argument that follows it is clearly for the proposal if anything.--Kotniski (talk) 09:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Arctic.gnome is correct. As discussed many times before, the convention as agreed is that the monarch takes the highest regnal number occuring in either the Kingdom of England or the Kingdom of Scotland. So if there is a future King James he will be known as King James VIII of the United Kingdom. By the way we've already had James VI & I, and James II & VII, as their regnal numbers were stated separately at the time. Following on from this principle we could have a King David III of the United Kingdom, as there were two previous King David's in Scotland but none in England. Hope that helps. Ds1994 (talk) 15:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Support The current title should be about her role in the UK whereas the title with just her name should be more biographical. I'd like to see that format become our standard convention rather than making an exception for her. ----Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 06:26, 10 January 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"), 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) 07:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Locations of explanation aside (there's no reason why the lead infomation has to change because of a neutral title), this begs two questions: Do naming conventions trump NPOV? And, is "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom" really the most common name for the subject of this article? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
WP:NPOV is a pillar of Wikipedia WP:NC is just a subset of WP:MOS which helps editors construct articles. NC should be reflective of community practices unlike NPOV which sets the standards for community practices. Gnangarra 13:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Further investigation and blatant WP:OR by reading List of titles and honours of Queen Elizabeth II since 1953 every country including the UK her title is Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, ..., Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, etc suggest maybe this article could be at the neutral Elizabeth II, Head of the Commonwealth Gnangarra 13:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Even if that were a good solution, it would be a solution to a non-problem. "Elizabeth II" (with nothing after it) is already neutral and unoriginal and recognizable and (globally) consistent and everything else we could wish for. I really think the only reason some people can't accept it is that they've become emotionally attached to a particular naming convention (which in most cases admittedly serves us well).--Kotniski (talk) 13:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
That is an inherent problem with WP:NC's in that exceptions needed to be execptionally exceptional. I agree that Elizabeth II should be the home without additional clarifiers/disambiguatiants. Gnangarra 15:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The fact of the matter is that the UK is the Queen's primary realm - by which I mean it's where she lives, where she has a direct influence on government (rather than having an intermediary in that role), and where her wages are payed through taxation. Furthermore, looking at it from a different angle, out of the 16 realms, the UK is the most important as a world power and has the largest economy. And it hardly needs pointing out that the UK is her oldest realm from which all the others are offshoots. And, in an attempt to answer the inevitable objections, I'm fully aware of the legal equality between the realms, but law is just one aspect of reality that never tells the whole story. ðarkuncoll 13:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
And yet, the title is still breaches our neutrality policies. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I would not mind a change which allowed monarchs with unambiguous names, or which are primary topics, to not have the country over which they ruled mentioned in the title. That being said, I strongly oppose any effort to claim that it is showing unfair "bias" to include only one country of several reigned over in an article title, and any claims that the case with the commonwealth realms is in any way unique. If you try hard enough, I'm sure you can come up with a very convoluted explanation as to why it's wrong to say that the monarchs who have resided in London since 1931 are rulers first and foremost of the United Kingdom, but it's totally okay to do the following:
    • Use "Spain" for the rulers who ruled over Castile and Aragon (Spain), but also over Portugal (1580-1640), Naples (1504-1713), Sicily (1479-1713), the Spanish Netherlands (1516-1713), and so forth;
    • Use "Spain" as the sole moniker for Charles III of Spain, who reigned over Naples and Sicily for two and a half decades prior to his tenure as king of Spain
    • Use "Sweden" for the men who ruled over both Sweden and Norway from 1814-1905.
    • Use "Denmark" for the men who ruled over Denmark, Norway, and Sweden from 1397 to 1523, and then over both Denmark and Norway from 1523 to 1814
    • Use "Holy Roman Emperor" for Habsburg monarchs who were also kings of Hungary and held numerous other titles
    • Use "Austria" for the same, after 1804
    • Use "German Emperor," for men who were also kings of Prussia from 1871 to 1918
    • Use "Hungary" for Louis I of Hungary, who was also for 12 years king of Poland
    • Use "Great Britain" or "United Kingdom" for men who were also electors and kings of Hanover
    • Use "England" or "Great Britain" for men and women who also reigned over Scotland
    • Use "Brazil" for a man who was also (under a different ordinal) king of Portugal
    • Use "France" for two rules (Henry IV and Louis XIII) who were also kings of Navarre
    • Use "Prussia" for men who were also separately electors of Brandenburg, among other distinct titles
    • Use "Elector of Brandenburg" for men who were also separately dukes of Prussia, among other distinct titles
    • Use "France" for Henry III of France, previously King of Poland
I'm sure a convoluted case can be made as to why the commonwealth realms are completely unique, and distinct, and none of these comparisons is at all appropriate, but that case would be totally bogus and ad hoc. By all means move to a straightforward rule where uniquely named and primary topic monarchs don't need country in their article title, if you want. If the proposed change was well-thought out and well-reasoned I might vote for it. But the arguments of bias are bogus, and, taken seriously, would lead to total chaos and, potentially, a lot of very awkwardly titled articles. john k (talk) 18:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Arguements of Bias are not bogas, and WP:NPOV doesn't lead to chaos and the current Naming convention is creating very awkwardly titled articles that why this discussion is taking place and why its occured a number of times. Clearly the blanket approach for Naming Conventions is failing to address the problem with these particular articles, whats needed is a common sense approach to NC where its accepted that there are exceptions to the rule rather then forcing the rule on all because at the moment we have a POV article title that is also not the most common usage for the subject. Gnangarra 13:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
As always, nobody is willing to engage with the fact that the commonwealth realms are not in any way unique. I'm happy to talk about the title not being the most common usage, but the "POV" claim is ridiculous. Please explain why Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom is unacceptably POV, but Philip II of Spain and Oscar I of Sweden are fine, or else provide some sort of general guideline which would allow us to avoid these supposed "POV" issue which are endemic to a huge percentage of articles on royalty. If you can't do one of these two things (and nobody has yet been able to do so, or really even tried), I don't see why anyone should listen to any of these ridiculous claims of POV. john k (talk) 16:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
The thing is other stuff may exist, this discussion is about these three articles which have an issue that becuase of commonality they can be considered together as the reasonings are the same for each(noting that one is also a BLP). Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom is POV because it ignores all other countries where she is also Queen, where as if the article is at Elizabeth II there is no POV in the title, if there is some arguement that can but presented that QEII isnt the primary topic when one refers to Elizabeth II then the disambiguation should be where its not bias to one country thats at Elizabeth II Head of the Commonwealth which is the only descriptive part of her title that is common to every country. Gnangarra 13:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
If you read WP:OTHERSTUFF you will see that sometimes "other stuff exists" can be a legitimate argument, and this really applies to deletion discussions not naming disputes. So it is perfectly legitimate to point out that a proposal to re-name an article can have implications for other articles. Also, the issues with these 3 article are not identical, because 2 of them are the sole meaning of Elizabeth II and Edward VIII, but one of them is the primary meaning but not the sole meaning of George VI. PatGallacher (talk) 16:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Most of your historic examples above are of occasions where a King had other titles within his greater Kingdom. The difference with the Queen is that she is monarch of severall totally independent nations that are not ruled by the government of the United Kingdom. That makes this circumstance very different. Xandar 00:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
"Greater kingdom" is open to interpretation, I don't think it applies to all the cases listed above. Also, the political situation can change e.g. Scotland during 1603-1707 was at times effectively ruled from London, but at times it was for most practical purposes a separate country where the monarch was a figurehead. PatGallacher (talk) 13:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Lol. Good one, Happenstance.--Gazzster (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
You're right, Happenstance, I didn't understand that before. In light of this, I'm going to have to change my vote to crapping myself. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

People are increasingly floundering about arguing that the Commonwealth Realms are historically unique. During the period of Covenanter rule, from the First Bishops' War to Cromwell's invasion, Scotland was effectively a separate country with its own government, not subordinate to the English government, where the king (Charles I or Charles II) was a figurehead with little or no real power. I also question whether Scotland was clearly subordinate to England between the Glorious Revolution and the Union of the Parliaments. Ireland was in a similar position during the Civil War (see Confederate Ireland). I don't see why it should make a significant difference whether the countries are on different continents, but if that's your argument then John VI of Portugal and Pedro I of Brazil were both for a short period monarchs of Brazil and Portugal without one being clearly subordinate to the other. There must be several examples of monarchs in the Mediterranean Basin who ruled over territory in more than one continent. We also have the question of what to call a monarch of the Commonwealth Realms, or any similar formation, who is not the primary meaning of their name + number combination. PatGallacher (talk) 11:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

And some people have completely avoided the very obvious fact that their cherished naming conventions flout NPOV policy. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion

Since this keeps coming up and it's unlikely that any obvious consensus will ever be reached through these standard move debates, perhaps we could aim towards a community poll along the lines of the recent Ireland naming poll, to choose between a few reasonable options for monarch naming?--Kotniski (talk) 11:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I would probably hold off on such a vote until at least this move is resolved, just to get a feeling of where the community is heading. Think of it as a litmus test for a larger vote. —what a crazy random happenstance 15:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree - I don't think many people have really thought it through or seen the argument in the context of an on-line encyclopedia. Besides, most wikipedia contributors live in countries that have no monarchy or titled classes and don't really understand the rationale behind the conventions. Deb (talk) 16:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
We don't pander to royalty, we're an encyclopaedia. I think the majority understand that and agree, regardless of nation – they are not simply ignorant, as you suggest. —what a crazy random happenstance 07:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Concern

I have grave concerns over DrKiernan (talk · contribs), and his actions at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) ([3], [4], [5]) during this debate. I do not think that is proper. --Jza84 |  Talk  14:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

DrKiernan has now initiated a discussion here. I too am somewhat disheartened to see such behaviour by an admin. Though he did not violate WP:3RR his edits bordered on edit warring, and were probably not appropriate given the ongoing discussion here. I hope they do not reflect poorly on this move, the validity of which ought not to be put in question by his behaviour. —what a crazy random happenstance 15:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Kiernan has declared his position, and as a user he has the right to pursue his argument. I should hope though, that as an admin, he would exclude himself from making decisions for these articles, if he were to feel called upon to do so. Those naming conventions, which are not binding in any case, are for European monarchs. As Miesianical and others have pointed out, Elizabeth II is sovereign of only one European nation. The case of the 16 realms that share the same monarch is pretty much sui generis: their relationship to Elizabeth II is unique in the history of the world, and I don't see why the naming conventions can't make exceptions to reflect that.--Gazzster (talk) 02:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Unique? Not at all; not only is there her direct ancestor James I of England who reigned over three realms; but there are also innumerable cases of rulers who reigned over several distinct realms and technically had a different title for each of them; the Habsburgs, the Romanovs, and the Hohenzollerns rang up more than sixteen. In all such cases, we use the best known title and country (Holy Roman Empire, Russia, and Prussia, respectively). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Gazzster's main point, and one I've stressed as well, is that EIIR (as with George VI, Edward VIII, and George V after 1931) is not simply a European monarch. Her sovereignty covers areas on four continents; that is unique. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Neither was Philip II of Spain's. So? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
What independent and sovereign kingdom outside of Europe did he reign over? --~Knowzilla (Talk) 05:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
New Spain. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
In the article Philip II of Spain, it is not even mentioned he was King of New Spain. Furthermore in the article New Spain it clearly states that it was a Spanish colony. --~Knowzilla (Talk) 05:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
The relationship is also unique in that the union is not dominated by a single nation. The same cannot be said of the Stewart, Hanoverian, Hohenzollern, Habsburg and Romanoff dynastic unions.--Gazzster (talk) 05:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
So, tell us: what single nation dominated Austria-Hungary? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Gazzster, he may have the right to pursue his argument, an argument with which I agree, but not by edit warring. Disappointing behaviour by an admin. Did you even look at the diffs? They were simple reverts, and he only stopped when he placed himself in danger of breaching WP:3RR. —what a crazy random happenstance 05:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
To Sept: Austria-Hungary was dominated by Austria and Hungary more or less equally, to the detriment of smaller monarchies and duchies in dynastic union with the Habsburgs: eg., Croatia, Bohemia and Galicia-Lodomeria.To Happenstance: sure, he reverted, like we're all allowed to do. And he stopped short of breaching 3RR.Which would suggest to me that he is not prepared to violate Wikipedia convention.--Gazzster (talk) 07:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not defending his reverts. I'm just pointing out he hasn't overstepped any boundaries yet.--Gazzster (talk) 07:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
3RR is a rule of thumb, not a policy. Edit warring is. His edits were border-line edit warring. —what a crazy random happenstance 07:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

This page is for discussing articles not editors. DrKiernan (talk) 08:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The OP of this section expressed a concern that your actions have negatively affected the poll. I think we should just AGF and let this be, though I agree with the OP that your actions were unjustified. —what a crazy random happenstance 08:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
I have already responded to the accusation at a more appropriate location to discuss editor behaviour. Duplicating the thread here is forum shopping. DrKiernan (talk) 10:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The bigger picture

To those who wish to move the pages, ya should be going for the bigger picture. Attempt to get the guideline changed to monarch's name only for all monarch bio articles. That's is something, I could support. GoodDay (talk) 18:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

There is indeed discussion at WT:NCROY about possibly amending the guideline. (Your suggestion wouldn't work, though, as there would be frequent clashes between names).--Kotniski (talk) 11:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Not necessarily. When needed, we could have Henry III (France), Henry III (England), Henry III (Holy Roman Empire), etc. GoodDay (talk) 16:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
You could suggest that as an alternative proposal at WP:NCROYPOLL if you wanted. (Though I don't see what problems it would solve.)--Kotniski (talk) 08:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Already have. It doesn't seem to be getting any traction though. GoodDay (talk) 16:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Correction - I'm gonna do that now. GoodDay (talk) 16:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Withdrawal of requested move

Latest comment: 14 years ago22 comments6 people in discussion

Can Dr Kiernan do that? Unilaterally close off a discussion like that? Just because he was the originator, does not mean he "owns" the proposal. There has been significant support for it, along with significant opposition, and the discussion should be allowed to run its course, imo, with or without the originator's involvement. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Have it your way, I've re-opened it. DrKiernan (talk) 08:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you.--Gazzster (talk) 08:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
I've unstruck the rationale for the move request, that was deeply inappropriate. I've also fixed the strike-through on your other contribs in order to preserve indentation, leaving them otherwise untouched. It is very unusual to strike-through one's contributions to an entire debate, even if one has changed his mind. —what a crazy random happenstance 08:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Fine, as I said, have it your way. Now that I'm neutral, it doesn't much matter to me one way or the other. DrKiernan (talk) 08:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
As a matter of interest, can you explain what arguments made you change your position?--Kotniski (talk) 09:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
I've changed my "vote!" and my comments. That is not the same as changing my position. Like many other editors here, my actions are often determined by my petulance and temperament rather than by logic and argument. DrKiernan (talk) 09:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
This has to be the first time I've ever seen an admin throw a tantrum. —what a crazy random happenstance 10:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Then you must be very new. DrKiernan (talk) 10:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Been contributing longer than you. Are you really so petty you would attempt to derail a process you agree with just to sulk? Congratulations, because I'm flabbergasted. At least I have the honesty to admit I don't have the temperament to be an admin, you'd rather do a disservice to the community. —what a crazy random happenstance 11:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
The debate has run its course. The result is no consensus. I see no reason to prolong it just so that you and Jza84 can insult me. It is better to close discussions that lead nowhere rather than let them degenerate into arguments over editor behaviour that have no bearing on the actual article. DrKiernan (talk) 11:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Moves usually run for a week at minimum, not a day, as I'm sure you're well aware. Jza84 had a sole pertinent edit, namely the raising of a quite legitimate and politely-put concern about your behaviour. I merely agreed that your actions were somewhat inappropriate, with no prejudice towards you. You threw a tantrum. It was only at that point that I expressed my amazement at the childishness your actions. But I do agree we should return to debating the article rather than you, this is leading nowhere. —what a crazy random happenstance 12:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
With respect, Kiernan, the debate has not run its course. On the contrary, it was stopped suddenly and unexpectedly by yourself.It would appear for an entirely personal reason, as admitted by yourself. The object of the debate is not to criticise your actions. You can hardly expect us not to comment when a supposedly unbiassed admin arbitrarily closes a discussion without the slightest indication that it is at an end.--Gazzster (talk) 21:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Clarified. DrKiernan (talk) 08:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Re-attribution of proposal to Happenstance

See this. Is it just me, or is this really, really odd behaviour? Everyone knowns that Dr Kiernan made the original proposal. Everyone knows he has since had a change of heart, as is his right. But to suggest that, because he's had a change of heart, he never made the original proposal to begin with, is to whitewash history in way that would make Stalin proud. To then add another editor's name as the proposer, even an editor who strongly agrees with the move, is absurd. It was Dr Kiernan, and only Dr Kiernan, who made the original edit, and no other editor's name should appear there. It's tantamount to identity theft. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 12:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

There has been some odd behaviour, but can the meta-discussion about it take place on some other page? We're supposed to be discussing some articles here. --Kotniski (talk) 13:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Explanation here. Discussion here. Not here. DrKiernan (talk) 21:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Seeking clarifcation. Is the 'move request' still on? GoodDay (talk) 21:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
It is open. DrKiernan (talk) 21:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
OK, thanks. GoodDay (talk) 21:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Having read the first of the pages you link I am dismayed, though not surprised, at your rewriting of what occurred. For the record I specifically left your replies/comments struck, only unstriking the text of move proposal itself - the striking of which was deeply inappropriate. That was not a comment, or a reply, but a proposal, it did not belong to you. I did not annotate it, but restored it. I am absolutely flabber-fucking-gasted that you would forge another editor's signature. If you felt that my edits deserved a mention, you could have felt free to add a note saying so (signed by yourself), or ask me to sign. You do NOT misappropriate your comments to others (and leave no note on their talks or any other indicator you have done so). I refuse to believe an admin would be so unfamiliar with the conventions here, and am forced to conclude that that was intended to be malicious. I am deeply tempted to take this to RfC. You appear to be unbalanced and should not posses the sysop bit. —what a crazy random happenstance 03:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

As you wish: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DrKiernan2. DrKiernan (talk) 08:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Other Wikipedias

Latest comment: 14 years ago16 comments11 people in discussion

I decided to have a quick look at how Wikipedias in other languages handle this issue. After translation, the Spanish and French Wikipedias do have her at Elizabeth II of the UK. The German has her at plain Elizabeth II, it seems that they normally refer to a monarch without a country name if this is unambiguous e.g. they have plain Edward VI, VII and VIII, Louis XI to XVIII, but they are not totally consistent, they also have Victoria (UK), Edward V (England) and James V (Scotland). They have George III (UK), George IV (UK) and William IV (UK) even though I assume many German Wikipedians live within what was the Kingdom of Hanover, also Charles I (England). However plain "George VI." will just redirect you to a list of kings called George, they do not judge whether George VI (UK) is more important than George VI (Georgia).

I prefer our existing approach to the German approach, but if we did go for the German approach we ought to do so consistently so we all know where we are. PatGallacher (talk) 14:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

As I'm sure you'd agree, there's a danger in direct comparison with other language wikipedias because usages can have nuances and implications that we're not familiar with. But for what it's worth, we have adopted the same general conventions and disambiguation practices on the Welsh wikipedia as on the English, except that we have changed from "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom" to "Elizabeth II, queen of the United Kingdom". Deb (talk) 15:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Dw i'n hoffi Cymraeg! That's all the Welsh I know though. :) There's also the problem that German and French speakers would due to their geographic location almost universally consider her the queen of the UK, perhaps often not even being aware of the other Commonwealth realms. English is a far more global language, and most speakers would be aware of the extent of the realms because to most Anglophones the Commonwealth is more pertinent than to most, say, Francophones. The common usage in those languages would differ from that in English. There's also the issue that many foreign language Wikipedias could have taken their lead from the enwiki without perhaps having even formulated a guideline of their own, or copied our flawed guideline. I don't think we should look to foreign wikis on this vote. —what a crazy random happenstance 15:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there is a fairly large number of French speakers in Canada. The 2nd paragraph of the Spanish Wikipedia entry lists in full the countries where she is queen, so they are aware of the issue, and remember there are more Spanish speakers in the Americans than Europe. The Tok Pisin Wikipedia calls her "Elisabet 2 bilong Papua Niugini" (but maybe that's their prerogative) and the Maori Wikipedia calls her what looks as if it might mean Elizabeth the Second, but these are very small Wikipedias which do not even have an entry for her father, so they have not had to developing consistent naming conventions. (These are the only examples I can think of of languages spoken in the 18 other Commonwealth realms.) PatGallacher (talk) 16:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, trying to find cross-language conventions is not helpful because there aren't any.There isn't even a consistent Anglophone convention. In the USA she is mostly 'Elizabeth II, Queen of England'. In my country, Australia, she is invariably simply 'Elizabeth II'. The dynastic union of the Commonwealth realms is unique. --Gazzster (talk) 22:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
I obviously don't think that they would be entirely ignorant of her other realms, I merely suggested that the majority (which shapes the 'common name') wouldn't be aware of them. The 6.8 million strong Quebecois population is negligible compared the the 500 million strong francophone population worldwide. —what a crazy random happenstance 04:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
In UK publications she is of course most commonly known simply as 'The Queen', I would say her second most common, and more usable attribution is as 'Queen Elizabeth II'. The (strange) WP rule against use of royal titles in article names goes against this, however. So 'Elizabeth II' as of the German approach, is the preference. The current article title 'Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom', besides its inaccuracy, I can honestly say I have virtually never seen used in UK publications. Xandar 01:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually, Happenstance, it is not "mostly" "Elizabeth II, queen of England" in the US. She is best known here as "Elizabeth the Second" or "Queen Elizabeth". I have never once read or heard "Elizabeth II, queen of England". Frankly, that sounds more like a swipe at Americans because many would identify her as the Queen of England (though many of those would correct themselves). Since I've heard and read where Brits and Canadians have done the same thing, I take exception. -Rrius (talk) 02:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to invite flames by saying that "Queen of England" is unfairly denigrated. In the nineteenth century, everybody called Victoria "Queen of England." Her official title was almost identical to Elizabeth II's ("Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" vs. "Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.") But she was known as "Queen of England," even by people who obviously knew that this was not her official title. Using "England" as shorthand for "the United Kingdom" used to be a perfectly acceptable shorthand, at least in terms of international relations. You'd never say Glasgow was a city in England. But it was fine to call the country as a whole "England." Yeats wrote "For England may keep faith/For all that is done and said." What an ignorant moron! Didn't he know that Lloyd George was Welsh and Bonar Law was Scottish and Sir Edward Carson was Irish? He should have said "For the government of the United Kingdom may keep faith/For all that is done and said." Or, maybe he wasn't a moron, because such usage was considered perfectly fine in 1916. Since then, it's ceased to be an acceptable shorthand in the UK. But the idea that it's somehow objectively incorrect to say that George III was king of England, when everybody at the time called him just that, is silly. john k (talk) 16:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I suppose that, logically, calling the United Kingdom "England" is no different to calling the Netherlands "Holland", which, although of course not formally correct, is still generally accepted. No one would be likely to jump down your throat if you called Beatrix of the Netherlands the "Queen of Holland". Proteus (Talk) 21:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I imagine that people from the Netherlands outside of Holland would. John k tries to make "Queen of England" acceptable because it has been commonly used of a long time; an error, however, is no more correct for its persistence. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Calling anywhere in Scotland or Wales "England" today is definitely not advisable! And in fact all "Kings of England" from Victoria to George VI were officially "King-Emperor" or "Queen Empress", titles that did acknowledge the exist of the other dominions of the Empire. ie. "King of the United Kingdom and the British Dominions, and Emperor of India" Xandar 00:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Victoria to George VI (of course) were not King/Queen of England. GoodDay (talk) 00:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Is this because of the superior claims of the Jacobites' preferred line (of whom I believe Francis II is the current)?--Kotniski (talk) 12:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Nope, in 1707 England became part of a new Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 16:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
You are all missing John k's point. He's saying that the "Queen of England" usage, while not technically accurate, was a correct usage in polite and educated circles, so it is not surprising that it has lingered, especially among people who, because of geography or disposition, aren't affected by the surge in nationalism that has subsequently made the term incorrect. -Rrius (talk) 21:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Tampering with RFC

Latest comment: 14 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

As far as I can see user PatGallacher has tampered with the outcome of this RFC by wrongly and surreptitiously removing my "Support" argument and "vote". See this diff. This seems to be an attempt at falsification. What other comments are being surreptitiously removed? Xandar 01:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

In the interest of AGF I think it probably was just an accident. Maybe someone should browse Pat's edits just to be sure, but I doubt anyone would tamper with the votes on such a high-profile, high-traffic and increasingly high-drama vote. —what a crazy random happenstance 03:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Going over all the edits since the start of the move request, I didn't notice any vote tampering. One presumably accidental removal of another's comments by Bkonrad which was immediately rectified (and is similar to the diff you provide), but no removal of votes bar yours. —what a crazy random happenstance 05:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
This could have been a mistake on my part, not sure how it happened. PatGallacher (talk) 15:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
The usual reason such things happen is an edit conflict which the system has failed to catch; so that A makes a post, and then B, who has been editing a text without A's text, saves his post. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Right. I was just alarmed to see my "vote" removed fifteen minutes after it was posted. I apologise to PatGallacher if I have wrongly seen it as deliberate rather than an accident. Xandar 01:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


NPOV

Latest comment: 14 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion

Some people have argued that the existing title (and by implication a significant part of naming policy for monarchs see WP:NCROY) is contrary to Wikipedia's "neutrality policy". I think this misunderstands this policy, see WP:NPOV. It means neutrality between points of view, it does not mean that we cannot judge a person, place or entity to be more important than another. For example, we have decided that Jackie Stewart, three times world champion racing driver, is more important than Jackie Stewart (football manager), whose greatest achievement was managing the team which won the Scottish 2nd division. We have decided that the primary meaning of Paris is the French city, not the place in Texas. So there is nothing in NPOV to prevent us from identifying a kingdom as the one with which a monarch was primarily associated. I also note that critics of this title don't seem to have a problem with regarding George VI of the United Kingdom as more important that George VI of Georgia and George VI of Imereti. PatGallacher (talk) 22:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

For me, primary topics are not more "important" than the others (how could we judge that?), but are more likely to be the object of interest of a reader typing a certain term into the box. If I think (as I do, perhaps wrongly) that the great majority of readers typing "George VI" and hitting "Go" are looking for the erstwhile London-based monarch, then we do readers a net service by allowing them to go straight to his article (even though that forces the minority to do an extra click to get to their sought articles). Of course, that doesn't mean the article has to be called George VI (that term might just redirect there), but it means that that title is available for that article if we want it. Similarly, I tend to agree that picking one realm over others isn't against NPOV either, but if the resulting name is one that's rarely used in the real world, then it comes up against another core policy, NOR. If we don't have to pick a realm because the person's a primary topic for a shorter name, and if adding the realm to the title isn't going to reduce readers' confusion, then let's just not do it.--Kotniski (talk) 22:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
  • When referring to WP:NPOV see the section Wikipedia:NPOV#Bias Neutrality requires views to be represented without bias or by adding the definition of bias Neutrality requires views to be represented without a tendency or preference towards a particular perspective, ideology the use of of the United Kingdom is a preference towards a particular perspective. In Australia, she is referred to officially as Elizabeth II of Australia.... , in Canada its Elizabeth II of Canada.... and so on for 13 other countries where she is head of state, to avoid the preference to a particular perspective the article needs to be at a neutral heading we should not be making a distinction of any one country being above any other. Gnangarra 12:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's what's meant by NPOV. However, I know Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, but we should anticipate some pitfalls before we fall into them. There is the serious possibility that fairly soon we will have King Charles III, if we don't call him "Charles III of the United Kingdom" what do we call him? I don't think we can just call him Charles III, because we have e.g. Charles III of Spain. He may become George VII, in which case he would be the primary meaning. PatGallacher (talk) 13:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that even though there are other Charles IIIs (or whatevers), the current king of almost all of the non-republican English-speaking world is going to be a perfectly reasonable choice for primary topic here at en.wp. So this isn't really a problem; we'll just call his article Charles III (or whatever other name is taken).--Kotniski (talk) 13:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh yeah? I anticipate a serious battle if this happens. We are an international encyclopedia, not an encyclopedia of the non-republican English-speaking countries. This would be a flagrant example of systemic bias, see WP:BIAS. PatGallacher (talk) 16:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Not exactly; I'm not proposing deleting information about foreign monarchs or any such, just a slightly different system of naming articles. It's not perfect; but then nor is the present system, as is often pointed out. The only way to avoid bias completely is to disambiguate but without mentioning any one realm (something like "Charles III, King of the Commonwealth Realms"). Otherwise, given that we're going to get people jumping up and down shouting "bias" whatever we do, we may as well go for the more concise and recognizable name.--Kotniski (talk) 17:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
And remember, this is but one edition of Wikipedia: the anglophonic one. So it seems perfectly reasonable that Elizabeth II, or Charles III, George VII, William V or whatever should be used. Other Liz2s or Chuck3s are little known in the English-speaking cultural milieu.--Gazzster (talk) 21:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

What exactly are we discussing? what changes are being proposed? GoodDay (talk) 21:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Good question. I am genuinely unsure exactly what change Kotniski is proposing here to naming conventions for monarchs. PatGallacher (talk) 00:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, you started this thread; I'm not proposing anything here, just showing that what you perceive as a problem isn't really a problem (or at least, is no worse a problem than the problem we have already). Proposals are welcome at WT:NCROYPOLL.--Kotniski (talk) 07:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Introduction Improvement

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Points of improvement: (Generally briefer and more specific)

  • First sentence: Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926) is the Monarch of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth Realms. (A listing of the realms is redundant ,and lengthy, since the link is provided).
  • Long sentences(some with multiple points) : Separate into shorter and specific ones.
  • Her father: Her father was George VI. (No need to refer to status in India alone, I'm sure he had many other titles)
  • Make link of "Head of the Commonwealth"
  • etc, etc.. I'm sure the rest of the article has similar defects. Codwiki (talk) 20:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
The monarch bio articles call for the usage of King, Queen regnant, Sovereign Prince/Sovereign Princess, Grand Duke/Grand Duchess regnant, Emperor/Empress regnant etc. GoodDay (talk) 20:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
The opening sentence was settled on after weeks of deliberation, precisely to avoid the pro-British bias you propose to re-insert. Further, while run-ons should be avoided, short sentences can read like they were written for children. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Archive 15←Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22→Archive 25
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elizabeth_II/Archive_20&oldid=1136695574"