Talk:William I

Sorting

These entries appear to be sorted willy-nilly. Shouldn't they be alphabetized based on the "of X" part? — Brian (talk) 14:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Either that, or by chronology. 112.211.205.112 (talk) 15:04, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 10 August 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

William I (disambiguation) → William I – At present "William I" redirects to William the Conqueror, I would argue that this is anglocentric bias. Firstly, the sheer number of entries on this list should make us cautious about deciding that there is a primary topic. Secondly, we also have William I, German Emperor, under who the unification of Germany took place, plus important kings of the Netherlands and Scotland. PatGallacher (talk) 17:59, 10 August 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• Weak support the Conqueror gets the most views[[1]][[2]] and Google suggests the Conqueror may be primary but I've generally known him by his longer name even though Britannica uses the shorter name. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:20, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nominator. Killuminator (talk) 18:22, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. I think the English king is the primary topic for "William I". Rreagan007 (talk) 19:30, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Why? PatGallacher (talk) 13:08, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

His article gets the most views and has the most historical significance. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:54, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

That's not enough for it to be a primary redirect. The article would need to be more likely to be sought under this name then all others taken together. And it's not. Andrewa (talk) 10:55, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support - I've rarely ever seen William the Conqueror called "William I (of England)" in reliable sources (eg. Scholar shows 37,000 results for "William the Conqueror [3], but only 530 for "William I of England" [4]. Furthermore, William the Conqueror does not receive enough of the outgoing pageviews from the dab page to be considered the primary topic per WP:PT1, he's roughly even with the German emperor and Dutch king [5]. estar8806 (talk) ★ 19:36, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
  • In actual fact, he's usually called William I in scholarly sources. William the Conqueror is a populist moniker. A lot of the references to William I in Scholar (without a territorial designator) will be to him, so saying there are only 530 results for William I of England is fairly irrelevant. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:08, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

    Well, the 37,000 google scholar results for "William the Conqueror" would beg to differ that it's a populist moniker and not a scholarly title. You're also wrong that scholar results for "William I" (without a territorial designation) will be the English monarch. [6]

    I could argue that you are right because "William I" + "England" returns 42,000 results [7], but the fourth one shown is actually about the Kaiser and not the King. And "William I" + Germany returns 37,000 results [8]. A primary topic has to have usage much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined, which considering how there's only a difference of ~5,000 results, this probably does not meet. estar8806 (talk) ★ 15:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support, there have been plenty of other William I's. JIP | Talk 10:54, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Primary topic. The German emperor is certainly notable, but he's usually referred to as Wilhelm I in reliable sources, which generally don't have Wikipedia's infantile obsession with translating everything into English. None of the others come close to the Conqueror's notability. Nothing to do with Anglocentrism, but with the influence on world history of his conquest of England. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:08, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  "Wilhelm I" by itself and with the addition of "Germany" show no results referring to the Emperor on the first three pages [9] [10] Only with the qualifier of 'German Emperor' do we get around 5,500 results for the German Emperor [11]. The same qualifier added to "William I" returns 14, 200 results [12]. So no, he's not referred to as "Wilhelm I". estar8806 (talk) ★ 15:26, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Royalty and Nobility has been notified of this discussion. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:39, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support, for the rationale and evidence offered above by User:estar8806. ╠╣uw [talk] 14:00, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support - I completely agree with the nominator's rationale. Hurricane Andrew (444) 22:16, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose per Necrothesp; other than the German Emperor (which should be Wilhelm, but that is a separate discussion) none of the entries are prominent enough to matter in determining a primary topic. On the other hand, removing the redirect would clean up the hatnote on William the Conqueror's article. Walt Yoder (talk) 15:11, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose & the Conqueror's page, should be moved to William I of England. GoodDay (talk) 22:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Even WP:NCROY uses this article as an example of royalty articles that should be titled as their most common name. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:34, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support William the Conquerer is more notable than other William I. Ebbedlila (talk) 13:58, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

@Ebbedlila:Then I think you might mean that you oppose this proposal, as supporting this proposal means that you think that "William I" should not redirect to William the Conqueror. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:30, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support. William the Conqueror may well be a populist moniker, but WP:COMMONNAME prefers populist monikers if that is how the subject would generally be identified. Are other people named "William I" therefore not called "William I" in scholarship about their lives? BD2412 T 00:14, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support. As others have noted, there is no evidence supporting a primary redirect to William the Conqueror. Rather the DAB should be at the base name William I. Andrewa (talk) 10:48, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Support: Current setup is needlessly Anglocentric. Besides William the Conqueror and William I, German Emperor, there's also William the Silent, who I don't think has been mentioned but was also a William I (although rarely referred to as such). Especially since "William the Conqueror" is more common than "William I (of England)", I don't think he's the clear primary topic for this title. 3 kids in a trenchcoat (talk) 20:36, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Primary redirect by page views and common usage. He's often known as "the Conqueror", but as noted he also often noted as William I. The others don't look like they have the same long-term significance as this dude.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:49, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, William the Conqueror is often referred to as William I, and is by far the most significant and famous of the many Kings and other nobles listed at William I (disambiguation). But we can't just from that argue that there should be a primary redirect from William 1 or William I to his page. What is missing is that we need to establish that he's more significant, or more likely to be the one sought (or both), than all of the others taken together. And I do not think we have evidence of that. And unless we do have that evidence, the destination of those ambiguous titles should be the DAB. Andrewa (talk) 06:30, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

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