Wikipedia

Talk:Princess Milica of Serbia/Archive 1

< Talk:Princess Milica of Serbia
Latest comment: 10 years ago by BDD in topic Requested move (reopened)
Archive 1

Requested move

Latest comment: 11 years ago21 comments5 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.

No consensus to move. bd2412 T 19:49, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Princess Milica of Serbia → Milica of Serbia – Consistency. We have Lazar of Serbia. Even without that argument, "Milica of Serbia" would make much more sense. Relisted see below Andrewa (talk) 18:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC) Surtsicna (talk) 17:53, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

After 1389 she ruled the country for a couple of years, so WP:CONSORTS does not apply in this case.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:53, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
She ruled it as regent, not as a monarch, which means that WP:CONSORTS applies in this case as much as it applies to Anne of Austria, Catherine of Aragon, Isabella of Portugal, etc. Surtsicna (talk) 20:08, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
WP:CONSORTS does not mention regency.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:30, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Exactly. Whether or not she served as regent is irrelevant. She was a consort; naturally, WP:CONSORTS applies. Surtsicna (talk) 20:37, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't think it is irrelevant. For a couple of years she was sovereign who ruled the country and had title of Princess. This title of hers is widely used in sources. Therefore WP:SOVEREIGN applies in this case. Yes, it is possible to find some articles about regents which have different article title, but also it is possible to find plenty of articles about regents which title corresponds to the current title (Prince.... of ....). --Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:56, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
No, she was not a sovereign. She was a regent. Her son was the sovereign. He ascended in 1389 and she governed in his name as regent. The difference between the two positions is clear and important. She gained and held her title through marriage, not through regency. There is no way for WP:SOVEREIGN to apply here, and even if it were, the current title would not adhere to that guideline (as I've already explained above). You will find no article about a regent in which the title gained through marriage is incorporated into the article title - unless it's needed for disambiguation. The fact that her brief tenure as regent is irrelevant is obvious not only from the naming convention, but also due to the fact that articles about other regents (some of whom are known primarily for their regency, such as Anne of Austria and Marie de' Medici) do not contain any royal titles - per WP:CONSORTS, of course. Surtsicna (talk) 07:28, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Regent usually has all sovereign powers, like in case of Milica. I think there are plenty of articles about other regents which follow the WP:SOVEREIGN and include royal titles, like Princess Carolina of Orange-Nassau, Princess Louise Eleanore of Hohenlohe-Langenburg, Princess Marie of Saxe-Altenburg (1854–98)...--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Yet a regent is not a sovereign and thus WP:SOVEREIGNS doesn't apply; and even if it did, the present title would not be okay per that guideline (as I've already explained twice). This woman was not a 19th-century royal, as the title implies. I have no idea why you listed those women. Carolina held the title from birth and not as consort (unlike Milica), Louise Eleanore was not even regent of Hohenlohe-Langenburg and Marie was not regent of anything at all! Honestly, your arguments are the weakest of the weak. Surtsicna (talk) 21:33, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Sovereign is somebody who exercise the right of sovereignty. If prince or princess is too young, the right of sovereignty it exercised by a regent. If the regent had the title of Prince or Princess (like in case of Milica), then this title should be included in the article title. First two women I listed were regents.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
You either have no idea what a sovereign/monarch is or you pretend that you don't. Either way, I am not going to bother explaining that to you anymore. I am going to say this for the fourth time, as you seem to be ignoring it deliberately: even if WP:SOVEREIGNS were to apply to a woman who was not a sovereign, this title would still not be correct (read the guideline).
"If the regent had the title of Prince or Princess (like in case of Milica), then this title should be included in the article title." This was made up by you. It is not a guideline of any sort, which is evident because the article about Anne of Austria is not called Queen Anne of Austria. First two women you listed were regents, yet neither is comparable to Milica, because neither gained her title by marriage like Milica did. You must be aware of how weak your arguments are. Surtsicna (talk) 22:22, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
No. Milica was princess because she belonged to the noble Nemanjic family, not because she married (down) to Lazar in 1353.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:08, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Much like all of these were princesses, yet are not called such in article titles. Please understand that the current format is completely anachronistic, much more appropriate for 19th-century royals than for a medieval ruler. It would be like referring to Margaret Tudor as "Princess Margaret of England", which is a pure anachronism. Surtsicna (talk) 08:24, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Margaret Tudor and French queen consorts did not exercise sovereign powers. Princess Milica did. I think I gave a fairly clear reason for my position and I don't really have much to add to that now. You are of course free to disagree, but I don't think you should expect me to be now somehow obliged to keep discussing this with you for as long as you are dissatisfied with it. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:10, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Margaret and several French queens did exercise as much "sovereign" powers as Milica did. Margaret, for one, was regent for her son, just like Milica. The only clear thing about your reason is that it rests on your failure to understand what the word "monarch" means and what Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) says. Therefore, your argument is not valid in any sense. I don't need you to agree with me; I just believe that it should be noted that your opposition is not based on any valid argument. Surtsicna (talk) 12:40, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

  • Support but relisting. It seems to me that a regency is not a case of ruling in the sense of the article title conventions. But I think we should try to untangle the arguments above and seek wider discussion. Andrewa (talk) 18:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Relisting see above. I'll try to get back and summarise the issues raised above, or feel free to do it for me. Andrewa (talk) 18:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

  • Gbook hits: "Queen Milica" (38); "Milica-Jevgenija" (16); "Kneginja Milica" (ca. 15); "Milica Lazarević" (11); "Milica Nemanjić" (6); "Milica, Serbian Princess" (4); "Milica-Eugenia" (4); "Princess Milica of Serbia" (3); "Milica, Princess of Serbia" (2); "Serbian Princess Milica" (1);--Zoupan 21:15, 2 October 2013 (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.

Requested move (reopened)

Latest comment: 10 years ago28 comments6 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.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. The course of the discussion still hasn't settled on a name after almost a month, nor is it clear that there's consensus to move in the first place. --BDD (talk) 19:32, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Princess Milica of Serbia → Milica of Serbia or Milica Nemanjić – I am reopening this request move. Either one of these title is more preferable to "Princess Milica of Serbia"; we generally only use the prefix Princess for post-19th century royalty as Surtsicna has pointed out. Plus It says she used the title Tsaritsa and maybe even autokratorissa Relisted. BDD (talk) 19:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC) --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 03:54, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Is your comment about me?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:52, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
It is not about you, but it is addressed to you. I merely repeated what I said in September. Surtsicna (talk) 16:41, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for clarification. I think that it is better to present disputes in neutral way, avoiding unnecessarily personalization. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:03, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Naturally. I do stand by my assessment, though. Surtsicna (talk) 23:01, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Oppose - I don't think nominator presented wikipedia policies that support move proposal. "Per other editor" is weak argument. Nominator points to opinion of Surtsicna ("as Surtsicna has pointed out"). Surtsicna pointed to his own opinion (which did not gain consensus and is also kind of Circular reference), to the opinion of Andrewa (who did not mention any wikipedia policy) and to "my failure to understand". WP:CONSENSUS says "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:12, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Again me? Didn't we agree to avoid unnecessarily personalization? Would it be constructive if I reply the same way and write that you failed to better explain your position? Your opinion about the conduct of another editor is not valid argument in content dispute. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:07, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
My opinion about an editor is not a valid argument. My opinion about the conduct of another editor certainly is. I have explained several times that the current title is against the guideline, and you have had the audacity to claim that I merely referred to my own opinion. First you tried to misinterpret the guideline I cited, and then you decided to pretend that I had never referred to any guideline at all. That is absurd. Surtsicna (talk) 15:42, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Just to clarify, I am not opposed to the move, I just stated that the policy which supports the move should be clearly stated. In the above discussion I explained why I don't think that WP:CONSORTS applies here. If "there is no way for WP:SOVEREIGN to apply here" then I don't know what does apply. If Surtsina is right and if she indeed did not rule as a monarch then WP:NCROY has section for royalty other than monarchs which says: "Use "Prince(ss) {first name} of ..."" just like the current title. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
No, your opinion about my conduct is not valid argument to rename this article. Wikipedia policy is. You insisted that WP:SOVEREIGN does not apply here. You said she did not rule as a monarch. OK, based on your explanation I cited section of WP:NCROY which gives recommendations for royalty other than monarchs which directly supports existing title. Can you present any argument against this? Like I presented arguments why I think WP:CONSORTS does not apply here. Argument which is based on wikipedia policy not my conduct.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I will again explain why I think WP:CONSORTS does not apply here:
  1. Milica was not only a consort. She was also a ruler of the country with the title of Princess which is widely used in English language sources.
  2. Milica was notable nobility with the title of princess not because "she derived it from the marriage" as consort but because she was born in the noble Nemanjic family, before she married (down) to Lazar in 1353
  3. WP:CONSORTS actually says: "There is no agreed-upon general convention for deceased consorts".--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:12, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
As far as the guidelines are concerned, Milica was only a consort; there is no special treatment for consorts who served as regents, nor should there be. Milica was never a monarch. She never ruled anything in her own name. The title you claim to be widely used is much more often omitted; 257 books use it, 1200 do not.
Milica was a princess by birth in the generic sense of the word, but not "Princess Milica of Serbia" (Kneginja Milica od Srbije) - much like Isabeau of Bavaria was a princess, but not Princess Isabeau of Bavaria. You are well aware of that. There is no general convention, because such a convention would have to include the ever-controversial husbands of queens regnant, but Milica certainly fits into the "Consorts who are native subjects of their spouses" category. Surtsicna (talk) 18:27, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
  • You ignored point 1 - explanation that Milica was a regent who ruled Serbia. Although in previous move discussion you insisted more than once that she was a regent.
  • Regarding sources, all 5 books using " Milica of Serbia" actually use "Princess Milica of Serbia".
  • I will change my "comment" to "Oppose" now because I believe that existing title is based on WP:NCROY naming convention for royalty other than monarchs which says: "Use "Prince(ss) {first name} of ..."". Just like the current title. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:56, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I never said that my opinion about your conduct is a reason I support the move. Do not twist my words to imply such absurdities. I support it because I had proposed it and cited guidelines earlier. My opinion about your conduct refers exactly to your attempts to twist my words. I've presented arguments against your interpretation of WP:NCROY more than once already, but you've chosen to ignore them. Milica was a princess by birth in the generic sense of the word, but not "Princess Milica of Serbia" (Kneginja Milica od Srbije) - much like Isabeau of Bavaria was a princess, but not Princess Isabeau of Bavaria. We don't refer to Isabella of France as Princess Isabella of France, nor to Philippa of England as Princess Philippa of England. Anne of Austria is not called Princess Anne of Austria. The fact that all five were regents does not change anything; there is no special treatment for regents. You cannot pretend that a guideline applies to the article when it does not. You cannot choose to classify her as "Other royals" when she already fits into the "Consorts of sovereigns" category. Why would you even want to do that? Simply to justify the present title? And you talk about circularity! Surtsicna (talk) 19:25, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
  • The proposed title Milica of Serbia does not undermine her status as regent or consort (she is a special kind of consort because her ancestry legitimized her husband's rule much like Elizabeth of York or Elizabeth of Bohemia (1292–1330)). Calling her Princess Milica of Serbia does though, making her sound exactly like the 19th-century Princess Helen of Serbia, just the daughter of a Serbian monarch and nothing else. Plus calling her just Princess is not accurate and undermines the couple's imperial ambitions and claims because she also used the title of Tsaritsa and by the virtue of her husband's title Autocrator of all the Serbs, she would have been Autokratorissa or Autocratorissa.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 19:55, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Relisting comment It would be helpful to get more opinions. It would also be helpful for those who have already participated to indicate whether they prefer either of the proposed titles, or if their support and opposition signals a general opinion as to whether or not the page should be moved. --BDD (talk) 19:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: My opposition to the move is not based on what I prefer or not but on WP:NCROY naming convention:
    1. This article is about Princess Milica of Serbia who ruled Serbia.
    2. "She ruled it as regent, not as a monarch."
    3. WP:NCROY naming convention says for royalty other than monarchs: "Use "Prince(ss) {first name} of ..."". Just like the current title.
  • If "there is no way for WP:SOVEREIGN to apply here" and if WP:CONSORTS actually says: "There is no agreed-upon general convention for deceased consorts" then I don't know what part of WP:NCROY naming convention actually does support renaming?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:25, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Your opposition is not based on WP:NCROY or any other guideline. Anyone who takes a moment to read WP:NCROY can easily see so. As I said, you cannot decide to treat her as "Other royalty" when she already fits the "Consorts" category; and even if you could, the current title would be painfully anachronistic and thus very inappropriate. The lack of general conventions for deceased consorts refers to the problem of male consorts. Milica, as far as I can tell, was female and should be treated as Isabeau of Bavaria, Elizabeth of Bosnia, Anne of Austria, etc. This whole thing is becoming ridiculously absurd. Three users are going to great pains to explain to one user that an article about a consort should comply with guidelines relating to [and other articles about] consorts. Not to mention that the article about her husband is titled Lazar of Serbia and not "Prince Lazar of Serbia"! Surtsicna (talk) 23:08, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
      • Lazar is different case because he ruled as monarch while Milica ruled as regent.
      • Renaming can not be supported with WP:CONSORTS because it actually says: "There is no agreed-upon general convention for deceased consorts". Btw, who is this third editor who is going trough great pains explaining me that the title of this article should be based on WP:CONSORTS non existing convention?
      • People are entitled to have different opinion about something. No need for great pains. Just present naming convention which supports renaming. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
        • WP:CONSORTS: "Consorts who are native subjects of their spouses are often known by their maiden name." Of course that line supports the move. You are cherry-picking lines that you claim suit you, but that sentence clearly refers to the fact that WP:CONSORTS contains several rules of thumb rather than a single, general convention. The article about Milica fits one of those rules of thumb. Please stop manipulating. Surtsicna (talk) 00:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
          • Regardring cherry picking, what you quoted is just one of examples presented between the following two sentences: "Some examples are given below....The diversity of these examples reflects the diversity of English usage. There is no agreed-upon general convention for deceased consorts; "
          • I think I gave a fairly clear explanation for my position here, and I don't really have much to add to that now. You are of course free to disagree, but I don't think you should expect me to be now somehow obliged to keep discussing this with you for as long as you are dissatisfied with it.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:08, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Antidiskriminator has noted that Milica is accorded the title of "Princess" in the sources, and no evidence that she is more widely referred to differently has been presented. If a person is not covered by one guideline, another which fits may be invoked. FactStraight (talk) 00:07, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
    • But she is not normally called "Princess of Serbia" (кнегиња Србије); such a title is clearly anachronistic. The "evidence" that she is "widely referred to" as Princess Milica of Serbia consists of a single paper. She is much, much more often referred to as "Princess Milica". Surtsicna (talk) 00:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong and easy support as per WP:CONCISE, which is policy. Red Slash 03:21, 12 December 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Princess_Milica_of_Serbia/Archive_1&oldid=1090575805"