Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Middle-Eastern countries ...

The text currently states: "There is no explicit convention for Middle Eastern countries; but monarchs with Arabic names are often treated much as this guideline would suggest: Mohammed V of Morocco, Abdullah II of Jordan."

What it may have intended, given the large number of examples, was "modern monarchs with Arabic names", or even "contemporary monarchs with Arabic names", rather than any ruler with an Arabic name. But rules are rules. So we have articles called things like "Mansur I of Samanid". Clearly a Good Thing. I've already mentioned the Seljukids and poor old oddball Suleiman bin Kutalmish. We have the same with the Saffarids. The Samanids are more mixed. More inconsistency with the Tahirids. Looking at these sore thumbs and barbarisms, it seems to me that the current guideline is saying something that it shouldn't, or it has been read as saying something that it shouldn't. So I've changed it. Angus McLellan (Talk) 03:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Am I stepping all over your irony by doubting Mansur I of Samanid is a Good Thing? Why? The Samanids are a dynasty, not a place, and I doubt this is idiom; I know this guideline does not support or suggest it.

Now if we supported Mansur I of Iran and Mahmud of Ghazni, as disambiguation and idiom respectively, that might actually be useful. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

If I were to nitpick, perish the thought, I would have to say that it was intended as sarcasm rather than irony. You'll get no argument from me on the need for redirects and dab pages. We do seem to be rather short of disambiguation pages and redirects for many Islamic rulers, especially when you compare them with the vast list of redirects to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. There wasn't even a redirect at Safadin, and I'm sure that even my Ladybird book about Richard the Lionheart mentioned the man under that name. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

And I see the Samanids include Abdul Malik I and 'Abd al-Malik II. This is the sort of thing that naming conventions are intended to settle; is there one for Arabic and/or Farsi? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Heir-apparent's future regnal names

Having a look at Frederik, Crown Prince of Denmark, Hussein bin Al Abdullah, Crown Prince of Jordan, Moulay Hassan, Crown Prince of Morocco (for examples); should we be having their future regnal names in the content? Isn't it crytal-balling to claim they'll take the names Frederik X or Frederick X, Hussein II, Hassan III? GoodDay (talk) 19:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Not if sources say so; similarly, we have release dates of movies - once we have a reliable source that they will be released. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, technically it is crystal-balling because no sources are cited and probably no sources exist but it is quite clear that they'll use such names.

1) It is Danish tradidtion to alternate between the names Christian and Frederick (the Crown Prince is son of Margaret II who fulfils the role of a Christian and who is the daughter of a Frederick, who is the son of a Christian, who is the son of a Frederick, who is the son of a Christian, etc).

2) The Crown Prince of Jordan has only one first name. It is fairly safe to assume that he won't choose to reign as Hussein XVI rather than as Hussein II, as he is going to be the second Jordanian monarch named Hussein.

3) Same thing regarding the Crown Prince of Morocco, mutatis mutandis.

Perhaps crystal-balling could be avoided by slight rewording. Surtsicna (talk) 19:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps something like, "...he/she's expected to use the name...". This comes under the assumption that these (and other heirs-apparent) will succeed to their respective countries thrones. GoodDay (talk) 19:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

No more necessary than "This movie is expected to come out March 5, 2010", or "Obama's first term is expected to end January 20, 2013." Both of those could go wrong too. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I reckon so. GoodDay (talk) 21:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Nothing is predictable here: Charles, Prince of Wales is expected to succeed Elizabeth, but we will not know whether he will reign as Charles III or George VIII (using another of his Christian names) or whether he will in fact reign at all, for we cannot presume that he will not predecease his mother, as his ancestor "Poor Fred" did George II. Similarly, the end of President Obama's term can be predicted, but several presidents have died in office; resigned; or been impeached (including Kennedy and Nixon). Nothing is certain but "death and taxes", as some one said. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Ya mean Charles III or George VII. GoodDay (talk) 16:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The Prince has stated in numerous interviews that when he ascends the throne he'll reign as George VII rather than Charles III, due to unpleasant associations with the previous two English kings named Charles (the first one lost his head, the second was a notorious womaniser).--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

As opposed to George I , George II, George III who lost his mind, and George IV, who was a womanizer even more notorious than the first two. ;-> Oh, well, if HM doesn't care about the special relationship.... Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think it far preferable to be associated with the dapper martyr (Charles I) and the quite intelligent, alchemy-dabbling womaniser (Charles II) than a madman (George III), a lout who kept two notoriously ugly mistresses while his poor,neglected wife was locked up for life (George I), or the fat hornball, bigamist and drunk who played romper room in oversized, exotic dollhouses at the seaside (George IV). No, Prince Charles should embrace his Stuart legacy and forget the Hanoverian.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps he should honour his own father and reign as Philip II (Philip I being Mary I of England's husband Philip, who reigned as jure uxoris King of England). His son could then be Philip III. That would be a rather interesting twist. Surtsicna (talk) 11:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the UK would be happy with Philip II, but would be with Philip I as a name. The english weren't happy with Philip II of Spain. -- GoodDay (talk) 16:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

"The Prince has stated in numerous interviews that when he ascends the throne he'll reign as George VII rather than Charles III." This is the first I have heard of this. Do you have a source? PatGallacher (talk) 11:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Charles, Prince of Wales#Titles and styles: Call me George, suggests Charles. Surtsicna (talk) 11:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I suspect it's actually the clash of names with the one-time pretender "Charles III" which weighs most against his adoption of that style.--Kotniski (talk) 11:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

We have no actual proof that HRH has officially considered this matter — he's not really supposed to, since deciding his regnal name involves considering the death of the monarch, which is treasonous. There's also the argument that he's been "Prince Charles" to the world's public for so many decades that "King George" would cause huge confusion, whereas "King Charles" would be simple to grasp. Yes, the source is there, but I have my reasons for doubting its truthfulness. We could perhaps phrase it as "In [YEAR], The Times claimed that..." DBD 13:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I haven't the source on me, but Charles has already denied the 'George VII' story. GoodDay (talk) 15:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Good to hear as I much prefer King Charles III.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

German rulers

Since people here are such lovers of consistency, is there some reason why we switch between Anglicized and original German names, and between the "of Realm/comma title" forms (Frederick William IV of Prussia, Wilhelm I, German Emperor)? --Kotniski (talk) 11:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Probably the preferences of editors who created the articles. However we should be consistent. I would suggest that the German spelling of the name (but not the realm) would be appropriate, but am not sure of the convention. It is difficult to identify a "most usual" version, because older historians tended to anglicise the spelling, whereas more modern ones may prefer the German spelling. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Past discussions pointed out that the nearer we come to the 21st century, the more common it becomes in English to refer to monarchs and royalty by their untranslated names (e.g. Beatrix of the Netherlands not "Beatrice" and Juan Carlos I of Spain not "John Charles I"). Wikipedia is following a sea change in usage. Similar discussions noted and accepted the historical difference between monarchs whose imperial rank and affiliation rather than realm is emphasized in their sovereign titles (e.g., "Holy Roman Emperor", "German Emperor"), perhaps because these "empires" included kingdoms (e.g. Bohemia, Bavaria) whose monarchs looked upon their emperor as primus inter pares (since the imperial titles explicitly sourced to nomination by fellow rulers within the respective empires). FactStraight (talk) 13:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The current trend here, suggests that Wilhelm I's son & Wilhelm II's father should be named Friedrich III. GoodDay (talk) 15:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

English usage (except under the passions of the First World War) has generally been William I and William II. I strongly oppose respelling Frederick II (which is what this would come to) for consistency, or rather nationalism; call him Frederick the Great as overwhelming usage, and avoid the ambiguity with the Emperor. Septentrionalis PMAnderson

If I had it my way, they'd all be in english - John Charles, Beatrice, William etc. Alas, I can't have my way. GoodDay (talk) 16:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

If I could tell English-speaking people how to refer to European monarchs, I'd tell them to refer to them using the Anglicized versions of their names. The Spanish, for example, refer to Elizabeth II as Isabel II and there seems to be no "movement" to rename her Elizabeth II. Of course, there are many other examples. However, English-language sources refer to the King of Spain as Juan Carlos and there must be no original research. I would strongly oppose replacing common Anglicized versions with "original" names, for many reasons. It is not only impossible to claim that medieval spellings were the same as modern spellings (a Joan of France might have spelled her name Jehanne rather than Jeanne so insisting on calling her Jeanne makes no sense unless that's how sources call her). Therefore, the "that's how their name is spelled" argument or "that's their name" argument is not valid. We should always use the name used by sources - in most cases, that's the Anglicized name and it's perfectly fine. Surtsicna (talk) 17:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

So would anyone object (or be aware of people who are likely to object) if we made this set of names consistent by moving the Wilhelms to William?--Kotniski (talk) 12:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes. See the article talk pages. DrKiernan (talk) 12:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, yes. Seems we are left with (in chronological order) (...) Frederick William III of Prussia, Wilhelm I, German Emperor, Frederick III, German Emperor, Wilhelm II, German Emperor, William, German Crown Prince, Prince Wilhelm of Prussia (1906–1940) (not to be confused with the no more notable Prince Wilhelm of Prussia). So much for this guideline's alleged merit of ensuring consistency between articles.--Kotniski (talk) 13:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

They should be moved back to William. Afterall, as Wilhelm shouldn't it have been Wilhelm I, German Keisar & Wilhelm II, German Keisar? GoodDay (talk) 15:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The advice of this page is to anglicize, unless usage is clearly otherwise (as it is with Juan Carlos); by and large we do. I will support a move to William I; William II involves a question of fact, but is probably both usage and consistency. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

If possible, I'd have everything english on ENG:WP. Anyways, if we're gonna have William I, German Emperor? we should also have William II, German Emperor. GoodDay (talk) 20:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Come on GoodDay, would you really like to see the article on Marie Antoinette changed to Mary Antonia?!!!!!!! Or Giuseppe Verdi altered to Joe Green, and Karl Marx becoming Charles Marks?! And what would we do with people like Osama Bin Laden? Does his name have an English equivalent? It's obvious names like Joan of Arc and Christopher Columbus should be anglicised as they are known to English readers by these names, but please GoodDay, let's draw the line somewhere!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

(Unindent) Prince Wilhelm of Prussia has now been moved to Prince Wilhelm of Prussia (1783–1851). Once the template redirects are sorted (give it a day or two) I'll turn Prince Wilhelm of Prussia into a disambiguation page. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Clarification required

Is the usage of Queen regnant in article introductions limited to cureent Queen regnants? GoodDay (talk) 16:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course not! I just assumed that the title "Queen of Scots" is mentioned too many times in the sentence "Mary, Queen of Scots, was Queen regnant of Scots" and thought that "Mary, Queen of Scots, was Scottish monarch" is better because of a greater variety of words. If you disagree, please do it your way. After all, English is not my first language. Surtsicna (talk) 18:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I may re-add latter, after I've figured a way to make it more readible. GoodDay (talk) 18:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Queens regnant, if you don't mind. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

RfC - prefixes in article title of Eastern Orthodox officials

An RfC is currently open (Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(clergy)#naming_convention_associated_with_Eastern_Orthodox_officials) regarding the appropriateness of having position titles in the article title of religious Eastern Orthodox officials. Commentary would be welcomed, as the WP:NCWC talk page has a low level of activity.--Labattblueboy (talk) 19:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Ammended: The proposal currently tables is to remove of all prefix religious titles, positions and/or honours from the article title.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Princes & Princesses

Short of time to follow all these debates, I am however curious about the titles of "Prince" & "Princess" put ahead of the names in the title of many articles.

As an example, the article on Henri d'Orléans, Count of Paris which has for title Prince Henri, Count of Paris, Duke of France. This makes for a rather long title. The article was moved in June 2009 from Henri, Count of Paris, Duke of France to Prince Henri, Count of Paris, Duke of France[1] with no discussion & no reaction. Even if this is the correct title for the article, something does not seem right to my eyes and, in my opinion, Henri, Count of Paris would be enough. Then the mention, in the lead, of "a French prince" or "Prince of France" and other titles after his name would be the appropriate way of doing it, as is done to other articles, and first sentence of lead would read as follows:

• Henri Philippe Pierre Marie d'Orléans, Count of Paris, Duke of France (Henri Philippe Pierre Marie d'Orléans, comte de Paris, duc de France, born 14 June 1933) is a French prince (or is a Prince of France) etc...

Could someone explain this to me in a manner that makes sense? Cordialement, --Frania W. (talk) 00:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know all the details, but isn't the longer title necessary in order to distinguish him from his father?--Kotniski (talk) 08:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Then what would happen if Henri Philippe Pierre Marie d'Orléans, comte de Paris, duc de France had a son named after him and who, after the death of his father, would inherit his titles? How would we differentiate him from his father in the title of the article? Add another title after Duke of France? Use DoB/DoD between brackets? --Frania W. (talk) 13:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I've seen dates of birth/death used in some similar situations, where there's really no other good way to distinguish people of the same name (as in one of the Prussian examples I noted in an earlier thread). But I don't know enough about this situation to try to make any pronouncements. (From the post below, it seems these titles may be rather self-granted and not widely acknowledged, so it might be better to do without them altogether.)--Kotniski (talk) 14:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

What I mean about the comte de Paris (closer to Philippe Égalité than to Henri IV) is that the article devoted to him on en:wiki piles up titles upon titles "Prince", "Count", "Duke", in the title like too much cream on a chou à la crème. --Frania W. (talk) 16:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah... the never-ending discussion and headache giving problem how to correctly name the members of former French royal families.

First, according to the Wikipedia guidelines Royals with a substantive title that is not princely, are named as "Prince(ss) {first name}, {title}", for example Prince Andrew, Duke of York. This is also applicable for members of former reigning families, for example Prince Jaime, Count of Bardi. The discussion whether not to remove the title "prince" to simplify the name of the article, was made before, see for example Talk:Prince_Philippe,_Duke_of_Brabant#Requested_move. The move "Prince Philippe, Duke of Brabant → Philippe, Duke of Brabant" was rejected. He is a royal with a substantive title, not a reigning duke or a non-royal with a peerage title only.

But the discussion how to name the members of the House of Orléans was made many times with the same sort of questions, such as Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(names_and_titles)/Archive_10#Members_of_the_House_of_Orléans and Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(names_and_titles)/Archive_10#Princes_in_pretence. In the discussion Princes in pretence it was among other things stated: "French republican law, by the way, does legally recognize dynastic titles, if inherited rather than assumed. The lawsuit brought in 1987 by the comte de Clermont against the use of the title of pretence, Duke of Anjou, by his cousin, the French Legitimist pretender Louis Alphonse, Duke of Anjou in 1987 lost because the House of Orléans lacked standing to challenge a particular title to which they never held a legal right, not because France does not recognize royal titles (although, in fact, duc d'Anjou is a titre de courtoisie, never legal in either branch of the Bourbons who now use it). Wiki should accord or explain titles that are widely known, used, claimed or widely attributed to dynasts and ex-dynasts, because that is the kind of information a reader would expect to find upon looking up that dynast in an encyclopedia. Lethiere 01:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)"

The problem which I have with all those French royal families, how historically correct their use of their titles are. The members of the House of Orléans, have proclaimed themselves in the 19th/20th century as "Prince of France". But how correct is that? Are they really princes? Furthermore, I really have the problem with the habit of the former French royal families that they are so easy with granting themselves all sorts of noble titles at a very loosely basis. How historically correct is this? I do find it dubious. So according Prince Henri, Count of Paris, Duke of France: 1) is it correct to call him a prince? 2) The fact that he uses the title "Count of Paris", is this historically correct? 3) He proclaimed himself "Duke of France". Again, is this correct either?

Demophon (talk) 10:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The Government of France takes no position on the pretenders to the French throne; if they did, we would still follow WP:Common names. Since the writing on them is mostly by dedicated, if not besotted, royalists, English usage tends to use the self-identifications, short of the crown.

In short, the Duke of France has the same claim as the Count of Cagliostro: he gets away with it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

However, this does not answer my question as to why

1. "Prince" & "Princess" should be in the title of the article in front of these persons first name

2. Why the "comte de Paris", has three titles in the title of his article. "Prince"+"Count"+"Duke".

As I stated somewhere else, it looks like too much cream on/in a chou à la crème.

Should we copy the above two, the following & all other members of the French royal family should be changed:

• Louis, Dauphin of France (1661–1711) (son of the king), should be Prince Louis, Dauphin of France;
• Gaston, Duke of Orléans (brother of the king), should be Prince Gaston, Duke of Orléans.
• Philippe II, Duke of Orléans (nephew of the king), should be Prince Philippe, Duke of Orléans, Regent of France.

Would not this look rather ridiculous?

In my opinion, the titles "Prince" & "Princess" should be after, whenever they apply, which is rarely the case of French royalty.

• Hélène, Princess of Orléansand not Princess Hélène d'Orléans, because the daughters of Louis-Philippe were given the title "Princesse d'Orléans" by their father.

As for Henri, comte de Paris, he gave himself the title of duc de France, which is his right as the "king of the dormant kingdom of France" & the French Republic does not give much of a damn; in fact, royalty sells very well in France, more so since it does not 'head' the country!

--Frania W. (talk) 00:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Princess Hélène: No. According to international customs (if I'm correct also applied in the Almanach de Gotha) the titles are place behind the given name in case the concerning title is a substantive one only held by one person alone and/or when the person is the head of the family. So, when he's "The Prince of Y" it's thus "X, Prince of Y". In contrast, princely titles held by many (junior) members of a royal family (so not "The prince" but just "a" prince) are placed in front of the name, which is the case of the title Prince d'Orléans. Thus it should be: Princess Hélène d'Orléans. Demophon (talk) 01:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I would support a move to Henry, Count of Paris, Duke of France. I agree that your hypothetical parallels are absurd. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

No, no, no! This kind of discussions were already made earlier and the correct writing for princes should be Prince X, Duke (or other Substantive title) of Y. This is according WP:NCNT!! But I agree that we should avoid a chou à la crème. Let's use the most common Substantive title instead. So to my opinion it should be: Prince Henry, Count of Paris and not "Henry, Count of Paris, Duke of France" (without the prefixed title Prince). According to international nobility and royal customs and traditions he and his family members can continue the use of inherited dynastic titles that are recognized throughout history. I have read somewhere that - if I'm correct - the title "Count of Paris" was legally re-created by the last French King Louis-Philippe I for his grandson Prince Philippe, Count of Paris and it is continuated since then by the Orléanist claimants to the French throne. There is historically a basis for the use of this title.

But to my opinion, the current Orléanist claimant, Prince Henry, cannot create whole new titles for himself or others. He is merely "one" of the pretenders to the French throne; he's not actually a crowned King of France. He cannot be considered to be a fount of honour, which can create new titles with no historical reference at all.

According to his own official website he names himself primarily "Prince Henry" and "Count of Paris" ([2]). He does not use the invention "Duke of France" very often. I do find this new title an abomination in perspective of international customs.

So concluding my arguments: He should be named "Prince Henry, Count of Paris". This is not a 'Chou à la crème', see for example Prince Andrew, Duke of York, Prince Carl, Duke of Västergötland, Prince Jaime, Count of Bardi, etc., etc. Demophon (talk) 01:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, dear Demophon, I have given my arguments and, although I do understand yours, I would go with the title proposed by PMAnderson because "Prince" at the beginning of the title of an article makes the whole title look like a top-heavy chou à la crème to me. Really. --Frania W. (talk) 02:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Polish monarchs

A few people consider that the naming of Polish monarchs has become a mess, and they should be brought back into line with this naming convention. Discussion of this has begun at Talk:Alexander Jagiellon. PatGallacher (talk) 23:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Louis-Philippe

Could Demophon explain his recent move of Louis-Philippe I, King of the French to Louis-Philippe of the French ? "of the French" makes any sense only if it is preceded by "King" as it qualifies "King", not "Louis-Philippe". --Frania W. (talk) 12:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I indeed made an error. According WP:NCNT, section 1, the correct name of this page should be: Louis-Philippe I of France. See for example the page naming regarding the Kings of the Belgians, or Kings of the Hellenes. Demophon (talk) 13:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I've moved it back to "King of the French", which is where it apparently was before people started making unilateral renamings. I think it needs a normal RM discussion.--Kotniski (talk) 14:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, there is no real discussion necessary, we just have to follow the Wikipedia guidelines, in this case WP:NCNT. Regarding the naming of pages of Popular monarchs, the general consensus is again to follow the guidelines, thus omit the use of royal or imperial titles, and apply for the naming the {Monarch's first name} + {Country}. See the vast examples like the Kings of the Belgians, Kings of the Hellenes, Kings of Scots, etc. etc. I don't see why we should make an exception for this King of the French? Or are the French nobility and royals so utterly different from the English royals or other continental European royals that a deviation from the guidelines is justified in this case only? No. I'm going it to change it back to Louis-Philippe I of France. Demophon (talk) 14:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, if it's been like that for years(?), there must be some reason (the guideline already has exceptions). I'm wondering why the "I" is included in the title - if it was in official use, shouldn't that be mentioned in the article? (The same applies to the Louis Philippe Dukes I and II - was that numbering actually used?)--Kotniski (talk) 14:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, concerning the number "I", I don’t know. Maybe you are correct, but it was already used in the previous name giving of the page. So I was not aware that this is now suddenly also an issue. But regarding the rest of the page name: this should be just Louis-Philippe (I) of France (with or without the "I"). Besides maybe the minor issue of the number 'I', again no real discussion is necessary. Demophon (talk) 16:45, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Louis-Philippe, "King of the French" by his own choice, wishes English Wikipedia would respect that historical choice of his & stop moving his article back & forth to "Louis-Philippe I of France" and "Louis-Philippe I of the French" as it makes him constantly turn in his grave - awfully tiresome in that narrow space.

Also, since there has been only one Louis-Philippe, is the *I* necessary? Does not *I* imply that there is a least a *II*?

P.S. Are English Wikipedia "rules & regulations" infallible?

--Frania W. (talk) 15:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

@P.S.: Of course the English Wikipedia "rules & regulations" are not infallible. But regarding the name giving for pages of Kings, this has been already intensively discussed. There is a general consensus how to name the pages of kings or queens. I don't see why there must be a special exception for the French royals. I don't want to waste too much energy to start all over again this kind of discussions, so I say it again: just stick to the guidelines, unless of course you have a real good reason to deviate from it. But I don't see how, it is very comparable with the situation of other kings in Europe. There is no special case here.

And if you don’t agree with the guidelines: well, then start a general discussion to change them. But for now we have to follow what is common at Wikipedia and don’t invent all sorts of deviations at the pages. Demophon (talk) 16:45, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

You should be aware from discussions elsewhere that there isn't a general consensus on how to name the pages of Kings and Queens. My own difficulty with the current guidelines is that they create spurious titles. So George VI of the United Kingdom never held that title, but was By the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland, and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas, King, Defender of the Faith. For those who respect the founts of honour, misuse of titles is an extremely serious matter and a cause of great offense. It constitutes a lapse of accuracy and a clear failure to be encyclopaedic. AJRG (talk) 17:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes we ought to exercise a degree of common sense about how we describe the states or kingdoms that monarchs ruled over, whatever the technicalities, see a recent defeated move discussion at Charles II of Spain. This guideline clearly states at present that UK monarchs from 1801 onwards should be described as "of the United Kingdom". If you have an alternative proposal please put it forward. PatGallacher (talk) 17:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The words "of" or "of the" are the problem. They potentially create a spurious title that offends. If instead we use Charles II (Spain), the parenthetic (Spain) would simply be a disambiguation, understandable to non-specialist modern readers, rather than part of an incorrect title. AJRG (talk) 17:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Whatever the merits of such a proposal may be, that is a relatively minor issue of format, not the more fundamental issues which have been raised. PatGallacher (talk) 20:18, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

It isn't a minor issue. It's the difference between being accurate and encyclopaedic on the one hand, and OR on the other. AJRG (talk) 22:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

• Move to Louis-Philippe I, King of the French. This was the title by which he was known, and is unique. Other versions can certainly exist as redirects, but we should not dogmatically apply rules where it is inappropriate. It is not normally necessary in English to use an ordinal for the first and only monarch of the name. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

As evidenced here: Full annals of the revolution in France, 1830 ...: Enthronement of the Duke of Orleans, under the title of Louis Philippe I., king of the French ... AJRG (talk) 21:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

"de Orléans" vs. "of Orléans"

In English, royalty and nobility are known by their place of origin or title preceded by "of" and not "de." This is not clearly spelled out at Wikipedia's "Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)" article. Amélie d'Orléans, of course, should be returned to Amélie of Orléans. These changes of "of XX" to "de XX" were made in unilateral fashion without buy-in or consensus from editors. Other examples where articles were moved from "of XX" to "de XX" include:

• Princess Hélène d'Orléans
• Louise d'Orléans (1812–1850)
• Princess Louise d'Orléans (1869–1952)
• Princess Marie Isabelle d'Orléans

Thoughts? --Caponer (talk) 04:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The Amelie one at least seems to have been an out-of-process cut-and-paste job ([3]). If the others were the same, probably best to revert and warn the user.--Kotniski (talk) 11:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

It happens that "d'Orléans" is the legal surname for the members of the Orléans family, a fact that en:wiki does not seem (or does not want) to accept, in spite of the proof brought on several occasions: King Louis-Philippe I's 13 August 1830 ordonnance.

They are "first name + d'Orléans + title of Orléans, if they happen to have an "of Orléans" title. In the Ancien Régime, the only title "of Orléans" was that of "Duke of Orléans" (and Duchess). At time of July Monarchy, the sons of Louis-Philippe kept their Ancien Régime titles and the daughters were given the title of "Princesse d'Orléans" = "Princesse of Orléans", not "of France", as he had chosen to be King "of the French", not "of France". It could not be clearer.

Ordonnance du 13 août 1830 (highlighting/underlining mine):

• Ordonnance du roi qui détermine les noms et titres des princes et princesses de la famille royale.
• LOUIS PHILIPPE ROI DES FRANÇAIS, à tous présens et à venir, salut.
• Notre avènement à la couronne ayant rendu nécessaire de déterminer les noms et les titres que devaient porter à l'avenir les princes et princesses nos enfans, ainsi que notre bien-aimée sœur,
• Nous avons ordonné et ordonnons ce qui suit :
• Les princes et princesses nos bien-aimés enfans, ainsi que notre bien-aimée sœur, continueront à porter le nom et les armes d'Orléans.
• Notre bien-aimé fils aîné, le duc de Chartres, portera, comme prince royal, le titre de duc d'Orléans.
• Nos bien-aimés fils puînés conserveront les titres qu'ils ont portés jusqu'à ce jour.
• Nos bien-aimées filles et notre bien-aimée sœur ne porteront d'autre titre que celui de princesses d'Orléans, en se distinguant entre elles par leurs prénoms.
• Il sera fait, en conséquence, sur les registres de l'état civil de la Maison royale, dans les archives de la Chambre des Pairs, toutes les rectifications qui résultent des dispositions ci-dessus [...]

I know in advance that very few, if any, will accept this as any proof because the text is written in French; however, that is the Ordonnance signed by Louis Philippe on 13 August 1830, stating the "surname" (= "nom") of his children was "d'Orléans", as had always been: continueront à porter.

Cordialement, --Frania W. (talk) 00:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• This is a discussion that has cropped up in a number of places (ex: here and here). This is a summary of my previously noted position. IMO, there is only two ways we can go about this; "of Orleans" (no accent) or "d'Orleans" ("d" apostrophe, no accent). I oppose "d'Orléans" because searches that employ "d'Orléans" produce and overwhelming number of French language hits[4] and is almost never found in English sources. d'Orleans appears to be the WP:COMMONNAME format (Anne Marie of Orleans receives 148 hits[[5]] in google books vs. the 256 hits[[6]] for Anne Marie d'Orleans ("d" apostrophe, no accent). Either way, the choice should be made based upon English sources and English usage, not French ordinances.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

"of Orléans" and "d'Orleans" both raise the very pertinent question: why are you translating only half of the phrase? The choice is between "of Orleans" (English) or "d'Orléans" (French). Personally, I'd be in favor of using the original form of the names, precisely to avoid the absurdity of macaronic naming, but I fear that boat's sailed long ago. - Nunh-huh 21:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

If French royal ordonnances that have to do with French history must be ignored, then I do not see any reason for English-speaking Wikipedia to even include articles that have anything to do with France. Labattblueboy, pardon me if I am wrong but, in your various comments on these subjects, I cannot help but feel more antagonism against France & anything French (like myself) than the desire to have something historically correct. --Frania W. (talk) 21:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

If more reliable sources exist for the naming in a manner that is different than that in the primary documents than it is entirely appropriate not to follow them, at least if a WP:COMMONNAME approach is being taken - which is my central argument. FYI, I am French/English bilingual, work and live in Quebec and formerly lived and worked in France (and would gladly move back if the chance presented itself), so any belief of antagonism against the French is entirely of your own self fabrication.--Labattblueboy (talk) 04:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Printed sources can not tell us whether to use diacritics. In the case of Orl[eé]ans, our "house style" is to write Orléans. As for de/van/von or of, that should be decided once and be stuck with. Since peons and modern people would almost invariable get de/van/von rather than of, there would have to be an awfully good case for treating the inbred and underworked, or royalty if you prefer, any differently. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course printed sources can; if they are so poorly printed as to be unreliable on diacritics, they are unlikely to be reliable for any purpose. I agree, however, that the barbarism d'Orleans should be avoided.

Peons would not get the nobiliary de in any case; those members of the House of Orleans living before 1848 - which are the only ones anybody but a manic collector of pretenders would be interested in - bore it as a title, not a name. We do not yet write, in English, of the rois de France; to write of the duc d'Orléans is equally uncommunicative and pretentious. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It should be of Orleans, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 19:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Supported by contemporary English usage - see the pdf under Louis-Philippe below. AJRG (talk) 10:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

That pdf is problematic though because it uses so many different styles. On page 133, for example (column 235) it uses "Duc d'Orleans" "Duchess of Orleans" and "Duchess d'Orleans" all in the same paragraph. DrKiernan (talk) 10:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Page 133 of 149 in a paragraph headed Family of Orleans? You had to work hard to find that! Duke of Orleans is used on the title page (16 of 149) and elsewhere (e.g. 84 of 149). AJRG (talk) 11:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

No, not hard. All three variants are scattered throughout the text, but that was the most obvious paragraph with all three together. DrKiernan (talk) 11:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying which is correct. It looks to me that both are used roughly equally, and it's a matter of personal preference. DrKiernan (talk) 11:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The text includes several quotes in French, which unsurprisingly use the French form... AJRG (talk) 12:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The discussion is not entirely clear to me... Are we talking about the French surname (d'Orléans) or the title (Prince(ss) of Orleans)? This could make some difference in the discussion. Demophon (talk) 12:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Contemporary usage is to translate the title (leaving out the acute accent) but not the surname. AJRG (talk) 13:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Yzabet again

There is still another effort to move Her Present Majesty to Elizabeth II, despite the no-consensus result last month. It is outside the standard process, at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Article title. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 11:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The present naming scheme creates spurious titles. So George VI of the United Kingdom never held that title, but was King of Great Britain, Ireland, etc. (see Style of the British sovereign) and also Emperor of India. George VI (United Kingdom) would make sense according to normal Wikipedia disambiguation, but the present naming convention creates a nonsense. AJRG (talk) 13:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

He was King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, a single realm, qand of its dominions and possessions beyond the seas. King of Ireland? {{cn}}. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

He was also King of Australia, Ceylon, New Zealand, India, Pakistan, Canada, ect. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

By the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland, and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas, King, Defender of the Faith. He was also Emperor of India until that was dropped as of 15 Aug 1947 by retroactive proclamation dated 22 Jun 1948. His title never included the words of the United Kingdom, so they are formally incorrect. AJRG (talk) 21:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

We should be considering a 1-year freeze on this article's title, if the current RfC ends in no consensus for move. GoodDay (talk) 23:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

If there is no consensus on the use of guidelines for an article's title, surely policies still apply? AJRG (talk) 10:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Policy does apply. It says that there are five considerations, all of which would be desirable, and that we should balance between them; it also endorses the existence of subject guidelines, which need not always use the most common title. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Kings of the Hellenes etc.

A significant point was deleted on February 19 without serious discussion, I have restored it: "But if an obscure official name of a state exists alongside a clearly understood one, it is fine to use the more widely known version. For example, Kings of Greece rather than the technically correct Kings of the Hellenes." In practice we are still referring to kings as "of Greece" not "of the Hellenes", similarly with e.g Belgium, Scotland. PatGallacher (talk) 20:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree. How does this apply to #Louis-Philippe, two sections up? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't see that "French" is any more obscure than "France" for anyone with a reasonable command of English, whereas "Hellenes" and "Greece" are not so obviously related. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair point, but we are not normally using "King of the Belgians" or "King of Scots" in article titles. Can we at least agree that this is the normal Wikipedia guideline, even if we decide to make the odd exception. PatGallacher (talk) 00:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't work. Either use the correct title or disambiguate using parentheses. AJRG (talk) 00:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem that I see in the naming of articles on royalty is that Wikipedia wants to, on the one hand, create titles of articles that have nothing to do with the history of countries (cases of Louis-Philippe, Napoléon I, Napoléon II, Napoléon III), while, on the other hand, bring every argument to what is done with English/British monarchs. The irony of it is that while France has not changed its name for hundreds of year & only its last four reigning or non-reigning monarchs are "of the French" and not "of France" - thus respecting the will of the people because of the historical fact that was the French Revolution -, the people across the English Channel have changed the name of their country, or rather "of the realm" several times. An outsider like myself can see it, I believe, more clearly than you "Anglos": your argument is always on whether the monarch is "of England", "of England and Scotland", "of the United Kingdom", "of the British Empire" etc. So, as I once suggested, we should stop bringing everything back to how the kings & queens of the "country-on-the-other-side-of-the-English-Channel" are named as a model on how to name the titles of articles in English Wikipedia on subjects other than from "England", because you can't even agree on what concerns your own monarchs.

As for Belgium: Belgium did not exist as an independent state before 1830 and from its first king on to the present one, the title has been "Roi des Belges", never "Roi de Belgique", so, why insist on having "So & So of Belgium". That's what I mean when I say that English Wikipedia is not respecting history. An encyclopedia should be "historically correct", it should teach its readers, not have its readers dictate something of a lower level because they (supposedly) would be unable to understand the real stuff.

In my opinion, titles as shown below would solve the problem:

• Louis-Philippe (France)
• Napoléon I (France)
• Léopold I (Belgium)
• Paul (Greece)
• etc.

--Frania W. (talk) 02:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that "Paul (Greece)" makes much sense. And the "(France)" and "(Belgium)" are quire unnecessary. The more I think about this, the more clear it becomes that the naming of monarch articles on Wikipedia would be greatly improved if that whole section of this guideline were deleted, and we named the articles on general principles (most common name in reliable sources, with standard disambiguation as necessary, but taking account of things like consistency and accuracy when choosing between roughly equally common names). I know PMA will agree with this proposal, as he always says we should be silent where there is no consensus (as is clearly the case here), but will others join us?--Kotniski (talk) 07:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

You missed my point Pat. "The Hellenes" wasn't the official name of the State. The official name of the State was Greece. So, the point doesn't make any sense. It's confused the style of the monarch with the name of the state. DrKiernan (talk) 08:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Which again goes to show that an individual title of honour may produce a misleading article title... AJRG (talk) 10:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

How about: "But if an obscure official title of a monarch exists alongside a clearly understood one, it is fine to use the more widely known version. For example, Kings of Greece rather than the technically correct Kings of the Hellenes"?

It may be helpful to use "Kings of Greece" in the plural whilst being incorrect to use "King of Greece" in the singular. AJRG (talk) 15:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

We don't do official titles anyway, obscure or otherwise, according to this guideline. So the proposed text makes no sense.--Kotniski (talk) 15:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Most commonly associated state

For British monarchs from George IV to George V, their most commonly associated state was not the United Kingdom but the British Empire. Their article titles should reflect this. AJRG (talk) 15:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

That's not exactly a state. I would suggest that all of these monarchs are most commonly named without reference to any state or realm, and that the article titles should reflect that.--Kotniski (talk) 16:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Truth be told, the 'realm' which is most associated with these monarchs, are the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland & the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. -- GoodDay (talk) 19:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The trouble with Kotniski's last argument is that you will probably find that most monarchs of most countries are most commonly named without reference to any state or realm, since the country is clear from the context e.g. histories of Spain just refer to "Charles II" since it's clear from the context who this means. This looks like a flagrant attempt to introduce systemic bias into Wikipedia, which we are supposed to avoid, see WP:BIAS. PatGallacher (talk) 20:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

What? It's the present guideline that insists on systematic bias - I'm opposed to putting in states where they aren't needed (and particularly where we have to choose between more than one).--Kotniski (talk) 07:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia. There's a (deliberate) systematic bias in favour of English... AJRG (talk) 23:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

... deliberately ignoring the reason why a French king chose to be called "King of the French" instead of "King of France". English Wikipedia is turning into a hypermarketpedia where the packaging is more important than the content.

--Frania W. (talk) 23:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

You have a point, though in that case I had no difficulty finding a contemporary English source (see above) that supported your argument. AJRG (talk) 00:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

AJRG: I appreciate the sharing of your find & thank you for it. --Frania W. (talk) 01:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

That is not quite the same as a bias in favour of the English-speaking countries, English is widely used as an international language. PatGallacher (talk) 00:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

What would the majority of international English speakers understand by George III? AJRG (talk) 00:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The title was "King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland", and (after 1872) "Emperor of India", not "Emperor of the British Empire", or such like. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Which goes to show that an individual title of honour may produce a misleading article title... AJRG (talk) 00:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

PatGallacher, while assuming "that a recent contribution was misplaced", you deleted mine! I put it back at its original place as it was intended to finish AJRG's sentence preceding it. And I do accept your apology... but only because you have a beautiful Irish name & may still be celebrating Saint Patrick's Day! --Frania W. (talk) 01:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

To answer AJRG: at present George III is a redirect to "George III of the United Kingdom", with a disambiguation page to cover the other George III's. Note that however George I and George II are disambiguation pages. Is anyone proposing to change this? PatGallacher (talk) 01:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Which doesn't answer the question. Even though George III is clearly potentially ambiguous, the majority of the English speaking world associate George III with the independence of the American colonies and the birth of the USA. AJRG (talk) 10:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

In one case, "George III of the United Kingdom" is the full title of the article, and "George III" redirects there. In the other case, "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom" is the full title of the article and "Elizabeth II" redirects there. PatGallacher (talk) 14:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Which just repeats the current guidelines, and so misses the point. In the first case disambiguation is practically unnecessary in the English speaking world and in the second case it is entirely unnecessary, as well as failing WP:UNDUE. AJRG (talk) 16:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's try again. By at least Pitt's India Act of 1784, if not earlier, the population of Britain's colonies exceeded that of Great Britain. So from George III, or perhaps George IV, WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV begin to apply to the title of an article about a British sovereign. AJRG (talk) 14:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

For reliable source use of the word "empire" to describe George III's realm see An empire divided: the American Revolution and the British Caribbean. AJRG (talk) 16:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

That misunderstands WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV, try actually reading these guidelines. This could also raise some issues in relation to some Spanish monarchs, and Portuguese monarchs who ruled over Brazil. For a time ethnic Russians only made up a minority of the Tsar's subjects. PatGallacher (talk) 18:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

For the record, WP:NPOV and its subsection WP:UNDUE are policy, not guidelines... Since I have read them you'll need to play the ball instead of the man. And yes, it does potentially raise issues elsewhere but that's probably a separate discussion. Modern scholarship increasingly makes use of non-UK sources for the history of the British Empire, so that WP:UNDUE and (more widely) WP:NPOV both apply. AJRG (talk) 21:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

We should certainly make use of non-UK sources, but what do they call him? Other Wikipedias call him "George III du Royaume-Uni", "Jorge III del Reino Unido" etc.. PatGallacher (talk) 21:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

English Wikipedia prefers English language sources where possible. For the British Empire there are many non-UK English language sources (from the emerging USA and from the other colonies) so that questions of undue weight and neutral point of view do need to be addressed. For example, Google Scholar lists 48,600 entries for "george iii" but only 12 for "george iii of the united kingdom" and 18,600 for "george iv" but none (0) for "george iv of the united kingdom". AJRG (talk) 09:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Primary meanings

I hope this won't be regarded as canvassing, but there is an important move discussion going on at Talk:George IV. Some people are effectively arguing against the idea that we can ever treat any monarch as the primary meaning of a given name + number combination. I think there has been some intervention by inexperienced Wikipedians who do not fully understand the issues here. This could have serious implications for several monarchs, most of the Georges, James IV, probably a few others. PatGallacher (talk) 19:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Netherlands

In the light of current discussions, do some people have a problem with the titles of some recent Dutch monarchs: Wilhelmina of the Netherlands, Beatrix of the Netherlands and Juliana of the Netherlands? PatGallacher (talk) 19:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

If that's not what they're commonly called in the real world (as is usually the case with these numeral-less, title-less constructions of the "Victoria of the UK" type), then yes, I have a problem with them.--Kotniski (talk) 10:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I did an extremely quick and crude test: Google seaching finds 98 thousand for "Juliana of the Netherlands", 35 thousand for "Queen Juliana". PatGallacher (talk) 18:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Bizarrely, Google returns me more hits for "Princess Juliana of the Netherlands" than for "Juliana of the Netherlands", and more for "Queen Juliana of the Netherlands" than for "Queen Juliana". Which is clearly impossible - but anyway, it reflects the reason for my dislike of the plain "Juliana of the Netherlands" type name - it is rarely used as a complete name, only as part of one. The "of the Netherlands" qualifies "Queen" or "Princess" - take that title away, and you're left with a name that looks like it refers to someone from the Netherlands (of the "Anne of Cleves" type), not someone who ruled the Netherlands.--Kotniski (talk) 09:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Lead 24 March

user:Kotniski has altered the lead in what, since the incorporation of the use of reliable sources in the Article Naming Policy, is a change I think should have been made a year ago. I have altered some of his wording to explain that this guideline is needed because as anyone who worked in this area knows, they (the nobs) all use the same small set of names and titles.

The major problem with just relaying on common name is that frequently otherwise common sources do not use a name that is universally unique, If an author writes "The Commonwealth executed Charles in January 1649" it is obvious from the context of the book or article which Charles the author is referring to (as is the Commonwealth). The trouble is that for this encyclopaedia, that otherwise reliable source is not specific enough to use as a naming source. This has to be explained somewhere near the start of this guideline, as that is the raison d'être for this guideline. -- PBS (talk) 21:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

If we going to soend space describe policy, it would be nice to describe what WP:AT actually says, not what PBS would like it to say. O hope this does not herald a general assault on policy pages; that will not change policy. Policy is what the community actually does; these pages are an attempt to describe that community consensus.

In this case, the proposed text does not correctly describe this page, nor the policy it implements. As a minor matter, this does not contain a convention for Muslim rulers and nobles, there is none; analogy to Europe may suggest a sensible thing to do, but the details have not yet been worked out.

Most serious, however, is this regrettable passage:

The most general rule overall is to use the most common form of the name used in reliable sources in English. This guideline sets out additional guidance on what to do if there is no obvious common name to use as an article title; or if the common name is ambiguous either because a person has, or had, more than one title; or similar titles are, or were, used in different realms (countries).

WP:AT#Common names is a good rule, widely applicable, but it is not the most general rule; it's an application of Recognizability one of the five or six truly general rules. Since, as we explain, it is rarely possible to use the most common name as a title in this subject: we cannot use Henry IV or Duke of Devonshire as article titles for any of the individuals for whom each is most common name - that's why this page exists at all.

That's a misstatement of policy; the next sentence misdescribes the scope of this guideline, in a manner which is not, and never has been, consensus. Please stop this. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think my wording misdescribed policy (if I did I would not have used it) and certainly it did not ignore policy as did the wording before Kotniski made this edit at 10:47, 23 March 2010: "Most general rule overall: use the most common form of the name used in English if none of the rules below cover a specific problem." -- PBS (talk) 22:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's see what PBS is contending here:

• This page can be rewritten at whim because it is older than WP:AT (as it is)
• But one of the oldest phrasings of this guideline, which is an effort to phrase the idea now more fully described at WP:AT as Recognizability, consistitutes policy.

Would PBS allow any other statement from a guideline to be described as policy, in contradiction to an actual policy page? I doubt it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand either of your bullet points or your last question. It seems to from the tone of what your have written that I have annoyed you, and if I have that was never my intention, and a am sorry if I have done so.

I don't know if this is older than the policy page as I suspect the edit history is not complete but the first version of this page that exists in the edit history is this one from 2002 which from the edit history comment and the link implies that the central page existed. The wording that now exists in the lead of this guideline seems a lot closer to the wording of 2002 than the sentence from yesterday: "Most general rule overall: use the most common form of the name used in English if none of the rules below cover a specific problem. " (my emphasis). The rules below have over time developed to the point where they just about cover every possible permutation of royalty and nobility, leading to names being decided by a set of rule (an algorithm) not through the use of reliable sources. Now in most cases those rules create the same name as would be found in reliable sources, but as we know from this talk page and article talk pages, the algorithm throws up some anomalies which are not covered by common usage in reliable sources. I think that the cruft that has built up in this guideline over time to address the issue of names used in unreliable sources (which we no longer use to determine the name), can be simplified. The first step in that process is to remove the statement "if none of the rules below cover a specific problem". As to what is recognisable, you may have changed your position PMA, since you added to the policy page "Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject.", but I still think that is a reasonable starting point, before adding the necessary bits and pieces for disambiguation etc. -- PBS (talk) 00:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I have not changed my position. Recognizability is an important goal; fortunately it is not difficult to satisfy for European royalty, who almost all of them offer several recogniaabke titles. But it is not identical with most common name, and it is not the only goal. Both these are just as well, because the most common name is rarely usable in this subject. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Can we just look at the footnote that's been added, "Common name" in the case of royalty and nobility includes their name and title. What is this supposed to mean? Surely we can't say here and now what forms of names are going to be common for particular people? (This guideline tells us to omit the title in many cases anyway.)--Kotniski (talk) 07:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I am trying to get over the idea that we don't call someone by just their name but take into account their title as well, we could after all ignore the title and go for a disambiguation of "(professional occupation)", as in Arthur Wellesley (soldier and statesman). The whole point of this guideline, is to deal with Europeans who have a titles (which they are often called by as in "Duke of Wellington") . However I am not wedded to the wording I have used (and I realise that we do not include King and Queen in article names), please improve it as you see fit. -- PBS (talk) 08:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure we need such a footnote; anyway, I've changed it to say "may include...".--Kotniski (talk) 09:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I think some form of wording is useful, remembering the confusion over common name with flora which resulted in this footnote? As we are here dealing with an entry in this encyclopaedia for people who have a names and titles, and we also have the "article titles" (instead of the old "page name") and "common names". For someone familiar with the Wikipedia nomenclature in this area, terms are clearly defined, but can you imagine how confusing these term must be on first reading them? -- PBS (talk) 10:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Irish Free State

Following the establishment of the Irish Free State as a Dominion, the 1926 Imperial Conference recommended a change to the title of King George V (here, section IV (a), page 3) removing the words United Kingdom. As a consequence, neither Edward VIII nor George VI have these words in their royal title (sources here). Their current article titles in Wikipedia are therefore incorrect. AJRG (talk) 01:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

"Correctness" is not one of our principles; our article titles are "neither vulgar nor pedantic". For that matter, is it correct? This is a recommendation, not an enactment. Both Edward VIII and George VI were King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; but to include all that in a title would be excessive - as is AJRG's thread here.

Enough. Boring those you would persuade is not the road to success. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

See Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927. Your statements about Edward VIII and George VI are factually incorrect, as evidenced (again) by their accession proclamations.

Edward the Eighth, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland, and the British Dominions beyond the Seas King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India (The Times, January 23, 1936)

George the Sixth by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland, and the British Dominions beyond the Seas King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India (The Times, December 14, 1936)

Being encyclopaedic is not pedantry. AJRG (talk) 07:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

So what's wrong with removing any mention of any country and just calling them Edward VIII and George VI? Then we could happily change Elizabeth II as well, as most editors want, without making that title inconsistent with those of her predecessors. Then everyone would be happy, including Wikipedia readers who would no longer be fed bogus names. I don't see what problem anyone might have with this.--Kotniski (talk) 06:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I will never support that. It is for the purposes of consistency, and an encyclopaedia should be consistent wherever possible. It's a principle of indexing. Deb (talk) 08:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

But if we did it consistently, then it would be consistent. (It would also be consistent with what Wikipedia does elsewhere - keep titles concise, disambiguate as far as is necessary and no more. Insisting on local consistency for an arbitrarily designated group of articles in opposition to that principle is actually being inconsistent.)--Kotniski (talk) 08:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

For the last time: we cannot adopt Kotniski's suggestion consistently; the British thrones go back to the Middle Ages, and almost all the holders before 1759 have names which are ambiguous with other monarchs. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

1759 seems like a very appropriate cut-off. From then on, Britain had an empire... AJRG (talk) 21:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Canadian parochialism again: Britain had had a North American Empire since 1607, to say nothing of the British Empire in (and off the coast of) Europe. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Ad hominem doesn't add anything to your argument. Virginia was preceded by Newfoundland (1497, 1583) and by Saint Croix and Saint Thomas in the Virgin Islands (1587). With George III the pace really picks up - 1759 Quebec (though briefly 1629-1632); 1762 Philippines; 1763 Florida; 1769 New Zealand; 1770 New South Wales. AJRG (talk) 00:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations on wrapping yourself in the maple leaf so thoroughly. But all this moves the beginning of the first British Empire further from 1759, not closer - unless one ignores the brevity of the British acquisitions around Manilla and in Florida. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have convinced yourself that I'm Canadian... You're quite wrong. AJRG (talk) 18:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

By at least Pitt's India Act of 1784, perhaps a little earlier, the population of Britain's colonies exceeded that of Great Britain. Before that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC applies and I have no quarrel with treating Great Britain and its predecessors as the primary state. After that, the weight of bureaucracy ensures that the balance of reliable sources swiftly tips in favour of the colonies. AJRG (talk) 18:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

AJRG has the most fantastic idea of the population of Bengal; the rest of this is equally figmentary. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

What are your sources? See Population of the Province of Bengal , 1751 - 1801 and compare it with UK population growth. AJRG (talk) 10:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

To pre-emptively disambiguate or not to pre-emptively disambiguate?

The current guideline of pre-emptively disambiguating the names of monarchs has come under some criticism. I appreciate that this may at first sight strike a few people as unnecessary, it would not be a disaster to abandon it, but on balance I believe that we are better off with it than without it.

When I looked at how other Wikipedias handle this, the bulk of major Wikipedias in other languages (at least those which use the Latin alphabet) do use pre-emptive disambiguation as well. The German and Russian Wikipedias do not (although they still have their equivalent of "Victoria of the United Kingdom" and "Anne of Great Britain").

Such a change would mean moving a large number of articles, including several English Edwards and Henrys and French Louiss.

My main objection to this change is that it would mean switching the "of" form on and off for the monarchs of a particular country in a way which has nothing to do with the history of the country in question, but is influenced by events in other countries. For example, among recent UK monarchs, Edward VII loses the "of" but George V stays "of the UK", Edward VIII loses it but George VI keeps it. This would be confusing and distracting for some readers, and would have nothing to do with UK history, but the history of e.g. Georgia. Similarly, take the Stewart kings of Scotland. Robert II of Scotland would stay that, he would be followed by plain Robert III, then James I, II, III and IV of Scotland, but plain James V. This would have nothing to do with Scottish history, but the history of e.g. Normandy, Majorca. There are probably similar issues with other countries.

It has been suggested that we should remove disambiguation in cases where the monarch is the primary but not the unique meaning of a name + number combination, that is the effect of the recent proposed revised guideline. This would apply to George V, VI of the UK, but also James IV of Scotland, George VII, VIII of Georgia, probably a few others. This is in some ways a drastic proposal, no other Wikipedia does this. Why remove this useful information from the title? If we did we would probably end up having an "about" in the hatnote. This would look like nationalistic bias. We would still end up switching the "of" on and off in several cases.

We also have the problem of what to do with e.g. Henry VIII, where he is the only monarch of this name, but he clashes with e.g. a TV series. PatGallacher (talk) 12:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's of any relevance how other Wikipedias do this, especially as they will have been strongly influenced by the en.wp precedent (and there seems to be a split in practice anyway). As to whether it means switching between "of" forms and "non-of" forms - that's not a given either; my proposal would generally eliminate the "of" forms (unless they are in common usage), in favour of "comma king of" forms. So we'd be switching not between "X n" and "X n of Y"; but between "X n" and "X n, King of Y". This is something quite familiar to Wikipedia readers and perfectly natural anyway - it's like Police, Poland versus Międzyzdroje (people presumably understand that one of them has the tag because it needs disambiguating). And about removing useful information from the title - it's not useful, but the reverse, if it leads people to think that the name we've given these people is a real or commonly used title. --Kotniski (talk) 12:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I retain my objection, this would still mean switching between "X n" and "X n, King of Y" forms in a way which could appear unhelpful. We should not necessarily expect much similarity between the handling of monarchs and place names, but sometimes we do add disambiguators to place names even if this is not essential e.g. we have Sacramento, California even though this is the primary meaning of "Sacramento". Further discussion of this issue might be better continued at the page for geographical names.

I am also not sure how far-reaching Kotniski's proposal is. In cases where he accepts that disambiguation is necessary, is he proposing that we should normally go for "X n, King of Y"? Or would he retain "X of Y" where this is "real or commonly used"? This is a very grey area, and could lead to wrangles in relation to a large number of articles? PatGallacher (talk) 15:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

United States (and Australian) place names seem to be the other major areas, apart from royals and nobles, where redundant disambiguators are used (Mr Anderson will no doubt be able to tell us how it came to be that way). I don't think Wikipedia should have these islands where things are done differently just because local editors have decided they prefer it that way - but there we are. My personal preference about disambiguating is for "King of Y" (that's already the way we do it for ranks other than kings, and even for some emperors; and it avoids unidiomatic "of" formations - however, if particular monarchs and series of monarchs are well-known as "X of Y", then I've no objection to that form being used for them). However I must admit I'm getting even more pedantic - if we want to use a title that isn't the true title, just a description (like "King of Greece" if the true title was "King of the Hellenes"), then I'm starting to feel we should put it in parentheses: "X (king of Greece)". (Which in turn is a good argument for preferring the "X of Greece" forms for those monarchs, if they're idiomatic.)--Kotniski (talk) 16:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

No, actually. This guideline talked about "preemptive disambiguation" the first time I saw it; I conclude that it dates back to when these articles were being written, and we had to worry about finding another Henry VIII out there somewhere. The United States settlement articles, likewise, were that way when I first consulted them; I have seen claims that they were produced in 2003. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I strongly oppose Kotniski's suggestions, and suggest that he leave questions of English idiom to the anglophones. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

? American English is now the only Anglo- ? I suggest when we're talking about English kings, it should be British English that holds sway.--Kotniski (talk) 06:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I mean no offence to Kotniski, but it strikes me that it is very sterile to repeat long-standing arguments over a convention that, for the most part, works well and effectively, when we could all be doing something more constructive, like creating and improving articles. And it smacks of "not invented here" syndrome - I didn't think of these conventions, therefore they must need changing. Deb (talk) 11:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

No, I can see they need changing because (at least sometimes) they produce stupid titles, and people don't seem to approach them with the required flexibility to deviate from them when appropriate. One of the important ways we can improve articles is to give them titles that are sensible and consistent (that's consistent in philosophy and accuracy, not necessarily in exact form).--Kotniski (talk) 11:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Any case that turns into a pitched battle over guidelines has to be a prime candidate for common sense. AJRG (talk) 12:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Interesting interpretation of "common sense", which is of course one of the most subjective terms you could possibly use - alng with "stupid". Deb (talk) 21:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

You're right. It might have been kinder to send you here. AJRG (talk) 11:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Or maybe here? Deb (talk) 12:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Truly. AJRG (talk) 12:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Wallis, Duchess of Windsor

Is this title supported by something in this guideline?--Kotniski (talk) 10:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

No. I've never been happy with it myself. Deb (talk) 10:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Since the Duke's surname was Windsor, it should strictly be Wallis Windsor, Duchess of Windsor. In my view this is taking things to an extreme. My recollection was that she was often referred to as Wallis Simpson - her previous married name or as Duchess of Windsor. Since the title is unique (and likely to remain so), there would be no ambiguity if moved there; but does it matter? Peterkingiron (talk) 10:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, it matters for the usual reason - we've no business as an encyclopedia passing off made-up names as genuine. I'd say Wallis Simpson would make the best title on this occasion, by analogy with Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon (and more importantly, with the general rule that we name people's articles by the names by which they're best known). --Kotniski (talk) 12:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Wallis Simpson makes a great deal of sense. She was never a consort, but she is closer to Elizabeth Woodville than to Fergie; I believe usage supports this. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree and would support such a move. Deb (talk) 18:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The Duke's surname was not Windsor - British Royals with titles don't have surnames. Wallis is an even bigger mess because letters patent explicitly made her non-Royal. But "Wallis, Duchess of Windsor" is not a "made-up name", it's the name on her tombstone. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Photo of the grave here. AJRG (talk) 19:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and this name does seem to get quite a lot of usage in fact, but not nearly as much as either of the far better known names Wallis Simpson and The Duchess of Windsor. Is there some consistency thing involved in choosing a far less common name than we might?--Kotniski (talk) 06:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

"The Duchess of Windsor" as an article title without "Wallis" is as rubbish an article title as "Countess of Wessex" without "Sophie". Pure "most common name" is rarely the best guidance for royalty & nobility precisely because of the multiple elements and variants in how they're addressed and referred to, with many of those addresses not being intended to be used for determining encyclopaedia titles.

One thing that surprises me is that "duchess of windsor" -wikipedia is a lot more common on the web than "wallis simpson" -wikipedia or "mrs simpson" -wikipedia. Timrollpickering (talk) 07:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Was anyone or anything ever given a name with the intention that it be used for determining encyclopaedic titles?? Why simply reject the most common name as "rubbish" without any justification? --Kotniski (talk) 08:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

It's good enough for Time Magazine, apparently. AJRG (talk) 08:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

In view of the documentary evidence given above, I withdraw any objection to the present title. It is clearly her highest and last official title and there is no disambiguation requirement. Deb (talk) 08:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Not official, surely?--Kotniski (talk) 08:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The Queen attended the burial... on a royal estate... AJRG (talk) 08:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't make whatever was written on the tombstone an official title (I don't see the comma on the picture anyway). Though the titles we use are generally not official ones, so it doesn't really matter.--Kotniski (talk) 08:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd be surprised if they didn't take Buckingham Palace's advice as to what title to use when they buried her in a royal mausoleum. Deb (talk) 11:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Leaders of a people, rather than a country or nation

Kotniski With this edit (14:23, 10 April 2010) you have the wording "Leaders of a people, rather than a country or nation", I think it is confusing because there are two different concepts mix up together here. A nation is a people a country is territory and there is a third concept of state. Today nation and country often align but not always with a territory and population of a state. In historic terms this defiantly was not true that state and nations aligned, because of empires and the concept that the state is embodied in a person. -- PBS (talk) 20:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

That was the wording that was there before - my edit didn't affect that phrase. What do you suggest instead?--Kotniski (talk) 10:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Just a tiny note that a "nation" is a group of people rather than a division of land. :s --Jza84 |  Talk  11:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Adn that is what is intended. I have made the distinction clearer by writing "a nation". This is intended to deal with rulers like Theodoric the Great, who was not King of Italy, and his line; yet the Visigoths are neither a country nor a nation. (Fortunately, there is a unique set of names, which can be dismabiuated by number.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Artificial titles?

Common sense is sometimes open to interpretation. There has been some criticism of Wikipedia for using alleged "artificial titles".

Monarchs can sometimes have odd official titles. Nicholas II was officially "Emperor and Autocrat of all the Russias" and his full title went on for half a page. The King of Sweden was officially "King of the Swedes, the Geats, and the Wends" with minor variations. The title of the monarch in some countries can sometimes undergo minor changes of no real political substance, see Style of the British monarch. There are even dangers of making an unhistorical and unencyclopedic fetish out of someone's official title, which in some cases might have come as a surprise to the monarch himself or most of his contemporaries e.g. some early monarchs used "King of England" and "King of the English" interchangably. There may be a few exceptions e.g. King of the French did have serious implications in relation to the politics of France at that time.

I think we should indeed exercise a degree of common sense here. Our article titles are supposed to be a reasonable brief description of the country they ruled over, or in some cases the most important country, they are not supposed to be more than that.

Also, we should aim for a degree of continuity in titles. People have made out that Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom is an importatant figure, in some ways she is, but one way is that there is a degree of continuity stretching all the way back to Alfred the Great. So we should avoid many changes in the titles of monarchs between the two of them, they should reflect real changes over they years e.g. the Union with Scotland, not minor tweaks in people's formal titles. PatGallacher (talk) 16:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

From 1927 to 1953, British monarchs were separately King of Great Britain and King of Ireland (or in the case of Elizabeth II, separately Queen) in recognition of the creation of the Irish Free State. That isn't a minor tweak, but a historically important step on the road to the declaration of the Republic of Ireland. AJRG (talk) 17:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Were? in some points of view; but the Irish Free State went to some lengths to avoid acknowledging any King of Ireland whatsoever - and the creation of the Irish Republic complicated matters still further. It may be useful - with clear and unambiguous sources - to discuss this in the text of the three or four articles in question; but this should not affect the titles of the articles at all. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I've given my sources above - you haven't given any. Read the Constitution of the Irish Free State, especially Articles 17, 24, 41, 42, 51 and 83. AJRG (talk) 18:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Do your sources include a life of De Valera? Those provisions were routinely evaded, having been adopted due to coercion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

See Constitution (Amendment No. 27) Act and Executive Authority (External Relations) Act 1936. AJRG (talk) 21:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Yes, I don't think we should be aiming to reflect people's formal titles. But if we feed readers uncommon names for people they know well under other names, then it's natural for them to think (and indeed some editors now think, judging by some comments I've seen in move discussions) that these uncommon names must be being used because they are in some way more correct in real terms (i.e. not in Wikipedia internal terms). I've just been reading (and significantly copyediting) WP:Naming conventions (people) and, despite the confused way it's written, that convention seems to be based on very sound and consistent principles - above all use the name by which someone is best known, although sometimes the choice between well-known (commonly used) names is made based on other considerations like consistency and disambiguation. You don't take a rarely used form of a name purely in order to preserve some pattern or avoid the need for a disambiguation tag. That's what seems to have gone wrong with this convention - although the rules make sense as general guidelines, they are set out and interpreted as rigid commands, leading to names which run counter to Wikipedia's principles (and in doing so, produce the very inconsistency which this guideline is advertised as avoiding).--Kotniski (talk) 18:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

That is Kotniski's view of what policy ought to be; but it is not what policy or practice is. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Kotniski raises the concern that readers may think that "uncommon names must be being used because they are in some way more correct in real terms (i.e. not in Wikipedia internal terms)". That is indeed a concern of mine as well, and one of many reasons I'm uncomfortable with the guideline as it stands, but I think the larger problem is that there shouldn't be a discrepancy between "real terms" and "Wikipedia internal terms". If, for the sake of adhering to an internal naming convention, we invent titles that never existed or insist on obscure titles that aren't common usage, we're doing our readers a disservice. And if our naming convention requires us to use obscure or invented titles, there's something wrong with the convention. Alkari (?), 10 April 2010, 00:09 UTC

Yes, that's exactly my view.--Kotniski (talk) 09:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Come off it! Formally, the titles used by some 20th century monarchs might have implied that they ruled Great Britain and Ireland as separate realms, but if so this was one of these titular fictions, like the claim of British monarchs to be King of France, or the claim of some European monarchs to be King of Jerusalem long after the place was re-conquered by the Muslims. (Incidentally, the real Crusader Kings of Jerusalem called themselves "King of the Latins of Jerusalem" or similar.) While there were important changes in the status of Ireland in the 20th century, I am unclear why you treat 1927 and 1953 as important cut-off points. OK, then, what short article title would you give UK monarchs pre-1927, during 1927-53, and post-1953? PatGallacher (talk) 18:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

See Royal Style and Titles Act. AJRG (talk) 19:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks, that did respond to one issue I raised. However if you read this article and follow an early link to the 1927 Act article, it states "The Act had two consequences. The first was to change the full name of the United Kingdom (UK) to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the former United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in recognition of the fact that all of Ireland except the North-East had seceded to form a separate dominion, the Irish Free State". So I rest my case! I would argue that "United Kingdom" is a legitimate and widely used short form of both these full names, we do not always have to use the full official name of a state. PatGallacher (talk) 20:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

As I've said elsewhere, the United Kingdom was the correct short name of one of the states but of the United Kindom was not a title of either Edward VIII or George VI. We don't invent names. AJRG (talk) 21:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

But we can agree naming conventions that allow for disambiguation, the body of the article can use the actual names --Snowded ^TALK 09:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Then we have Edward VIII (no disambiguation needed) and George VI (already the primary topic, so again no disambiguation needed). AJRG (talk) 10:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Conventions and consistency tend to go hand in hand, but does the above mean you agree that Liz should be LizIIofUK? --Snowded ^TALK 10:15, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Elizabeth II (no disambiguation needed). AJRG (talk) 10:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec - replying to AJRG) Yes. And in those cases where we do need disambiguation, we should ensure that readers can see what's the name and what's the disambiguator. A tag in parentheses is clearly enough a disambiguator (particularly since that's what's used all over Wikipedia). A tag after a comma might be good enough. But "of Place" is not readily interpreted as a disambiguator (it's normally part of a name, like Anne of Cleves), so we shouldn't use it as such unless the result is itself a commonly used name. --Kotniski (talk) 10:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Is anybody proposing to move William IV of the United Kingdom? He is not at present the primary meaning of William IV. PatGallacher (talk) 11:27, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The title isn't inaccurate. William IV (British Empire) would be more appropriate. AJRG (talk) 11:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Or perhaps you're suggesting that he should be the primary meaning? It's possible that he might be in English language sources, but he only reigned for seven years so I'm doubtful about that. AJRG (talk) 11:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Google Scholar. Google Books and Google Web all seem to like him. You could well be right... AJRG (talk) 12:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

That would work. Make him the primary meaning and the article title becomes just William IV. AJRG (talk) 12:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

William IV is a relatively unimportant monarch in recent UK history, he reigned for less than 7 years. Is he much more important than e.g. William IV, Prince of Orange, first hereditary stadtholder of the Netherlands. Beware of systemic bias. PatGallacher (talk) 12:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. I would have expected the Prince of Orange to win (see my doubts above) but English language sources don't agree. AJRG (talk) 12:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The most consistent with the others listed at William IV would be William IV, King of the United Kingdom. By the way, does anyone know why William IV of Provence and the other Counts of Provence are called that way (just "of Provence", not "Count of Provence")? Are they considered of kingly rank?--Kotniski (talk) 11:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Because the user who created the articles about the Counts of Provence opposes the current guidelines and refuses to have the articles titled "X, Count of Provence". Surtsicna (talk) 13:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, no-one gets a veto. Is it User:Srnec? Has this been discussed anywhere?--Kotniski (talk) 13:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's User:Srnec and it has been discussed (he opposed), but we should notify him before continuing this discussion. Surtsicna (talk) 14:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Srnec replied on his talk page - it seems (assuming his facts about usage are right) that this is another case where the convention would impose names which are less natural than those which are in common use.--Kotniski (talk) 09:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't seem so to anybody who reads what Srnec actually said.

But this is a perfect example of why there is no obvious solution here. We could indeed title the Grand Duke of Luxembourg Henri of Luxembourg; we cannot title the Counts of Champagne, or the Count of Chambord, Henry of Chambord, because Count is part of what he is normally called. The Counts of Provence lie somewhere in between. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your logic ("we can't call X this because it's not what he's normally called") doesn't seem to hold around here. "Victoria of the United Kingdom" is not what she's normally called (and other examples ad nauseam), yet that's the title people have given to the article. And you seem to be among those who support this state of affairs. I don't understand why you favour following actual usage in some cases, but strongly reject it in others.--Kotniski (talk) 06:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

One fundamental principle is: is the article title recognizable? Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom is - anybody will recognize who is meant; Henry of Chambord is not (Henri de Chambord might be recognizeble to francophones, but that's a question for the French WP, not for us). Among recognixable titles, we must choose one; that choice is influenced by several other principles, among them consistency, precision, lack of ambiguity. If there is no reason not to choose otherwise, the most common one may as well be used; we presume it to be most recognizable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I still don't see why someone who knows who Queen Victoria is should be expected to recognise "Victoria of the United Kingdom" any more than someone who knows who Henry, Count of Chambord is can be expected to recognise "Henry of Chambord". The two cases seem virtually identical(except that one person is much better known than the other).--Kotniski (talk) 15:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The special case of royalty without numerals has been discussed at length, especially about John of England. There is no solid consensus for the present custom - and there has been no generally acceptable alternative. If she were, as presumably she will be sometime, Victoria I of the United Kingdom, there would be no problem. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

But right now, that's a long way in the future. AJRG (talk) 20:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

True, but the current king of Sweden turns 64 in a couple of weeks, so we may soon have another Queen Victora. PatGallacher (talk) 20:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

And then WP:PRIMARYTOPIC will be relevant to avoid recentism. AJRG (talk) 21:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

If, in the fullness of time, she comes to be commonly called something other than Queen Victoria, then clearly the article title should change. But for the time being, that is unquestionably and unambiguously her common name, and while there may be no consensus on a general rule for monarchs without ordinals, I submit that in this case there is no reason not to use the common name as the article title. Alkari (?), 14 April 2010, 22:15 UTC

Surely not while there may be no consensus, but because there is no consensus. With consorts there's no consensus on a rule so we follow general (common-name) principles; it should be the same with unnumbered monarchs. (And I don't agree there would be "no problem" if she were Victoria I, just a less blatant problem - we still have lots of problems with the numbered monarchs as well, with the supposed consensus in support of this guideline being hardly even a majority when put to the test.)--Kotniski (talk) 06:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Maria of Romania

I have removed two examples from the section on consorts. Both are dubious, and should not be enshrined in a guideline. Maria of Romania is not "traditionally so known"; this is an example of the maiden-name rule, and has no other justification.

Theodora Komnene, Duchess of Austria is undesirable on several grounds, including the pointless and pedantic spelling of Comnena; but the follies of the Byzantine articles are off topic here. More seriously, the practice of combining her father's House and her husband's title is bizarre. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

So can you give another example of the phenomenon that was supposed to illustrate (of a dead consort's consort title being included in the article title when it's below Queen or Emperor)? If not, can we delete that point?--Kotniski (talk) 06:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

On the subject of Romanian-related Maries, how on earth did we end up with "Marie of Edinburgh"? Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

It's her father's title, so we got here by the maiden-name rule. I intend to go on quoting Dorothy Parker at it till it goes away. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't tease us!

Oh life is a glorious cycle of song

A medley of extemporanea

Love is a thing that can never go wrong

And I am Marie of Rumania!

- Dorothy Parker

- Nunh-huh 23:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

So which woman was Parker referring to - the one we call Marie of Edinburgh or the one we call Maria of Romania? (Marie of Romania redirects to the latter.)--Kotniski (talk) 06:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you will probably find that she was referring to the the Romanian queen, not the Yugoslav queen, and that most references to "Marie of Romania" or similar from the early 20th century would mean this. Even before now, I have had my doubts about the maiden name rule, and whether we should follow it to the extent we are doing. PatGallacher (talk) 11:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

So what rule would you suggest? At the moment, we follow no rule consistently, but do maiden names at random moments. (Kotniski, "most common" is difficult to determine for most of these; here, because there are two Maries/Marias, mother and daughter. If we are going to decide on a hodge-podge, it should be based on some selection of standard sources: perhaps the Cambridge histories of the Middle Ages and the modern world.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. But on these two women, Queen Marie of Romania and Queen Maria of Yugoslavia seems the obvious solution at first sight. (Like Queen Sofia of Spain; if we're saying that certain consorts are better known by their consort titles than by their "maiden names", then for them we may as well follow the same pattern that we use for a living current consort.)--Kotniski (talk) 16:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

That is the beginning of the problem, not the end; the next stage is the Queens we follow usage in disambiguating as Mary of Teck and Isabeau of Bavaria. They are not Queens of Tck or Bavaria, and Queen Mary is all too obivously ambiguous. Indeed, these names arose as an effort to disambiguate consorts of the same name in the same realm. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

If we're following usage, then these aren't a problem. Why is it that we do this strange thing with the tsarinas (original name in parentheses)? If it works for them, perhaps it could be extended to others? (So we could end up with something like Queen Mary (Mary of Teck).) --Kotniski (talk) 03:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Because both forms are used, neither is consistently unambiguous, and they aren't, by any rational standard, translations of each other. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, that must all be true in many other cases too. Is there some reason we use this approach specifically for the tsarinas, and not for anyone else?--Kotniski (talk) 14:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I can't think of any. If Louise of Baden had married outside Russia, her name might have become Luisa, say; but we would still call her Louise in English. But Elizaveta is not equivalent to Louise, and has a different English form. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:23, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

How about Maria Alexandrovna (Marie of Hesse), then? Those forenames seem pretty close.--Kotniski (talk) 09:23, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, to try to get something concrete out of this discussion, I've proposed a rename for the two Maries - see Talk:Marie of Edinburgh#Requested move. Alternative suggestions welcome as to what the new titles might be.--Kotniski (talk) 16:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Change required to point 6 of "Sovereigns"

Point 6 of the "Sovereigns" section does not actually describe what happens in practice. It should read:

6. Where a monarch has reigned over a number of states, determine the article title by discussion on the article talk page, with due regard for consistency, neutrality and reliability. Potential solutions include, but are not limited to, (i) using the most commonly associated state, e.g. Charles II of England, not Charles II of England, Scotland and Ireland; Philip II of Spain, not Philip I of Portugal; (ii) omitting the realm, e.g. Napoleon I not Napoleon I of France and Italy; and (iii) using a common name found in reliable sources, e.g. Sigismund III Vasa not Sigismund of Sweden and III of Poland and Lithuania; William the Conqueror not William I of England or William II, Duke of Normandy. If one state is favored in the article title, it is proper and often desirable to give the others compensating prominence in the introduction of the article. Create redirects from the other possible article titles.^{Amended. New draft below. DrKiernan (talk) 17:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)}

This would then cover the articles that do not follow the convention as currently written. DrKiernan (talk) 11:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

This has arisen over a proposed move of Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. I respect the fact that DrKiernan has come here and put forward an attempt at coherent alternative naming conventions, but I disagree with them. I apologise for the length of this reply, but DrKiernan has raised some complex issues and even a few red herrings.

The large majority of multiple monarchs on Wikipedia are given titles following the "most commonly associated state" principle, and in the bulk of cases most people seem perfectly happy with this. It would be a recipe for far more wrangles than we have already not to have a normal principle for these situations, even if we end up deciding to depart from it in a few cases. The current guideline does allow to call someone by a cognomen sometimes, and the examples DrKiernan gives appear to involve this principle rather than any problems with multiple monarchies.

"Napoleon I of France" was moved to Napoleon I, but if you read the discussion at the time, this was mainly to side-step the dispute about whether to describe him as "Emperor of France" or "Emperor of the French", nobody mentioned the issue that he was formally King of Italy. It would be absurd not to regard France as his primary country, also arguably the French Empire ought to be regarded as a different entity from the French monarchy.

"William I of England" was recently moved to William the Conqueror, but again if you read the discussion you will see that nobody mentioned the issue of him being Duke of Normandy as well, the argument was just that this was the name by which he was commonly known. If Normandy was the issue then we would have to move several of his successors as king of England who were also Duke of Normandy, down to Henry III.

Sigismund III Vasa is, even to many educated people with some knowledge of European history, a rather obscure character, so it is awkward to introduce him into this discussion. However, he was monarch of Poland, and the Polish monarchs are being disambiguated by cognomen, even those who ruled over Poland only, so any multiple monarchy is not the crucial issue here. Some people suggested that the naming of the Polish monarchs generally is a mess, but it appears to be a minority view. From what I know of him, there is a case for moving him to "Sigismund of Sweden", but he could be an individual unusually thorny case, to be judged on his individual merits, not grounds for seriously re-writing the guidelines. He could be one of a tiny number of multiple monarchs where there is genuine doubt about his primary realm. PatGallacher (talk) 14:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the direction DrKiernan wants to go in, but I also agree with Pat that the logic isn't quite right (these aren't examples where the multiple realm issue is the decisive one). The guideline already admits the possibility of using cognomens like William the Conqueror and S. Vasa; and I don't think the fact that he also ruled Italy is the main reason for titling Napoleon I's article as such. However, since a majority of editors now seems to favour moving Elizabeth II (at least) to a title that doesn't mention her realm (and the same has been done for Napoleon), we do need to make some sort of change to the guidance to acknowledge the possibility of doing that.--Kotniski (talk) 14:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I feel I should advise people that I have just submitted a move request to drop the "of France" from Napoleon II and III (see Talk:Napoleon III of France, for consistency, even though I don't think they were ever monarchs of anywhere other than France.

On further examination, Sigismund III Vasa was king of Poland for considerably longer than he was king of Sweden, so Poland was his primary realm, so it's perfectly proper for him to follow the naming conventions for Polish monarchs. They seem to have their own idiosyncratic naming conventions, whether that's a good thing is debatable, but irrelevant to this discussion.

William the Conqueror and his successors were Duke of Normandy as vassals of the king of France. It could be stretching the concept of "multiple monarch" to apply it to monarchs who also held land in another kingdom as vassals, this could apply to several monarchs e.g. several Scottish kings held land in England as a vassal of the king of England. PatGallacher (talk) 16:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

New draft:

6. Where a monarch has reigned over a number of states, determine the article title by discussion on the article talk page, with due regard for consistency, neutrality and reliability. Potential solutions include, but are not limited to, (i) using the most commonly associated state, e.g. Charles II of England, not Charles II of England, Scotland and Ireland; Philip II of Spain, not Philip I of Portugal; (ii) omitting the realm, e.g. Lothair I not Lothair I of Italy; and (iii) using a common name found in reliable sources, e.g. Sigismund III Vasa not Sigismund of Sweden or Sigismund III of Poland. If one state is favored in the article title, it is proper and often desirable to give the others compensating prominence in the introduction of the article. Create redirects from the other possible article titles.

You said "It would be a recipe for far more wrangles than we have already not to have a normal principle for these situations", but the whole reason we have such wrangles is because of this principle. That is why it needs to change. There needs to be more flexibility in dealing with nationalist disputes and having a rule which is "one nation wins" is obviously going to be troublesome when neutral alternatives exist. DrKiernan (talk) 17:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

And "neutral alternatives" will themselves be opposed; we were about to go to James VI of Scotland and I of England, when the Irish editors objected that he was also I of Ireland (as he was); the resulting triple form was too unwieldy even for the Scots. Hence the rule we now follow.

There needs to be more banning of disruptive nationalists, and fewer concessions to imbecile self-pity. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources call him James the Sixth and First, which avoids the argument created by insisting on the guideline against common usage. AJRG (talk) 17:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, some reliable sources do. How many of them are published in Edinboro? Septentrionalis PMAnderson

Try typing "James VI and I" into Google Scholar... AJRG (talk) 21:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

A process which proves little save that historians mention the phrase; historians also (and rightly) mention Pressburg - but our article is at Bratislava. So here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Strangely enough, use in reliable sources is considered important in Wikipedia. Unlike James, Pressburg has recently changed its name - which is why it quite correctly listed under Bratislava. AJRG (talk) 22:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

From the opposite perspective, Sept, it is the english nationalists who force us to use "of England".

You seem to think that I am a nationalist, but I am arguing for compromise not for one side or another. DrKiernan (talk) 18:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. You are. I am arguing against compromise; give them an inch and they will take an ell. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The change from Napoleon I to Lothair I as an example raises some issues. As with Sigismund Vasa, it's slightly unfair to introduce a rather obscure figure who even a lot of educated people will never have heard of. Just glancing at him, there could be a tenable case for moving him to "Lothair I, Holy Roman Emperor", but this, and the earlier Holy Roman Emperors generally, is a particularly complex and obscure issue, so I suggest that whatever solution is adopted should not be taken as creating a wider precedent.

In the large majority of cases it is pretty obvious what a monarch's primary realm was, if you suggest that this nationalistic bias against the other countries this could turn into a recipe for battles. Allegedly non-neutral alternatives are sometimes not devoid of problems.

Consistency in naming is a Wikipedia objective, so this means we should try to achieve consistency in the titles of the monarchs of a particular country, state, dynasty or period, without chopping and changing more than we have to. PatGallacher (talk) 20:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Consistency seems to be a circular argument. It was introduced fairly recently (towards the end of last year) into the policy. Its antecedence was in a draft version of the policy largely written by Hesperian, and it origins can be found in Hesperian's response to criticisms over WP:NC (flora) of that guideline ignoring common usage among reliable sources and insisting on the use of scientific names with some rules for exceptions. In that sense flora was similar to this guideline (until very recently this guideline had evolved into a set of rules that almost totally ignored usage across reliable sources. The rules in both Flora and this guideline did a very good job and in nearly all cases they mirrors reliable sources and added the correct level of the precision needed to create a name. But for a small percentage of names they throw up anomalies which are the names editors argue over.

Consistency was introduced into policy with next to no debate and it is only recently that I realised where it came from. I have repeatedly wanted to get the bullet point on consistency in the policy changed or removed so that it can not be used justify ignoring usage in reliable sources. Until it was introduced it was often stated in article naming debates that decisions over the name of one article could not be used as a precedence for another and that each name should be considered on its own merits. This is an argument that the recently introduced consistency overturns.

I have just read the William I debate and I am disappointed at the in the last move, there was no in depth analysis done over the use in reliable sources, instead most people who expressed an opposition either said "Conqueror is the most common usage" or follow the rules. What this guideline should be doing is encouraging editors to look carefully at reliable sources, and sorting out the name most appropriate for our usage given the needs imposed by the need to have a unique name. If that had been done, then the best name may be "William the Conqueror" or it may be that "William I" or "William I of England" is better, but it needs a more through and deeper level of debate than was shown in the the last move, which is something that the current guideline does not encourage.

I think this guideline needs to be rewritten so that the "rule" give guidance on how to decide on how to create a name based on the augmentation of names found in reliable sources. Explaining that as most reliable sources use names within specific context, usually based on place and time, that this means that they do not need to identify which King William they mean or which Robert Devereux, Earl of Essex. We need guidance on how to deal with European royalty and nobility, so that they can have unique names that can be used in a general encyclopaedia. Consistency has its place after reliable sources and precision has been tackled, as we do not want one king to be under Charles I of England and another under Charles I (Hungary), but consistency should not be promote to the same level as names based on those used in reliable sources. -- PBS (talk) 21:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Now we have all but one of the handful who disagree with WP:AT, but prefer to present their circular arguments on other pages.

The principle involved here, that it is valuable to have parallel, and hence predictable, placement for articles of a given class has always been acted on; it has always been part of WP:Naming conventions (now Article titles), although this has usually been an unnamed observation that there are such conventions.

This is not the right forum to change policy.

I can agree, however, that the discussion of whether any individual case should fall under the general convention or the exception for overwhelmingly common names should be more based on sources, and should understand why the sources use what they do - and whether it is to our advantage to do likewise {WP:FLORA doesn't do this either, btw.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

While titles for articles are subject to consensus, do not invent names as a means of compromising between opposing points of view. Wikipedia describes current usage but cannot prescribe a particular usage or invent new names. The present guidelines invent names - like George VI of the United Kingdom and Napoleon II of France. AJRG (talk) 22:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Three points:

• These are not a means of compromising between points of view. No point of view differs between Napoleon II and Napoleon II of France; those who would call him the Duke of Reichstadt will oppose both.
• These names are not, of course, invented; they are chosen among the existing possibilities within English. See George VI of the United Kingdom. and Napoleon II of France. They are not the most common; but they are the most systematic. These are competing goods; but since the purpose of commonness is Recognizability - and who has failed to recognize who is meant? - one end will be achieved whichever we do.
• The potentiality of harm in any change which would allow nationalists more room to push their agendas are exemplified in the abuse of policy and the misstatements of fact in this post.

I very strongly oppose any concession to nationalists of any nation whatsoever. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

George VI never held the title of the United Kingdom. Napoleon II never held the title of France. Quoting errors doesn't help your case. AJRG (talk) 22:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

For those who like to play the "GOOGLE Game", which, in my opinion, is not historically correct in its result but, nonetheless, the Gospel for many Wikipedians:

• Napoleon of France = 649 [7]
• Napoleon, Emperor of the French = 849 [8]
• Napoleon (no accent) = 96,700 [9]
• Napoléon (w/accent) = 124,600 [10]

Looking further into the "GOOGLE Bible", one finds strange things. For instance, when one looks for "Louis Philippe of France" vs "Louis Philippe King of the French", at the "of France" choice (larger than "King of the French" in its numerical find), one can go to [11], which is The encyclopædia britannica: a dictionary of arts, sciences ..., Volume 17 edited by Hugh Chisholm. And, oh! surprise!, on page 51 of the "of France" search, what do we find? Louis Philippe I, King of the French !!!

Conclusion (mine): GOOGLE search is pure fantasy as to the results because whoever is doing it is looking for hit results, but not at the content of the books listed (same book often listed several times). Now, when one is interested in historical correctness, the bigger number for approval is not the way to go, exactitude is, and exactitude is usually held by a minority. Remember that if, in his time, one had consulted GOOGLE as to the shape of the Earth, everybody would have won over Galileo since they were zillions to believe the Earth was flat and he was the only one to know that it was a globe.

--Frania W. (talk) 23:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

You need to refine your searches for example:

• Google books returns "2,889 on Napoléon -Napoleon in English".
• Google Books returns "93,200 on -Napoléon Napoleon in English".

Since 1980:

• 34,478 on Napoleon -Napoléon in English.
• 1,709 on -Napoleon Napoléon in English

of course we also know the CRS makes more mistakes with funny foreign squiggles so some results for Napoléon will be corrupted. Hope that helps :-)

• 1,059 on "Emperor of France" in English since 1980
• 1,260 on "Emperor of the French" in English since 1980

I would have though an example of where this guideline should come into its own (guidance on how to judge on the quality of the sources, etc).

--PBS (talk) 06:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Third draft

6. Where a monarch has reigned over a number of states, determine the article title by discussion on the article talk page, with due regard for neutrality and reliability. Usually, the most commonly associated ordinal and state are used, e.g. Charles II of England, not Charles II of England, Scotland and Ireland; Philip II of Spain, not Philip I of Portugal. It is proper and often desirable to give the other states compensating prominence in the introduction of the article. Create redirects from other possible article titles. DrKiernan (talk) 07:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The existing draft is: "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."

I am unsure what difference this latest new draft makes, it could be vaugely weakening the use of the most commonly associated ordinal and state. Nobody disputes that if in doubt the issue should be discussed on the talk page, and there may be a handful of exceptional cases. PatGallacher (talk) 09:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

You repeatedly told me at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Article title that that article title should be discussed here rather than in the article talk space. And I repeatedly said that I only wanted to change that specific article title, and that any change to any other page should be discussed there. We are now agreed that I was correct to raise that specific article title in that specific article's talk page space, and that any other changes to any other pages should be raised at that appropriate page's talk space. DrKiernan (talk) 10:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

If we don't refer to "George VI of the United Kingdom" what do we call him? PatGallacher (talk) 09:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

According to my proposal below, simply George VI. Because he's the primary topic for that name, and if there were doubt about that, then it would be swung (per 3.) by the fact that no other title would be historically accurate and concise, or consistent with his successor's article's title (which certainly wouldn't need disambiguating). As with naming in general, if you let people take all relevant factors into account, and don't try to set a fixed order of priority, then sensible answers come out.--Kotniski (talk) 10:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I have just visited the local library to find what other reference works call George VI. The Encyclopedia Britannica and the Chambers Dictionary of World History do both call him "King of the United Kingdom". The Oxford Encyclopedia of World History calls him "King of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and dependencies overseas" which is virtually synonymous. Does that clinch the argument? PatGallacher (talk) 16:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

In favour of what? Certainly not the present title, which doesn't seem to be used anywhere. Meanwhile everyone calls him George VI, so that looks like the title to use. Looking for anything else is just seeking a solution to a non-problem. --Kotniski (talk) 19:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

More fundamental change required

I still don't think the right way to correct this guideline is to amend specifically the wording of paragraph 6. Where there is a problem, the article title is always determined by discussion with due regard for etc. etc., not only in the case where the problem is multiple states. We need to recast the whole thing, to say something like:

1. A monarch's article is preferably titled using the name by which that monarch is best known in reliable sources.
2. If the above name does not identify the monarch uniquely and the monarch is not the primary topic for that name, then it is diambiguated by adding the monarch's best known title, after a comma.
3. Where "best-known" or "primary topic" is in doubt, the decision may be influenced by such additional criteria as historical accuracy, consistency and conciseness.

This, as far as I can tell, is basically enough. As well as giving editors the flexibility to choose article titles which are far more sensible in isolation, it would also increase(!) consistency - firstly because there wouldn't be this switching between the two forms "X of Austria" vs. "Y, Emperor of Germany", and secondly because we would be using the same standard for "when to disambiguate" as is used across Wikipedia (so for example we wouldn't have "Elizabeth II of the UK" but "Barack Obama" not "of the US"). --Kotniski (talk) 09:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

That is a very far-reaching proposal which would probably mean moving the majority of monarch articles. We would need to spend some time examining what the practical implications would be for the titles of several articles. You may have a point about the German Emperors, but that's a relatively minor matter only affecting three articles. PatGallacher (talk) 10:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I realise that, I'm not suggesting we just do this change today. (But the point about the German Emperors is not limited to those three articles - there are many others that use the comma convention, such as Holy Roman Emperors, Dukes, Electors and so on; and I suggest that by making this the standard means of disambiguating, we achieve not only consistency, but also greater accuracy, as the "of" names are very often our own inventions.)--Kotniski (talk) 10:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• Unconditionally oppose. Kotniski is one of a handful of editors who doesn't want any system in our article names at all. Having failed to change policy there, they come here to change the guidelines against policy.
• This would change almost all of our articles on royalty from Henry IV of England to Henry IV, King of England. This infringes on two more of the underlying principles of WP:AT: it is unnecessarily prolix and it is more precise than is necessary; but it offers no additional service to the reader. (The chief reason that we have not gone to uniformity the other way and used Albert II of Monaco is lack of demand for it; that would be worth discussing, although it has problems.) In addition, it will exacerbate the pointless discussion over whether Kenneth and Duncan were King of Scotland, King of Scots, or Ard Ri.
• The claim that the "of" names are our own inventions is either a lie or evidence of unfamiliarity with the English language. In neither case is there any point to discussion with anybody who claims it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

  George VI of the United Kingdom is a spurious title of honour. It is invented and its misuse offensive. Please avoid ad hominem attacks on other Wikipedia editors... AJRG (talk) 15:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

  If it were not the first of April, I would be scathing; as it is, I refer to the list of actual uses linked to above. It was not his official title; but we do not consider official usage. (And if nationalists find our guidelines offensive, we are doing Wikipedia a service.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

  Calling everyone who disagrees with you a Nationalist is amusing but sadly incorrect. There are 4,940 Google books entries for "george vi" and only 109 for "george vi of the united kingdom". Of those, the United Nations bulletin includes a comma (King George VI, of the United Kingdom); Who owns the world gets his title wrong; Webster's Quotations isn't exactly authoritative on names; The Journal of Commonwealth & comparative politics lists a hypothetical title which he chose not to use. Reliable sources, indeed. AJRG (talk) 16:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Would Septentrionalis be kind enough to give us his/her definition of "nationalist" as pertaining to this discussion? --Frania W. (talk) 19:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• These "of" names, when they show up on Google searches (which they usually do very rarely anyway), are nearly always found to be parts of longer names involving the word "King" or "Queen". No-one doubts that the word strings occur (like the word string "first black president Barack" doubtless occurs), but that doesn't make them into names in their own right. By using them as article titles, we are wrongly implying to readers (a) that they are real names in some significant sense; (b) (in cases where the disambiguation is unnecessary and the reader is familiar with Wikipedia practice) that the disambiguation is necessary. To say that this proposal is somehow against policy (when it brings the guideline into line with what Wikipedia does almost everywhere else), or that it comes from someone who doesn't want any system (when the proposal would actually increase consistency, as I've shown above), is ridiculous. --Kotniski (talk) 19:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I should add that this proposal in no way prohibits the "Name of Realm" names, provided they are commonly used. What we must stop doing, though (and ordinarily PMA would be saying this in forceful terms himself), is making up names that have no support, or only marginal support, in reliable sources. --Kotniski (talk) 09:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I strongly object to having words put in my mouth; that I disagree with these is an aggravating offense. I support conventional and uniform naming systems in general; it is no inconsistency to support this particular one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Go on, you're always telling people to do as the sources do - it's largely you that I acquired that philosophy from. And it doesn't mean do as some selected tiny minority of sources do (at least, it never did before).--Kotniski (talk) 07:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I will come back to some specific issues about disambiguation and alleged invented titles later, but there are broader issues I will address. The current Wikipedia naming convention probably covers hundreds of articles, many of them fairly high profile. There are a few awkward cases (e.g. is there a better title for Louis-Philippe I, King of the French?) but with the vast majority of articles most people seem perfectly happy with the current title, if they weren't we would have heard more about it. The handful of recent disputes (e.g. William the Conqueror) have tended to be over whether to use a widely-used cognomen, allowed within the current guidelines, not a fundamental challenge to these guidelines. While I recognise that sometimes broader problems can initially be flagged up in relation to one high profile article, in this case I think there is a UK monarchist slant being argued here (and possibly a degree of recentism) attaching huge importance to the current Queen of the UK, and to a lesser extent her father, and a lot of other matters on Wikipedia revolve around this. PatGallacher (talk) 10:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, if "of the United Kingdom" is an artificial title, what do we call a UK monarch who is not the primary meaning of their name + number combination? PatGallacher (talk) 16:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Many, but not all, monarchs have titles that include the name of the state they rule. So George V of the United Kingdom is technically accurate, although it completely ignores the fact that he was also Emperor of India and ruler of the largest empire the world has ever known. George VI is an exception because his title never included the United Kingdom, even though that was the historically correct name of one of the states he ruled. AJRG (talk) 17:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

"George V of the United Kingdom" is not technically accurate (though it might turn out to be common usage). He was George V, King of the United Kingdom - or if we decide that even that is deforming his true title too much, then go with normal Wikipedia practice and add a descriptor in brackets: George V (king of the United Kingdom).--Kotniski (talk) 07:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

His Majesty George V, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas, King, Emperor of India is just a little too long to be an article title... AJRG (talk) 09:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Are people actually arguing that there is a serious distinction in meaning between "George V of the United Kingdom", "George V, King of the United Kingdom" and "George V (king of the United Kingdom)"? I am not disputing that there could be a legitimate debate about which is the best format. PatGallacher (talk) 19:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there's a legitimate debate about format. My issue with George V of the United Kingdom is that it completely ignores the fact that he was also Emperor of India and ruler of the largest empire the world has ever known. AJRG (talk) 20:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Emperor of India is in the first paragraph; George V, ruler of the largest empire the world has ever known would be silly - and disputable. You forget, in your eagerness to tell it all in the title, that these are titles, not articles. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting a long title, rather pointing out the narrowness of the point of view embodied in the current one. If you want to dispute which was the largest empire, please do it on the appropriate page. AJRG (talk) 22:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

What do we call him then, "George V of India"? Also, why isn't giving him priority over George V of Hanover and Georgia contrary to NPOV? Why is it that point 6 of WP:NCROY is a breach of NPOV, but the whole of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC isn't? PatGallacher (talk) 00:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Where does my proposed wording breach NPOV? DrKiernan (talk) 07:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Surely its primacy that counts? He is George V of India because he is George V of the United Kingdom not the other way round. It seems to me that the convention works for British Monarchs and doesn't need exceptions. --Snowded ^TALK 07:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I still don't see the connection between these objections and my wording. My wording allows for "George V of the United Kingdom" and would strongly disfavor "George V of India". DrKiernan (talk) 07:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I was responding to AJRG --Snowded ^TALK 08:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

If the question is about George V specifically as opposed to any UK monarch who might need disambiguating, then we're back to solving a non-problem again. George V is the proper and entirely unobjectionable title for his article. --Kotniski (talk) 09:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted some recent changes to the wording of the guideline as I suspect some subtle pushing of an agenda without it being entirely clear what these changes meant, at the very least this should have been discussed first. I suggest that it is those wanting a serious revision of the naming conventions for monarchs who are seeking a solution to a non-problem. PatGallacher (talk) 12:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

No, I can tell you exactly what the real problem is - this convention is leading to people pushing (in many cases successfully) article titles which are not (according to any significant proportion of reliable sources) real names for the articles' subjects, but which have forms which make them appear to be such (i.e. they're not obviously of a disambiguated form like "X (Y)", where readers can be reasonably expected to know that X is the name). In other words, we're making things up and passing those things on to readers as genuine - and there's no excuse for an encyclopedia to do that. We can solve this problem either with a blanket statement along the lines of "nothing in this guideline is to be taken to imply that a common name should be rejected in favour of an uncommon one", or by fiddling with the rules so as to eliminate the possibility of doing that - or both.--Kotniski (talk) 19:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Consorts

The guidelines themselves already enshrine a degree of recentism:

Existing Royal Consorts are referred to by their consort name, e.g., Queen Sofia of Spain. But when she dies, she will revert to her pre-marital title, ie, Sofia of Greece. (Note the incorrect pre-marital title given for Queen Sofia)

but they also support, at least for Consorts of sovereigns, common usage:

Where the name by itself is unambiguous or primary usage, it is pedantry to insist on this form against usage: Marie Antoinette, not Marie Antoinette of Austria. AJRG (talk) 10:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Consorts are a whole different question - I don't see why we need a specific naming convention for them at all, and certainly not one that tells us to change their article titles when they die (whatever was the rationale for that??) "It is pedantry to insist on this form against usage", though, would be a good motto to extend to the whole of this guideline page - most of the problems it causes are with people pedantically (actually it's worse than pedantry) insisting on using names the Wikipedia algorithms produce instead of the names that are actually used in the real world.--Kotniski (talk) 11:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

In fact, reading the section on consorts, it's a mass of error and contradiction, and consists mostly of reasons not to do something which we would hardly do anyway (again: make up names against usage). Has there ever been any consensus for anything about naming articles on consorts? If not, let's just replace the section and say that we follow usage in reliable sources. (And why should we change the names on death, if they're still best known by the title they held when they were most recently alive?)--Kotniski (talk) 11:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The reasons for this convention have been gone over again and again; and yes, there was general consensus. Using "names that are actually used in the real world" is not always a good idea when you are trying to create an encyclopaedia, where the prime consideration should be the method of information retrieval. We could just put all the Queen Marys in the world at "Queen Mary", but it wouldn't be very helpful to the would-be user. Deb (talk) 11:19, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Well yes, we know we have to use disambiguation in some cases, but an encyclopedia that uses names that aren't used in the real world is a pretty strange kind of encyclopedia.--Kotniski (talk) 11:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

And the reason the article titles change when they die is that they are usually referred to differently (even in what you would call "common usage") after they die. Deb (talk)

So all the less reason to have a specific guideline saying it (because if usage changes, then article titles will naturally change anyway).--Kotniski (talk) 11:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

And the idea that we can confidently predict that Queen Sophia of Spain will become known as "Sophia of Greece" after she dies is - well - absurd. This is such utter nonsense that even if a few editors wrote it down a long time ago and agreed between themselves that it was a good idea, we certainly shouldn't be advertising their irrationality on a guideline page - it just serves to bring the guideline even further into disrepute than it already is.--Kotniski (talk) 11:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I would actually agree that the issues to do with consorts are not necessarily quite the same as monarchs. I am not necessarily defending the existing naming conventions for consorts, possibly they should be revised, but this is not a step to be taken lightly. Let's deal with one can of worms at a time. Let's sort out the monarchs, or agree that there is no need for serious changes, before moving on to the consorts. PatGallacher (talk) 14:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Or maybe the other way round - it might turn out we can reach agreement on the consorts more quickly. Is there anything in the present section on consorts anyone actually wants to defend (given that the bulk of that section is arguing against itself anyway)?--Kotniski (talk) 14:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Just possibly we might decide to seriously revise the guidelines for consorts, but not having any guidelines at all would surely be controversial. One can of worms at a time, please. PatGallacher (talk) 16:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I see no problem at all with having guidelines on consorts, and there is a convention in general use (not just on wikipedia) which tells us what they should be - a convention which is perhaps not fully understood by most contributors, hence the need for it to be established. If you look back at past debates on this subject, I think you will find that more editors were involved in the discussion than are involved at the present time. Maybe Sophia of Greece is not the best possible example, but it doesn't seem an altogether unreasonable one. Deb (talk) 17:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, there is no consensus on what we should title articles on past consorts; in large part, because the real world is inconsistent: Margaret of York, Margaret of Burgundy, Elizabeth of Bohemia, Catherine Parr, the Empress Frederick and the Empress Alexandra are all usage - and the first two are the same person. The majority of the section documents that actual state of affairs. What's the problem? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

That it says it in a way that implies that there's a kind of half-adopted convention to ignore usage and make up our own names. If this is what we do, then fine - well, not fine at all, but it should indeed be documented here (and no need for all the arguments as to why it's a bad idea - unless you want us to insert in the sovereigns section all the arguments as to why that's a bad idea). If it's not what we do, then it simply confuses by being there. And the whole idea of changing someone's title just because they've died is warped - unless we can confidently predict (based on past experience) how the sources will start referring to them now they're dead (and the current guideline doesn't seem to be based on any kind of experience, just on another set of made-up conventional names that probably no sources are ever going to use).--Kotniski (talk) 07:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

No, you've got the wrong end of the stick. For a start, we can guarantee that their names will change when they are replaced as consort by someone else, though we can't always guarantee the exact name by which they will be called. Also, the point it that this is a convention that is in widespread use in reputable sources but (as I explained above) is not always understood by the person-in-the-street - for example, "the Queen Mother" is not a suitable description for the late Queen Elizabeth, consort of George VI, and neither is "Queen Elizabeth" - but we have earlier queen consorts called Elizabeth, eg. Elizabeth Woodville, who are referred to consistently in works of reference and history, enabling us to see what the naming convention should be. Deb (talk) 15:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why the vanishingly small number of now- or recently-living consorts, those who might be "replaced as consort by someone else", should matter at all when formulating a guideline. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Because they all (all dozen of them) have articles, and we had consensus on what to name those dozen articles. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

So can the guideline stick to stating what we have consensus on? At the moment it seems to be mostly stating what we don't.--Kotniski (talk) 09:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Guidelines should summarize the actual arguments. There's no consensus and no pattern here; and we say so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'm trying to sort out this wording without changing any of the actual meaning (in as much as there was any meaning). Does anyone understand what it is we actually do? For example, why is it Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon for the late Queen Mum, but not Diana Spencer for the late princess?--Kotniski (talk) 19:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I have added the topic sentence There is no consensus, either in the sources or on Wikipedia, on a general rule for deceased royal consorts. This statement of fact was the intention of the present text; those who partook in the long (very long) discussions over a maiden-name-rule doubtless thought the point obvious from the specifics. And this is why Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon; the maiden-name rule was applied there (although not everywhere) and there has never been consensus to change it. Has there been a proposal to do so? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Insofar as there is a rules-based answer, it is the somewhat paradoxical position (but one reflecting real usage): Neither Queen Elizabeth nor Princess of Wales are unambiguous, so (even apart from consistency) they are unusable, and we must look for more formal and unambiguous titles. We are sticklers for the titles of peeresses within a sovereign states (and the Principality of Wales is a peerage): so Georgiana Cavendish, Duchess of Devonshire. But when queens consort aren't called Queen Mary or Queen Anne, most of them are called Mary of Teck or Anne Boleyn; recentism aside, we expect Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon to be what she is actually called. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you are trying to achieve with this. I know your intentions are good; but it seems to me to suggest that the "common name" aficionados can do whatever they like. Deb (talk) 09:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand that second sentence; but as to what I'm trying to achieve, for now it's just to make the section state clearly what currently accepted practice is. My next question is about the last paragraph: "In general, the convention is to title queens consort and empresses consort as "{Name} of {Place}" and grand duchesses consort, duchesses consort, princesses consort, etc as "{Title} {Name} of {Place}" where the "Place" and applicable titles (in the cases of those below the rank of queen) are held premaritally or by birth." This is the convention for what - living people or deceased? (Because I can't make it fit either way - it can't be deceased since we've just gone to great lengths to say that there is no general convention for them, but if it's the living, then why is it Queen Sophia?)--Kotniski (talk) 09:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The answer to that is simple: there is no single currently accepted practice.

There are three or four limited conventions (on the Empresses of Russia, on current consorts, and so on) and beyond that there are several paradigms, all of them reasonable, struggling with each other - much as WP:AT has five principles struggling with each other. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

So "In general the convention is..." is wrong, right? What should it say instead? "One commonly applied rule is..." ?--Kotniski (talk) 17:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Redrafted. The last sentence made no sense, so I removed it. It would imply that the article we call Maria Antonia of Austria (her father's House), and could call Duchess Maria Antonia of Bavaria (her husband's realm) would be called Duchess Maria Antonia of Austria, which makes no sense, since she was not Duchess of Austria. Fortunately, this misguided stroke of logic seems to have had no effect. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that improvement. But we still have the statement (I assume it's been around for ages): "There is some sentiment that this "maiden name rule" should be generalized into a convention for all past European royal consorts; however, there is limited support for doing so contrary to actual English usage." The rule in question being "name of place" convention (as far as I can tell; though since it's called the "maiden name" rule it might be intended to mean something different). Anyway, surely there is no-one who would literally want to apply this rule to "all" past European consorts (for the reasons that are set out below that sentence, among others). Can someone who supports some kind of rule here say what exactly the rule would be; then we can discuss it and hopefully reach a decision. If there isn't such a person, and if no rule is followed in practice, then we can further simplify the wording of that section.--Kotniski (talk) 07:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

surely there is no-one who would literally want to apply this rule to "all" past European consorts Of course there is; there was a time when we even used the unrecognizable Alix of Hesse as a title. Every clause of this guideline is a record of past discussion, and the reason that this paqe says that there is no consensus on this point is that there isn't. Please take these Jacobin simplifications somewhere else. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

So are you defending Alix of Hesse? If so, please explain why. If not, then perhaps no-one else is any more, and we now have consensus.--Kotniski (talk) 06:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I notice, though, that Alix of Hesse is used in the title - as a disambiguator (and the same is done with several other Russian tsarinas, though it doesn't seem to be necessary in Elizabeth Alexeievna (Louise of Baden), which I've proposed for renaming). Is this done anywhere else? It seems it might be worth mentioning in the guideline (as this is really something we do, as opposed to just something someone once wanted to do).--Kotniski (talk) 06:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we have a system for tsarinas. It should be mentioned. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

So what is the system? It looks like "Forename Surname" for those of Russian origin; "Forename Patronymic (OriginalForename of Place)" for others. Is this the intention?--Kotniski (talk) 10:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, apparently so, so I've added this to the guideline. I've also rewritten it to describe what we currently do, since no-one seems to be pushing for the kind of universal rule that was described (and argued against at length) in the previous version.--Kotniski (talk) 10:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Sigmund III

The Swedish-Polish king mentioned several times in this discussion is indeed, as duly noted, unknown to most people who use English as their main language. I may be a rare exception.

If the king's correct English exonym were to be used he would be called Sigmund - Sigismund being Germanic, e.i. German and Swedish, but not English. Sigmund also corresponds much better with Zygmunt in Polish - the king's actual name. Using Sigmund has rarely been done however, so far in English-language literature. So even though, for people of history before the year 1900, I always prefer to see legitimate English exonyms (and use them myself to try to educate a bit), of course I dasn't suggest that for en.WP. I have learned too well about consensus and frequency of use and have had a very hard time adopting a firm opinion about what he should be called, because of all the discord and what I see as an inability here to arrive at any consensus at all on a consistent naming convention for European royalty (am I wrong?). I find that troubling, but several editors make arguments that are good, though their POV's are in opposition, which hinders progress.

Frequency of use to me is a scary way of deciding things, as ultimately determinative, mainly because it is impossible for us to check in adequate detail the reliability and legitimate historicity of the books and texts where many names originally were launched and now are found, especially regarding Medieval personages who hardly ever have been written about in English reliably. Never, I think I am safe to say, by reliable authors who also knew English well enough (to be counted) and e.g. had an interest in doing legitimate research on English exonyms. A horrifying example of this, that almost made me quit en.WP, was when one Swedish queen's article was renamed Hedwig, though the woman's name was Helvig or Haelwig, a somewhat similarly spelled but totally different name.

Things like that subject WP to quite a bit of ridicule.

Sigmund was king of Poland first, later of Sweden where he was ousted after only a few years, and he remained king of Poland for 45 years. He is known by a few different names in English, and these are more or less frequent. He founded the royal Polish branch of the Swedish Vasa dynasty, so that could be a good reason to use that name, but I think we should avoid often tricky decisions on dynasty names (as well as often mistranslated epithets), regardless of frequency, and call his article Sigismund III of Poland. Using legitimate numerals, when reasonably frequent, is always a good solution. That is the common sense approach in ths case, if you ask me. SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:27, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

This guideline is garbage

When proposed guidelines conflict with policies, the policies take precedence. And that's what has happened here. This purported guideline violates two policies: WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NOR. It requires many monarchy articles to be at titles that are not used in a preponderance of reliable sources, in favor of internally consistent titles that we made up ourselves. This clearly constitutes original research. I am marking this page as disputed until this is addressed. *** Crotalus *** 17:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

These issues have already been discussed at considerable length, see some previous discussions. You have some responsibility to put forward coherent changes to the naming convention, Kotniski had the merit of doing so on 1st April, but there were several objections. PatGallacher (talk) 17:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, a guideline is only a guideline, so its factual accuracy cannot be disputed. There are already flags indicating that some parts of the guideline are under discussion, which seems legitimate, I don't think we need to add any more. PatGallacher (talk) 17:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Consorts revisited

Although I have spent some time defending the traditional standards in relation to monarchs, I would not do so in relation to consorts. I think we should have fewer hang-ups about describing a queen consort by the country where they were queen. I see the "maiden name rule" has been quietly downgraded. Of course in several cases this name is just too well-established to use anything else (e.g. Catharine of Aragon) or is the one reasonable name which would be unambiguous (e.g. Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon). However in some cases their maiden name or title is the name of a country, not inherently less likely to be unambiguous than their married title. Some countries had fairly short-lived monarchies which have now been overthrown, so any names may well be unambiguous. We cannot assume that queens will become known as something different after they die e.g. Queen Sofía of Spain may well carry on being called this indefinitely, as I don't think there is any other Spanish queen of this name. We are using obscure titles in some cases e.g. Marie of Edinburgh may have been her formal title before marriage, but to some people might suggest a serious connection with the city of Edinburgh, which possibly she never visited in her life, she did have a serious connection with Romania. "Feodorovna" may have formally been part of the name of the last empress of Russia, but even some people with some knowledge of Russian history will never have heard of this, there is a serious case for moving her to "Alexandra, Empress of Russia" or something similar as this will be most comprehensible to most people.

However, it is a moot point whether we should use titles like Queen, Empress and if so where we should put it e.g. should it be "Marie of Romania", "Queen Maria of Romania" or "Maria, Queen of Romania"? This issue should be clarified before proceeding much further. PatGallacher (talk) 17:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I would make the following suggestion as a possible general system (though not to be applied when it flies in the face of usage):

• (Name) of (Place) means someone originating from (Place) or from the house of (Place)
• (Name), (Title) of (Place) means someone having (Title) in relation to (Place) (but not a consort)
• (Title) (Name) of (Place) means someone having (Title) in relation to (Place) qua consort

This will be consistent with what we already do with nobles, sub-royal ruling princes and the Holy Roman/German emperors, and with living consorts, and with a lot of real-world usage. With consorts, we would choose between the first and third possibilities depending on how they are better known.--Kotniski (talk) 10:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

• Your first general rule represents usage very imperfectly; Elizabeth of Bohemia is what the Winter Queen is called, although she is not Czech nor from a Bohemian house (being a Stuart). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's the sort of case where "not to be applied when it flies in the face of usage" comes in. --Kotniski (talk) 14:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

For further discussion, see #Maria of Romania below.--Kotniski (talk) 05:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with a lot of this, but I really think that we shouldn't mess with the Russian consort standard, which has worked very well and generated very little dispute over the years. There have been several Alexandras who have been empress of Russia. john k (talk) 14:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Elizabeth II

Now that that article has been moved from Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, perhaps my idea of Name # & Name # (country) will be re-considered for all monarchial articles? GoodDay (talk) 22:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Please read the RfC; I disagree with Sandstein that there was consensus in that plum-pudding - but he is right in saying that such consensus as there was was to make her an exception to this guideline, not to revise the guideline or move other articles. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Give it time, others will agree with me. GoodDay (talk) 22:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you may be right; it is easy to destroy a useful and straightforward set of titles, usable in running prose, because of dogmatic adherence to a misunderstanding of policy, and there is always a temptation to take the easy way. But let's hope not. In the meantime, I very strongly oppose this worsening of the encyclopedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that usable in running prose was a guideline for article titles, much less policy. AJRG (talk) 16:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

It is policy: the ideal article title uses names and terms that readers are most likely to look for in order to find the article (and to which editors will most naturally link from other articles).

Sorry, usable in running prose is not policy. Links have alternate text for running prose, as you demonstrated in your reference. AJRG (talk) 12:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

False. Masking is possible, but it is a cost, both in clarity and in ease of use; therefore we prefer (other things aside) article titles that do not require it. That is why the same policy assumes that we will normally be linking from running text, lower down in WP:AT#Article title format. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

This is to confuse a consequence of a policy for the policy itself. The policy is Use lower case, except for proper names. AJRG (talk) 18:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Lying about the policy (to one of the consensus that wrote it) is an even poorer basis for writing guidelines. Use text that will link naturally is the policy; use lowercase is the consequence (it has no other basis). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you're confused. A Google search for policy "link naturally" site:wikipedia.org fails to support your claim. See Naming conventions (capitalization) and Disambiguation. AJRG (talk) 07:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Google is not a reliable source. Those are guidelines; they implement the policy that the ideal article title uses names and terms that readers are most likely to look for in order to find the article (and to which editors will most naturally link from other articles) and therefore The initial letter of a title is almost always capitalized; subsequent words in a title are not, unless they are part of a proper name, and so would be capitalized in running text; when this is done, the title will be simple to link to in other articles. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:03, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

At last! You're finally quoting policy correctly... As you can see, it doesn't support your contention - the policy is Easy to find, not usable in running prose. AJRG (talk) 15:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I have always quoted the same sections of policy correctly; I brought them to the discussion; and the policy advocates titles which are both easy to find and naturally linkable. One of the advantages of natural titles is that they are naturally linkable, because they do fall into running prose - which is why all these phrases occur in policy. Were I dealing with a genuine misunderstanding, I would consider whether further clarification were needed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

You've been arguing for Royal article titles on the basis of a misunderstanding. They need to be Easy to find, and not necessarily usable in running prose. In a different context, for example, the article title Batman (1989 film) is clearly not intended to be usable in running prose. AJRG (talk) 16:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

If we're choosing between two titles where one is going to redirect to the other in any case, then this really is a non-issue - the article will be found (and linked to) equally easily regardless of which title is chosen. (It may have been an issue in deciding to use sentence case in titles rather than title case, but if so it was a pretty poor one, since if our ancestors had thought that the encyclopedia would be better presented with titles in title case, then that could have been achieved by making lots of redirects or simply a minor tweak to the software.)--Kotniski (talk) 17:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

This discussion has now descended to a claim that I misunderstand the wording which I drafted for the policy which I was part of the consensus to implement, and which describes a concern which is routinely presented at move discussions - and instead that that policy means something to which most users are routinely opposed. Really, AJRG should change his nickname to Humpty-Dumpty, who did hold that words should mean whatever he wanted them to mean; further discussion in this vein is futile. I Strongly oppose the unnecessary use of parentheses in article titles. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Not so much Alice in Wonderland as Through the Looking Glass. I'm arguing for policy as actually written, not as Pmanderson would want it be. AJRG (talk) 22:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

No, you're not. You are arguing for something that the policy does not say, ignoring what it does say, against the guy that wrote it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

If this discussion is going anywhere, it should probably continue on the Article Titles page. (But the fact that you wrote a policy doesn't give you the right to interpret it - what matters is what it means to the other editors who allowed it to remain policy. Which in this case is probably nothing - people don't generally bother objecting to meaningless statements in policy.)--Kotniski (talk) 06:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I have to say to Kotniski (and with all respect), whilst recognising that some of the things you say make some sense and that some other users agree with you, the overall impression I get is from someone who just wants to go around destroying the structure that's been built up simply because he wasn't personally involved in creating it. Please could you think twice before proposing any more changes? What you are doing is really not helping wikipedia in any way - it's just change for the sake of change and it's taking up a lot of time that could be more usefully spent in writing and improving articles. Deb (talk) 09:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if you get that impression, but there are many things I wasn't personally involved in creating, and I don't generally go around trying to destroy them. This one, though (and a small number of others), really needs reform. Anyway, it's not generally been me who's proposed changes - my proposal above about consorts is in an area where there is no structure built up.--Kotniski (talk) 09:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

With redirects available, this really is a non-issue. (And if you're going to claim again that readers are annoyed by the "redirected from" notice at the top, then remember that this is an argument against the present convention, since far more people are going to be going to (say) "Louis XVI" than from "Louis XVI of France", whether from links or from the search box.)--Kotniski (talk) 06:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

There is an argument that all naming discussions are non-issues, given redirects; but if so, they are equally non-issues. Why are you campaigning on a non-issue? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't mean naming is a non-issue, I meant usability in running prose is a non-issue in naming discussions.--Kotniski (talk) 16:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

In short, yet again, Kotniski disagrees with policy (which acknowledges usability as one of the components of the ideal title), and with long-standing practice; whether a title is natural prose has always been one of the points discussed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I quite often disagree with policy, yes, and I don't know what "usability" is supposed to mean in a world where we have redirects (that point could go from the policy as far as I'm concerned - it seems meaningless or else redundant to the others). --Kotniski (talk) 16:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

You don't understand the policy; you disagree with practice. This is a poor basis for rewriting a guideline which is supposed to describe how best practice implements policy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

EOT.--Kotniski (talk) 17:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

All right, let's see who is willing to defend the position that Henry IV (France) is more recognizable and easier to use than the English for it, which is Henry IV of France; it is no shorter. As of this writing, it is so inobvious that it doesn't even exist as a redirect. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree it should be Henry IV of France or Henry IV, King of France, but the convention as it stands doesn't always get it right (Victoria, Anne, ...). Obviously we need to stop trying to be so universally consistent if we want to conform to English usage.--Kotniski (talk) 07:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Henry IV needs to be disambiguated. His title was HENRICVS IIII DEI GRATIA FRANCIE ET NAVARRO REX (Henry IV by the Grace of God of France and Navarre King) so Henry IV of France is fine. AJRG (talk) 16:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

"Henry IV of France" may well be fine, but not for that reason. Do you not see how "of France" in that title qualifies "King" and not "Henry"? That title in itself no more produces "Henry IV of France" than it produces "Henry IV of God".--Kotniski (talk) 17:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

In Latin. English usage is to drop the word "King" unless needed. For examples of Henry IV of France see The Cambridge modern history, Volume 3, Encyclopaedia Americana and Henry of Navarre: Henry IV of France. AJRG (talk) 19:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's the reason Henry IV of France is fine - English usage, not the Latin title. (Though forms with "King" are also fine - English allows the dropping of "King", but doesn't require it.)--Kotniski (talk) 19:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I will go on calling her Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, just like I always do. Deb (talk) 11:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I've no probs with Henry IV (France). Anyways, the proposal is always there, if anybody reconsiders. GoodDay (talk) 13:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

PS: If my proposal doesn't get consensus before the next RM at Elizabeth II? then for consistancy sake, my preference shall be Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 21:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

A bit late to the party, but I've always rather liked the German wikipedia standard which GoodDay is more or less suggesting we follow here. One thing it does nicely is insure that monarchical articles all have similar titles. On the other hand, John (England) is an even worse title than John of England, being utterly incomprehensible unless you're familiar with the naming convention. I think I'd prefer moving to a standard where we had Louis XIV for monarchs with unambiguous names or who are primary topics, and Charles X, King of France, for monarchs with ambiguous names. john k (talk) 14:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem with that has always been that it expects our readers and editors to know which names are ambiguous, which for Charles X implies knowing the Kings of France and of Sweden. Whether that is a greater difficulty than the ten extra characters in Louis XIV of France is the fundamental issue here; I think it is - chiefly because the uncertainty applies to all monarchs, and the extra characters can only be trimmed from a few. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Enguerrand VI, Lord of Coucy

A discussion here brings up the embarassment that we don't actually seem to say anything about Continental nobility. I've added a note saying that we should, allowing for local differences, title their articles like Britons; feel free to tweak. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think one can have one blanket guideline for all of continental Europe. For example, ordinals cannot be used for Swedish nobility, as all male members of a family has the right to the title (see f.ex. Talk:Rutger Macklean), and a vague formulation about "allowing for local differences" isn't that helpful. There are also questions about translations of titles and such that should be addressed.

Andejons (talk) 06:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

They can't be used for most French nobility either, for the same reason; the Dukes and Peers of France are exceptional. If somebody wants to write additional national guidelines, that would be ideal. But if not, we should say something. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

My observation differs: Heads of the great semi-sovereign families of medieval France are often referred to historically with a sequencing number. Whereas those of the modern, Bourbon era, even peer-dukes, are not accorded an ordinal (e.g., Joan of Arc's companion, Guy XIV de Laval, or Alain I de Rohan vs his descendant/heir, Hercule, Duke of Montbazon). Generally, Latin (French, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian) and British titles descend by primogeniture and therefore can be differentiated by sequencing (e.g. "John Doe, 3rd Earl of Town or Jean IV de Surnom, Baron d'Endroit"). But German, Scandinavian and Russian titles usually cannot be sequenced (rulers of countly rank or higher, excepted) since all legitimate male-line descendants share the title equally before the law. Wiki editors have tended to apply the custom of contrasting so-called substantive with non-substantive titles by use of the format "Firstname, Title of Place" for the family head while all other males of the same family are "Title Firstname of Place". Continentally, the problem isn't that there were no rules governing titles & names for each realm, but that these were often unknown/misunderstood by writers in English. Imposing them now would correct historical errors, but seem ersatz or rigid.FactStraight (talk) 18:51, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

One issue that we've never resolved in this framework is what language the titles should be in. I.e. do we use "comte de X" or "Count of X"? From my experience with historical texts in English, I'd say that for noble titles in most languages we should probably translate into English. I'm not sure of this for the most familiar languages (French, Spanish, Italian, German), especially French. One sees "the Duc d'Orléans" or "the Comte de Chambord" at least as often, if not more often, than "Duke of Orleans" or "Count of Chambord." And certainly one rarely sees "Marquess of Lafayette" or "Duke of Broglie." I'd also add that this subject has been brought up repeatedly over the years, and always results in some desultory discussion followed by no action. john k (talk) 13:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

We've not taken action because we disagree. Strenuously. We've had huge, still un-resolved fights over whether to capitalize French titles, ongoing battles to decide if French dynasts had/have surnames, and near-nuclear exchanges over translating any of the preceding. Some believe that we should "Use English, always". Others believe that we should "Do what English does" (often not the same thing as "Use English"), while still others want each bio's name decided on a case-by-case basis - which, of course, leads to gridlock -- or members of the same family often having unrecognizably different names/titles. My take is that we should only translate French titles when referring to realms, medieval or modern (i.e. Duke of Aquitaine, Duke of Burgundy, Duke of Lorraine, Duke of Bouillon, Prince of Monaco). Historically, encyclopedic scholars in English have usually not translated French noble titles, even when borne by royalty, (duc de La Rochefoucauld, marquis de Lafayette, comte de Chambord, prince de Condé), which worked because either most students of English also knew French (true, through WWI) or because most French titles are recognizably close to those used in English (still the case). The argument of recognizability applies only somewhat less to titles in other Latin languages, but has its uses (when studying Renaissance history its useful to know that the "Prince of Piombino" and the "Duke of Modena" ruled those places, whereas the "Principe Colonna" and the "Duca Lancelotti" were Roman nobles whose titles prefixed surnames, not realms). Titles in non-Latin languages should always be translated because they are otherwise apt to be confused with the name, the exceptions being foreign titles accepted into English usage (e.g. "tsar", "infanta"). In any event, please review our archived discussion in the sub-section French nobility again before re-launching this debate. FactStraight (talk) 17:48, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

This would be basically my attitude, except that I think German titles can be problematic - Fürst and Freiherr are both difficult to translate. They are typically translated as "Prince" and "Baron," respectively, but German also has Prinz and Baron, which translate more literally to Prince and Baron. In general, though, I think your perspective more or less matches mine. I think it would be wise to set out something along those lines as a basic guideline, but also say that when usage clearly favors another form, we should go with that. I'd also add that there's the possibility of not using titles at all. Instead of Victor, duc de Broglie we could just have Victor de Broglie, and so forth, for most continental titles. We already do this a lot for Germans - thus Otto von Bismarck, e.g. (On the other hand Klemens Wenzel, Prince von Metternich is a horrible title. john k (talk) 06:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I think Factstraight's line is appealling, but indecidable. Is Burgundy a realm or a title? How about the lords of Angoulême? The answer is sometimes Yes, sometimes No, and (particularly in the early Renaissance), sometimes a Definite Maybe. Yet having the Dukes of Burgundy and les ducs de Bourgougne, in the same encyclopedia, is a recipe for pointless confusion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Maria of Romania

With Marie of Romania now moved to that title, we really (don't we?) need to find a new title for her daughter Maria of Romania (both were called Maria in Romanian, so the one-letter difference is pure accident). I've mentioned this at the article talk page.--Kotniski (talk) 15:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Now moved to Maria of Yugoslavia. Time to close? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

That's solved the most pressing problem, but perhaps it's time to look again at how we name consorts. If the pattern of these two is to be followed, even against idiom, then we would have a situation where "Name of Place" could refer to any of three things - someone from the place, someone who ruled the place, or someone who was married to the ruler of the place. And if we're ignoring real-world usage (as seems to be the wont of editors in this area), then readers aren't necessarily going to know who we're talking about. I proposed above a kind of system for naming of these articles - does anyone have any further thoughts on it?--Kotniski (talk) 05:26, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

But "Name of Place" can mean all three; indeed, it can also mean someone whose ancestor ruled the place, even if they've never been there.

This brings us back to the persistent delusion that this page ignores real-world usage. We do not ignore usage; we have attempted to systematize it and choose among the possibilities offered - in part because some editors and readers like system and predictability, but in large part because we cannot use the same title for different articles. For consorts, we cannot systematize yet; there is no system which will fit all cases.

I am very tired of heckling based on ignorance both of English and of this guideline. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

For consorts, we cannot sysetmatize completely, certainly, but we could have a system for deciding between different names when they are almost equally common (for example, "Marie of Romania" or "Queen Marie of Romania" or "Marie, Queen of Romania" - assuming all are in common use, then we could have a rule for selecting which one, so as to provide a reasonable amount of consistency). For sovereigns we also cannot systematize completely, as people who are aware of English usage have realized - yet this page attempts to do so, with the sometimes ridiculous results that have been pointed out many times. We need to take the same middle approach in both cases - a consistent system that we prefer to use, but with the clear proviso that when usage goes clearly against it, then usage is what we follow.--Kotniski (talk) 19:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• If the need for disambiguation merits moving the article, then Maria of Romania should be a disambiguation page, not a redirect page. Deb (talk) 08:06, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

  This seems sensible. Objection?

  And it is done. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Page move of interest

At Talk:Catherine Ashton#Requested move 2, there is discussion potentially of interest to contributors to this naming convention. -Rrius (talk) 02:07, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I think this discussion on Catherine Ashton raises a number of problems with the existing naming convention:-

1. It artificially distinguishes between former British PMs and other senior politicians who have been given a title after retirement.

2. It also artificially distinguishes between British politicians who have been given a hereditary peerage and a life peerage.

3. It sets an unduly high threshhold, that a peer has to be exclusively known by their ordinary name (I think you can sometimes get the odd mention of "Lady Thatcher" or "Baroness Thatcher", but she is still usually known as Margaret Thatcher). PatGallacher (talk) 19:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it should just say "better known". That surely represents not only common sense, but actual practice as well.--Kotniski (talk) 12:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Roy Jenkins is a good precedent. Deb (talk) 13:12, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've generally tidied up that whole section, and addressed the points raised here (some of the wording might need to be tweaked slightly, though as far as I'm aware it describes actual practice pretty well).--Kotniski (talk) 07:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Better known is ill-advised before the nineteenth century. Each of the Dukes of Northumberland is best known as Northumberland, but we can't use that for reasons of disambiguation; we want to restrict this to the case where a peer (like Jenkins or Attlee or Thatcher) is normally known by something other than his title. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I have tried to refine this further, and taken things a step further, that in these cases the ordinary name should normally be used, unless the peerage title would be useful for disambiguation, and of course ultimately each case shoudl be decided on its merits. PatGallacher (talk) 16:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

We used to have an exception for Prime Ministers (only). My view is that for modern politicians (who are given a life peerage at the end of their career) and hereditary peers who decline to use theri title, we should not worry about the use of a "common" name, rather than their official highest title achieved, as long as a redirect using the WP-MOS style of title also exists. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Wilhelm I and II - the odd men out

Wilhelm I and Wilhelm II stand out as being the only German monarchs in the list of German monarchs that do not follow the usual English (and Wiki) convention of using English names. They were both moved from "William..." in Jul 2008, but a recent suggestion to move Wilhelm I back has met with a degree of reticence and the usual WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT comments. It seems a no brainer to me - but what do others think? --Bermicourt (talk) 19:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Whatever approach we adopt, we need to disambiguate Frederick III, Holy Roman Emperor and Frederick III, German Emperor. PatGallacher (talk) 21:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I support the move to William I, German Emperor, both as consistency and as usage. It may be that his grandson is sufficiently often called Wilhelm since the barrage of WWI propaganda that we must leave him as an exceptional case; the usage before the war is shown in Saki's When William Came. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

@Septentrionalis. I am no expert on that period, but the argument sounds logical enough. --Bermicourt (talk) 19:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

"Kaiser Wilhelm" is how I remember learning about him. Since we're anglicizing the Kaiser anyway, why not the Wilhelm? Or perhaps more to the point, he seems to be William slightly more often than Wilhelm on Google Scholar, so if we're moving Wilhelm I to William, there's every reason (both consistency and usage) to move Wilhelm II as well.--Kotniski (talk) 07:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

But do we really want to go back to pre-war usage? Deb (talk) 11:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm having no problem finding recent references to him as "William II" on Google Scholar. Clearly either name is perfectly acceptable in terms of commonness, so we should go with whatever's consistent with what we decide to call his grandfather.--Kotniski (talk) 11:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

As a matter of interest, what are you searching on? I don't seem to be getting anything relevant back. Deb (talk) 12:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

"william II" german emperor (published since 1990, for example)--Kotniski (talk) 12:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

For more, see Talk:Wilhelm I, German Emperor#Proposed move to William I, German Emperor. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Retired politicians

It has been claimed that a recent change was made without discussion, this is simply not the case, if you read earlier I flagged this up as an problem before another user made the change. As I said, saying that peers have to be "exclusively" known by their ordinary name before we have to use it raises too high a standard. I don't think the examples quoted are exclusively known by their ordinary name. Doing a google search, there are 70 400 hits for "Baroness Thatcher", 76 900 for "Lady Thatcher", searches for "Earl of Avon" and "Lord Avon" pick up some mentions of Anthony Eden. Drawing a fundamental distinction between household names like Thatcher and less well known politicians is a quagmire. See Talk:Catherine Ashton and Talk:Tommy McAvoy, Baron McAvoy. PatGallacher (talk) 19:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

No, it isn't. Ashton and McAvoy are worlds different from Margaret Thatcher. The standard is actually quite easy: is the person so much better known by their "normal" name that it would be surprising for their article to be anywhere else. Margaret Thatcher? Absolutely. Harold Wilson? Absolutely. William Whitelaw? Not so much. Tommy McAvoy? Not so much. Your problem is that you seem to put religious faith in Google counts, which we should all know are flawed, especially with something like this where there are so many overlapping terms. -Rrius (talk) 20:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

True. Google counts are not close to being conclusive. This comes down to whether the person is well known to the general public. McAvoy is not. Kittybrewster ☎ 20:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

As far as politicians go, if they haven't held one of the Great Offices of State and aren't named Lembit Opik or Boris Johnson, they probably aren't well known enough to reach that surprise threshold. -Rrius (talk) 20:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

When not to use a peer's title

The change made by a small group of editors above makes no sense. A naming convention is an explicit exception to WP:COMMONNAME. Their version, though, says that a peerage shouldn't be in the title when a person is primarily known without it. In other words, the exception to COMMONNAME is to use NAME, TITLE unless NAME is the common name. The whole point of the naming convention is to have consistency in the use of peerage titles. The amended version promotes inconsistency. Who ends up with their peerage in the title and who doesn't will be reliant on the current Google hit counts, which will generally favour the person pre-peerage name. In the end, whether intended or not, the result is a half-assed repeal of the naming convention with respect to nobles. Repealing altogether would be better than trying to work with the "primarily" version. -Rrius (talk) 19:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Not really - the convention tells us how to form article titles when we want to use the peerage name as the article title. Of course any part that tells us we have to use that name (as opposed to another name by which the person is best known) ought to be repealed.--Kotniski (talk) 05:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Why ought? This guideline, like the policy it implements, is descriptive: our title discussions value a number of things, of which recognizability - produced by using a common name - is only one. When, as here, subjects have a number of common names, recognizability is a marginal consideration in choosing among them.

Now, there are normative requirements in our policies - but their requirements tend to be such things as that disruptive editors who make unfounded demands ought to be banned. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

So we seem to agree that the normative requirements should be removed from this guideline?--Kotniski (talk) 16:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

No. There are no normative requirements in this guideline. There are conventions, phrased in the imperative rather than the subjunctive for readability. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

RfC: British peers

Do British peers need to be "primarily" or "exclusively" known by their ordinary name for us to use this as their article title? PatGallacher (talk) 20:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Exclusively. Kittybrewster ☎ 20:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Bertrand Russell, Anthony Eden, Margaret Thatcher. So, perhaps, not exclusively. (I'm not sure it would be possible for a peer to be known exclusively by their ordinary name in any case.)--FormerIP (talk) 23:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Utterly ridiculous question. Of course not "exclusively" - no-one is known "exclusively" as anything. I can hardly believe we even need to discuss this.--Kotniski (talk) 05:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

A more pertinent question should be: "primarily" or simply "better"? Is there any reason to prefer peerage titles to common names when the common names are somewhat (but not overwhelmingly) better known? I would say not, and the result at Catherine Ashton would seem to bear that out.--Kotniski (talk) 05:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME works well for ordinary celebrities like Elton John, Madonna, etc, but less well for peers, especially if we're looking for consistency. There are 2 ways round this: 1. Always use the highest title or 2. Use titles for hereditary peers, since they have been titled since birth, but ordinary names for life peers who are usually ennobled towards the end of their careers. --Bermicourt (talk) 06:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a myth that common names don't work for peers and royals. Why not call Lord Palmerston and Queen Victoria by the names everyone recognizes them by, and for which they are clearly primary topics? This would cause no problem at all - and "consistency" cuts both ways: it's not consistent to call most people by the names they are well known by, with appropriate disambiguation where necessary, but to adopt a totally different approach to one set of people (and not even a consistent approach within that set: look at the various arbitrary rules we have in this guideline, and the stupid titles that actually sometimes end up getting used because of blind conformance to those rules).--Kotniski (talk) 08:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

If you want to do that, you should at least be straightforward enough to propose elimination of the naming convention rather than proposing that an exception swallow the whole. -Rrius (talk) 22:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

If the common name is not the titled name we shouldn't be using the titled name. This is how it always should have been. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

This arose in relation to a discussion at Tommy McAvoy, Baron McAvoy. The discussions could be heading in opposite directions. PatGallacher (talk) 11:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

@Kotniski. If common names worked well for peers and royals, we wouldn't be having this debate; it's reality not myth. You have chosen 2 examples that neatly support your argument, but I could quote numerous others that don't. And having a rule for certain groups of people is not inconsistent as long as its logical. The 'common name' approach simply leads to a different kind of inconsistency. We need to decide which makes more sense based on what authoritative sources say, not on personal opinion.

@Chris Cunningham. But where's the logic?

@PatGallacher. Your proposal for Tommy McAvoy would be in line with my option 2 i.e. life peers get called by their ordinary name (but hereditary peers get the title).

General comment. If you think this is complicated, wait till we discuss the dukes of Brunswick-Lüneburg where several could exist simultaneously and sometimes with the same first name! --Bermicourt (talk) 11:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The logic is that this is the naming convention used by practically every other part of the project. That we treat British peers differently is an anomaly and a historical mistake. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

@Bermicourt - "if common names worked well we wouldn't be having this debate" - wrong way round I'm afraid, it's the continual problems with the present system that mean we keep having this type of debate. And our system is not based on what authoritative sources say, or logic, it really is just the personal opinion of a few people who wrote it down many years ago and doggedly try to impose their self-created rules on other editors (including by move warring, I've just noticed). And if the present system works well with complex lines of dukes and so on, then that's great, but we mustn't (or shouldn't) make the false deduction that what works well in many cases must work well in all cases. Anyway, to return to substantial matters, I'd support the "personal names for life peers" suggestion as a first approximation to something sensible (particularly since the titles we use for people who are well known as peers are usually not the names under which they are well known as peers, so there doesn't seem much point in using them even if they are better known as "Lord..." than by their personal name).--Kotniski (talk) 13:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Let us get rid of the dogmatic falsehoods which certain unhelpful editors have brought here:

• There is no naming convention used by almost all other areas of this project. There is a policy, WP:AT, which sets five goals which it would be desirable for all naming conventions to meet; since they are (driven to extremes) incompatible with each other, naming conventions cannot entirely do this.
• If there were such a convention, it would not be use the most common name, whatever other costs that imposes. That is not true of any biographical articles, including these: Faraday is most commonly called Faraday, not Michael Faraday; Jefferson is most commonly called Jefferson, not Thomas Jefferson.
  • Please don't waste time with the claim that this is diambiguation; Faraday is the only Faraday notable enough to have an article; Jefferson is primary usage.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
• We don't use surnames alone because using full names is generally needed for disambiguation, and is more encyclopedic. So here; William Cavendish, 1st Duke of Devonshire is his full name, and all of it - including the numeral - is needed for disambiguation from his successors; but his most common name is Duke of Devonshire. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Which is one of the majority of cases where the convention works well. It's when people try to generalize such patterns to all cases, and produce thoroughly unrecognizable titles in the process, that the problems arise. --Kotniski (talk) 16:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

That's called consistency; it is one of the goals supported by policy. The distance to which it should be followed is the point of this conversation - when not interrupted by those who oppose the policy itself, which should be discussed on its own talkpage, preferably not in the spirit of Robespierre reorganizing France. This guideline, which chooses among common names, provides no ground for pushing to the point of unrecognizability. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Huh? This is the guideline that explicitly condones (by including as examples) the uncommon, barely recognizable titles we give to articles on Queen Victoria, Lord Palmerston et al. --Kotniski (talk) 17:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any difficulty recognizing who Victoria of the United Kingdom is? If so (there's always one), does anybody else? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I do. Empress Frederick is also a Victoria of the United Kingdom, and there are other (less notable) ones too. But, as has been said before, this is only a problem on articles where the monarch does not have a numeral. DrKiernan (talk) 18:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps not only, but yes, that's the main category that we need to do something about. Anyway, we're supposed to be talking about peers here - surely even PMA will admit that Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston is unrecognizable to much of its potential audience (i.e. people who would recognize him if we titled his article Lord Palmerston)?--Kotniski (talk) 18:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Lord Palmerston is of course ambiguous; most sources don't have to deal with disambiguation from his father and grandfather. Efforts have been made to go this direction; there is no consensus (and I supported it) even to move the article on Lord Byron to Lord Byron; this is not what we actually do. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually I rather feel that Lord Byron is due a revisiting, what with the retirement of the particular, ummm, "dogmatist" primarily responsible for holding that up the last time. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

And if a move proves to have consensus, that would be evidence to tweak the sentence originally under consideration. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the key phrase there is "driven to extremes". Straw men about absurdist interpretations on WP:COMMONNAME as it applies to michael Faraday are not arguments worth considering. The nobility guidelines will gradually be chipped away until they resemble the community's wider norms. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

They do resemble the community's "wider norms" - if that means what the community actually does, not the drastic oversimpilification that this handful of dogmatists would like to force us all into. This is the wrong page on which to do that too; this page simply reports the actual practice of article naming. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

If you want to characterise "using the general guidelines and not a sub-guideline questioned on a daily basis" as a "drastic oversimplification" then I can't stop you; it's not really convincing, though, is it? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

What general guideline? WP:AT (which is not a guideline) is perfectly compatible with this guideline - it was written to be. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Except that most people consider WP:COMMONNAME to have primacy. As it does. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME is often the only issue is a title discussion; but that's not the same thing. Do you have any evidence of what "most people think"? WP:AT doe not support this claim. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME is the first section on WP:AT, and states "articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name of the subject of the article". That we're even having this discussion (and not for the first time) suggests that there's fairly widespread belief that the common name is appropriate for most articles. I'm not sure how you'd go about "proving" it though. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

No, it isn't first; the first one says Most articles will have a simple and obvious title that satisfies most or all of these ideal criteria. If so, use it, as a straightforward choice. - and that is the normal situation WP:COMMONNAME refers to. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I thought Wikipedia was supposed to follow the conventions based on credible sources, not invent its own original norms. So far we have lots of opinions and no sources. I include myself, but then I was only making suggestions for others more expert to consider using their knowledge of the history books they were referring to! --Bermicourt (talk) 19:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

You mean like the Complete Peerage, which we follow quite slavishly on this subject? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Exactly right, although it doesn't cover today's peers, but then most of them are cronies life peers anyway, for which we seem to have some consensus that we use their ordinary name. BTW the external link at Complete Peerage doesn't work so I've hidden it for now. --Bermicourt (talk) 19:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

There is a Volume XIV, which covers life peers up to 1994. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Cool. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

A few thoughts on the original question (whether the standard for omitting the peerage title should be that the person is "primarily" or "exclusively" known without it) and related issues:

• "Exclusively" is an impossibly high standard: there is no peer who is never referred to by title.
• "Primarily" is difficult to determine and is, in my opinion, too low a standard. Consistency should indeed be a goal of this convention, except where it is clearly contrary to common sense.
• Might "significantly better known" be a workable compromise?
• Per any standard short of "exclusively", Lord Palmerston's article should probably be named thus—and disambiguation should not really be an issue, since that is already a redirect and the article has a dab link to Viscount Palmerston.
• Likewise for Lord Byron.
• Having different conventions for hereditary and life peers strikes me as artificial and unnecessary, though it may well be the case that life peers will be more likely to meet the standard for omitting the peerage title.

Alkari (?), 23 June 2010, 21:47 UTC

"Exclusively" was never meant or understood literally. Even the examples given for the standard are occasionally referred to as "Lord/Lady/Baroness X". I'm not sure if "significantly better known" really captures that or has much meaning itself (I really have no idea where to place it or how to apply it), and I doubt any adverb is going to; perhaps "overwhelmingly" (which we use for epithets such as "the Great" and excludes even "the Lionheart") would do it. Perhaps what we should do is draft a full sentence. I would propose something along the lines I wrote above (and which was the spirit of the original): "This convention should be followed unless the person is so well known by their former name, or some other name, that it would be surprising for it to be elsewhere." -Rrius (talk) 22:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

That would help; except that as we've seen, things that surprise ordinary people ("Victoria of the United Kingdom") don't surprise all stalwarts of Wikipedia (who have had their mindsets so altered as to think that such names are perfectly normal). --Kotniski (talk) 04:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you that the "of the United Kingdom" naming convention is a nonsense. But, I don't think that is a question of surprise. The problem there is that some editors are just resistant to change. I'm not sure what your preferred solution is, but mine is "Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom" (perhaps with the format "Elizabeth II" where disambiguation isn't needed); after all, that mirrors how we treat nobles. To go just one step further afield before returning to the matter at hand, I think we need to find a way to get all the people who oppose the current standard to try to work out a single proposal because it seems that most of the times we lose, there are more people who oppose the status quo than support it, but no single approach gets enough support to surpass it.

Anyway, I think borrowing the surprise standard would give us a predictable, workable standard strong enough to maintain a the level of consistency the desire for which led to the adoption of the naming convention way back when. I believe that under the standard, John Prescott is the only one of the new peers that would be left at a former name. (I don't have them all committed to memory, so I could be missing someone.) People like Tom, Lord McAvoy are just not very high-profile. Frankly, he's not likely even to be searched for unless he's in some scandal, in which case it would probably be a search for "Lord McAvoy". -Rrius (talk) 05:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that being low-profile is an excuse for our using an uncommon name (it just means that fewer people will care, so those who go around enforcing the convention will usually be able to do so unopposed). If we think that "Lord McAvoy" is going to be his common name, then surely it's that that should be used, not the mouthful that's actually being proposed? (But is there really any reason to assume that this man will be any more prominent as a lord than he was as a commoner?) What do you think about the proposal that the standard for life peers should be personal name alone? That would be very consistent - both with the way we treat other holders of non-hereditary titles (knighthoods and so on), and with those quite numerous high-profile ennobled politicians where we are bound to use the personal name anyway. --Kotniski (talk) 06:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not an excuse, it's a justification. The proposal of using former names for life peers is a terrible one because most peers who are only known by their peerages. What's more, it would be wholly inconsistent with how we treat other nobles. -Rrius (talk) 11:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

An observation: princes who become kings are likely to be more notable in their new rank; politicians who become peers regularly sink into obscurity. AJRG (talk) 11:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's my intuitive feeling too (though obviously there are exceptions). Many peers are not known only by their peerages - that may apply to hereditary peers who are not notable for much else; but for life peers (and hereditary peers who ascend to the peerage after having done notable things) it tends to be the other way round. Whichever way we do it it's going to be consistent with something and inconsistent with something else, so consistency isn't much of an argument here. (It also needs to be emphasized that even when people are known by their "peerage titles", the names they actually are known by - like "Lord X" - often differ significantly from the names we give to their articles.)--Kotniski (talk) 12:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The current format is [Forename] [Surname], [Title]. By using that format, you lose absolutely nothing for people searching for [Forename] [Surname]. As it's all still there, it's really a built in compromise. Some one searching for if someone searches for "John Gummer" and finds "John Gummer, Baron Deben", they'll think, "Ah, here we are." If they search for "Lord Deben" and get "John Gummer", many will see the title and hit the back button to try again. I don't see the value in removing the titles. -Rrius (talk) 12:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's a point, but generally speaking Wikipedia avoids unnecessary clutter in its article titles - we don't do Gdańsk/Danzig, we pick a name and use it (and disambiguate it if necessary - using a description rather than an alternative name - John Gummer (politician) would be the Wikipedia style if he weren't the primary topic for that name, and would probably be more useful in practice than including his little-known baronial title). People won't necessarily think "here we are" on alighting at "John Gummer, Baron Deben" - they may well think (particularly if they know how Wikipedia does things): "huh, this can't be the best-known John Gummer, since it's been disambiguated."--Kotniski (talk) 15:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually he's better known as John Selwyn Gummer. :-) Deb (talk) 11:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I thought that too.--Kotniski (talk) 14:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems to vary - I get the impression he used the longer version of his name less and less as time went on, but his profile took a nosedive for unrelated reasons so people may not have noticed. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Please do remember that we are dealing with a millennium of peers, most of whom have articles, and almost all of whom are notable enough to have articles (as national legislators, if nothing else); dealing with them on the basis of the last half-century, since creation of hereditary peerages became obsolescent, is precipitate. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think we're talking mainly about life peers here (and the few hereditary peers who are very well known as something else than their official title). I don't see anyone proposing to rename all the millennium's worth of peers, most of whom are perfectly acceptably titled as they are. --Kotniski (talk) 16:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The disambiguation question

The situation with disambiguation is illustrated with Michael Martin, Baron Martin of Springburn (mentioned in the guideline). It is asserted that adding the baronial title is useful for disambiguation. But is it? For me (and let's assume for now that he isn't the primary topic for Michael Martin), far more useful would be something like Michael Martin (Commons speaker). That would be instantly understandable to a far greater number of readers; wouldn't be any less concise; and overall not any less "consistent" (what you lose in consistency with other barons, you gain in consistency with other Michael Martins). I see the matter was raised on the article talk page without any views being expressed (except that of the raiser) - what do people here think?--Kotniski (talk) 05:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure our majority US (and other) friends would agree; AFAIK they don't have 'commons speakers' and may not recognise the term. On the other hand a lordly title is both recognisable and compatible with historic nobility naming. But, like you I still don't particularly like the concept of a small minority of life peers being named as if they were full hereditary peers - that could be confusing. How about a convention that says: life peers go under their ordinary name; if disambiguation is needed we add the title in brackets e.g. Michael Martin (baron) or Michael Martin (life peer), or even Michael Martin, Bart.? . Disambiguators, almost by their nature will be at variance with our conventions, but it helps if the disambiguators themselves are standardised. --Bermicourt (talk) 06:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I think you miss the point (perhaps because I failed to make it) - Martin is not well-known as a baron, life peer or whatever, he's known to the world (well, to Britain - to other countries I presume he's not known at all) as the ex-speaker of the Commons. - there's a clear advantage to readers if we do it that way.--Kotniski (talk) 07:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

"We disambiguate titles with reference to the things people are most notable for" - where does Wikipedia state that? I thought we disambiguated people by their main profession or highest status. Otherwise we might have Edmund Hillary (first man to climb Everest)!  ;) --Bermicourt (talk) 07:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

And wasn't "Commons speaker" Martin's main profession? (the one he was best known for?) I mean, "(politician)" would still be more helpful than "Baron" or whatever, but then the Commons speaker is supposed to be apolitical... --Kotniski (talk) 08:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, WP:Naming conventions (people)#Disambiguation says: "The disambiguator is usually a noun indicating what the person is noted for being." --Kotniski (talk) 08:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(royalty_and_nobility)#British_nobility - Kittybrewster ☎ 09:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's the section that contains the principle I'm questioning. (Specifically the bit which actually uses this title as an example.)--Kotniski (talk) 10:05, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Peerage_and_Baronetage#Question_about_naming_conventions - Kittybrewster ☎ 10:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that link (I've mentioned this discussion there), but I don't see it has anything to do with the question I'm asking here.--Kotniski (talk) 11:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

We do need to disambiguate Michael Martin from Micheál Martin, the current Irish foreign minister. Other politicians where this may be an issue are Peter Walker, Baron Walker of Worcester and George Thomas, 1st Viscount Tonypandy, where at present they are not the primary meaning of these names, although to complicate matters further the latter was a hereditary title. PatGallacher (talk) 11:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

(Isn't the different spelling sufficient differentation for Michael and Micheál Martin?) But I would suggest that all these titles would work better for normal readers (i.e. not peerage buffs) if a normal disambiguation tag were used instead of the peerage. (Well, I feel less strongly about George Thomas, but that might be because I happen to remember what title he adopted.)--Kotniski (talk) 12:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The two spellings make it possible to have distinct articles, but it's not desirable to have two articles a typo apart if it can be readily avoided, especially since Micheal Martin is, quite properly, a redirect to the foreign minister. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I sense a consensus developing in favour of the current guideline, using "primarily". I think it is recognised that "exclusively" was unworkable. The use of "surprising" in this guideline raises problems e.g. if we did have an article at "Margaret Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher" I don't think most people would be particularly surprised, they might just think "I suppose that's what reference works do, sometimes use long-winded formal titles". Whether people are surprised by something can be very subjective, but I think "surprisingly" was meant to cover cases like Alfred the Great where calling him e.g. "Alfred of England" or "Alfred of Wessex" could surprise some people who would wonder who this was. (Also we use cognomens for some early monarchs because it's open to dispute where they were monarch of.)

If the issue is using people's common names, then we should bear in mind that with most of these people, when their title is used, they will usually be referred to as "Lord X" even though their formal title, which some people want to use in the article title, is "Baron X". (Baroness Thatcher is an interesting exception.)

Some people at the Tommy McAvoy discussion have argued that we should draw a distinction between people like Thatcher who everybody has heard of and McAvoy who are not so well known. This is introducing an unnecessary complication into what is already a complicated issue. Reference works which refer to e.g. McAvoy's 5 general election victories or his time as a government whip will still refer to him by his ordinary name. Where do we draw the line? Bertrand Russell and Anthony Eden were household names in their own time, but not so now.

Use of peerage titles as a disambiguator as an exception was put in I think because some people were being cautious about the issue of ditching peerage titles at that stage, but it merits discussion. PatGallacher (talk) 13:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

You may not be allowing for the rest of the English-speaking world. Russell and Eden are household names for anyone interested in history or philosophy; I've never heard of Martin until this conversation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

A legitimate point, but also a good example of the problems deciding where to draw the line. Also, you certainly can't have an article "Michael Martin, Bart.", since this is an abbreviation of baronet, not baron. PatGallacher (talk) 19:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't really see what the point is - if someone doesn't know who Martin is, then he's not going to recognize him under any name we decide to give him (so to the extent it matters at all for such readers, we're probably still better off disambiguating him with reference to what he's notable for, so that the non-UK reader will at least learn that much - and won't be misled into thinking that the weird double name is how he's commonly referred to).--Kotniski (talk) 20:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a misunderstanding of the point of disambiguation. It's a necessary evil to deal with the fact that the encyclopedia requires unique titles for umpty-gazillion articles, not a tool for education. If there's a way of disambiguating people that makes use of a name legitimately used outside of Wikipedia, that's generally preferable to making people guess at whatever clever shorthand we've invented. Choess (talk) 21:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

All right, forget what I said about "at least learn that much" - my argument still stands up without it. And no, we don't use a little recognized alternative name in preference to recognized name + disambiguator - that's what WP:Naming conventions (people) has always made clear. "X (Y)" is not "clever shorthand" - it's instantly understandable, more so than "John Smith, Baron Smith" (and I'm sure some of these double forms are never actually used in the real world.--Kotniski (talk) 21:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

A slightly different thought about newly created peers (and life peers generally)

A rule that our naming convention should follow common usage clearly doesn't work well in the case of newly created peers - nearly all of them will have had at least some press coverage before elevation (even if they weren't particularly famous before) and none of that coverage, obviously, will refer to them as "Lord X", even if it is likely that much or most coverage going forward is likely to do so. It strikes me as silly and unproductive for us to weight old stories equally with new, on this question.

I believe that our past practice, stated quite broadly (and stated in terms of what has happened, rather than what the letter of guidelines and policy may have said) is that we title these articles using the title, except when there is some very good reason not to do so. Catherine Ashton might well be such an example (though I'm not firmly convinced).

I think that any solution which tempts us to settle a debate by counting hits in google is generally not going to be a good one.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

This raises the question of what is "a very good reason" in this context. Is there a very good reason why we should not have an article with the title "Margaret Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher"? PatGallacher (talk) 19:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

No, the solution is not to count hits in Google, but to use experience and common sense - we know (a) that most life peers did most of what they were notable for before they got their peerage, and are therefore likely to be known best by the name they had then (in fact the same principle applies to hereditary peers who happened to do their famous stuff before they were elevated, and the guideline has long recognized that fact); (b) that even if they do happen to become better known by their peerage title, it will usually be as "Lord X" rather than "Baron X" etc. (for some reason "Baroness" seems to be more commonly used alongside "Lady"), so these titles with "Baron" don't help any. The fair point has been made that the long titles do contain the personal names, and therefore are quite recognizable even to people who have no idea what the title was but know the personal names; however, it's quite contrary to Wikipedia's normal practice to stuff article titles with extraneous information and redundant disambiguators (and for good reason), and as observed most recently, if disambiguation really is required, then the peerage title will often be a rubbish way of doing it (a normal parenthetical disambiguator will be understood and recognized by far more readers). So on the whole, I would say there's every reason to make a clear split between life peers and hereditary peers (oh, life peers don't suffer from the repetition of names/titles that hereditary peers do); treat hereditary peers more or less as we already do, but treat life peers as we treat knights and other lesser honour-holders, and prefer the personal name alone unless they're better known as something else - in which case use that something else.--Kotniski (talk) 21:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, no, there is no very good reason why we should not. I think we should, but it isn't up to me. But I do think past practice has been that if it isn't at "Margaret Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher" then there should be a good reason for it. Arguably, a study of google news results (which I just did), shows that even today she is referred to much more often as simply "Margaret Thatcher" rather than "Lady Thatcher" or "Baroness Thatcher". That doesn't hold true for, as an example, Lord Mandelson, who is referred to about equally often (as far as my limited study showed) as Peter Mandelson versus Lord Mandelson or Baron Mandelson. So, for a test case, we might say that Margaret Thatcher is not very much known by her title, whereas Lord Mandelson is. However, I should add for the sake of completeness, this type of "google counting" analysis is what I think we should generally try to avoid if at all possible.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I think I agree with you, except I think that the default should be the other way round - not "use the double form unless there's a good reason not to" but "use the personal name alone unless there's a good reason not to" (for reasons explained at great length and little clarity above).--Kotniski (talk) 21:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Well I agree with Jimbo and not with Kotniski. Jimbo's position is the default we have arrived at after years of discussing this. No good reason to change it. Indeed it is only Kotniski who is arguing here that we do so. Kittybrewster ☎ 21:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

A rather bizarre conclusion - perhaps you could counter my arguments instead of pretending they don't exist (and that the majority of other commenting editors who also support change also don't exist)?--Kotniski (talk) 21:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't really get what your argument is, though. When people become peers, their name actually changes - in passports, for example. "Titles of nobility are part of a person's name" says the UK passport office. For us to use a name other than what someone's name actually is, surely requires a justification, not the other way around.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:11, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

We are not usually concerned with what someone's name "actually is", but what people (reliable sources) call them. There are countless examples of this (well, since most people have middle names that we msotly don't use in our titles, presumably the majority of articles on people are examples).--Kotniski (talk) 10:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I think we concern ourselves with both, actually. When a woman gets married and changes her name, we change her name, and we don't bother waiting for google counts to shift. And, there can be exceptions to this particularly for very famous woman (although many of them do not change their names upon marriage). There simply is no absolute rule, nor should there be, that the titles of articles must in all cases follow google counts.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

On that last point we absolutely agree. (But no, I don't think we change our article titles when a woman gets marrried, not at all - normally we expect her to continue to be better known by her current name, if she's already notable enough under that name to have a WP article.)--Kotniski (talk) 13:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

A lot of the woman with articles who've married after attaining notability are disproportionately likely to not change their public name for various professional reasons. Exceptions do exist, particularly with people whose notability stems from who they are related to or engaged to, and often announcements in the run-up to the marriage state what name the wife will go by - we changed Camilla Parker Bowles on the day of her wedding, similarly with Daniel Westling (and no doubt we'll do the same for Kate Middleton). Articles on ongoing fictional characters, particularly in soaps, also tend to be changed to match this. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think it would be fair to say that the normal principle is that we adopt the name by which we expect the person to be commonly known from now on. With people becoming queens and princesses, that tends to be their new title; my thesis is that with people becoming life peers, it tends not to be their new title. (And certainly not the form of the title with "Baron" in it.)--Kotniski (talk) 19:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the point. It feels to me very much like feeding a troll. I see the arguments shifting around and consensus is not with you. Kittybrewster ☎ 22:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

We are trying to reach consensus here (there doesn't seem to be any yet) - I'm not sure how comments like yours are supposed to help. I notice you seem to have strong views about this but you haven't presented any arguments yet - perhaps you could set out your position and the reasoning behind it?--Kotniski (talk) 06:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I maintain that your proposal is about effectively deleting the naming convention, not changing it. Your basic argument is that we should use the most common name, but you refuse to acknowledge the fact that separate naming conventions exist as exceptions to that default rule. If you want to propose eliminating the naming convention (whether merely with respect to nobles or also with respect to royals), make a straightforward proposal to do that. -Rrius (talk) 05:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Well no, I'm not proposing eliminating it, there are one or two things I'd change if it were up to me, and specifically this is one of them - change the convention for life peers (treat them more like we treat baronets than like we treat hereditary peers).--Kotniski (talk) 06:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

In theory, the convention for Baronets is a sound one: use title only when necessary for disambiguation. In practice, however, it has created a number of problems:

1. Instability. This is a situation which arises a lot with MPs. There were several notable people called Foobar Foobar: one is Sir Foobar Foobar, 1st Baronet, the others untitled. None is clearly a primary topic. So far we have an article only on the baronet. Both are listed in the dab pages and linked from lots of relevant articles, so which name is used for the existing article? I go for disambiguation, so place the article with the title, which allows proper disambiguation of links (whether red or blue), but others prefer keeping a short name unless there is a need to disambiguate between existing articles. One path prioritises simplicity of naming, the other prioritises disambig. This can and does lead to articles being moved back and forth.
2. Politicisation of naming discussions. Because of the fuzziness in the guidelines, some editors bring their politics to bear on the naming of the articles. Supporters of peerage etc may favour using the title where possible "because it's correct form", while opponents of the peerage will try to avoid it where possible. This has in the past led to almighty rows, made worse by the tendency of a very few editors at extreme corners of the discussion to allege that their opponents are acting out of a political motive, even though there are many other reasons why editors may take a particular view.

This instability and consequent politicisation has been highly disruptive in articles on baronets, and I proposed a year ago that the guidelines should be simplified to one of two clear-cut options: either never use the title, or always use it. There was no consensus for any change, but I would suggest that editors think very carefully before changing the guidelines on naming peers in any way which risks the acrimonious instability we have so often seen with articles on baronets. Where a naming convention is fuzzy, it's far too easy for good faith editors to get caught up in prolonged and possibly bitter battles over nuances, and that drains energy away from the real work of creating and improving articles. It seems to me that while a firm rule (of whatever type) creates anomalies, those anomalies are much much healthier than endless disputes over how to apply discretion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

An excellent point, and one that touches on an important issue: the best guideline may not be the one that covers the greatest number of cases - one that breaks in obvious and understandable ways is to be preferred. AJRG (talk) 18:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, choosing a guideline that leads to silly answers in some cases (and then insisting on applying the guideline in spite of the resulting silliness) certainly doesn't stop endless disputes, and holds up the process of improving articles (in which getting the title right is one of the significant parts). If we really want to impose one standard form on all life peers (and I don't see the necessity), then it has to be just to use the personal name (with a standard parenthetical as disambiguator where required), since no other solution will be acceptable to the community for people like Thatcher. Or at least, I've been arguing for such a standard in this discussion, and no-one's yet come up with any counterarguments in favour of what they consider to be the current standard.--Kotniski (talk) 18:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

It is merely your POV that the guidelines lead to silly answers. The guidelines do not necessarily impose a standard answer - as, e.g. Thatcher cf McAvoy. You seem to me to be ignoring the counter arguments. Having said which, I would favour the long form for Thatcher also + a redirect to the long form. Maybe too much rigidity would be a mistake here. Kittybrewster ☎ 22:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, too much rigidity definitely is a mistake. Here's another example of silliness, to go with all the others: Brian Hutton, Baron Hutton. This is a case where the person is best known by his noble title, not his personal name - but he's known as "Lord Hutton". Hence even in the case where a life peer is best known as a peer, the Wikipedia peerage community has contrived to give his article an unrecognizable name. In this area we seem to get it about as wrong as it is possible to get.--Kotniski (talk) 06:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo wrote above "A rule that our naming convention should follow common usage clearly doesn't work well in the case of newly created peers". This problem was also identified in the long conversations about self identifying names. When an organisation or a person changes their name, should we immediately start to use the new name or wait until reliable sources start to use the new name? This was discussed at length in Wikipedia talk:Naming conflict/Archive 2. In that I suggested that "if a boxer called 'Cassius Clay' today decided to call himself 'Muhammad Ali' it would not be up to Wikipedia to alter the name its article from "Cassius Clay" to 'Muhammad Ali' until the majority of reliable sources started to do so". I think that holds for life peers as well. My suggested solution for the self-identifying was "the usage in reliable sources after the announcement of a change of name by a self-identifying entity" perhaps we could modify that to be a general rule for all such name changes. I think that when naming discussions take place there is usually an assumption that we should give more weight to modern sources, and I think that a paragraph, not here, but in the Article titles page could address this issue and give specific guidance that if an organisation or person changes their name then reliable sources after the name change should be given more weight in deciding the name than those published prior to the name change. Obviously one swallow does not make a summer, so the wording needs to be worded so that we do not completely ignore the old name in favour of a new one until there are sufficient post name change articles to justify the expectation that people looking for the organisation or person will be aware that the name is likely to have been changed. -- PBS (talk) 04:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Armenian monarchs

Is there a reason why some articles in Category:Kings of Armenian Cilicia and Category:Kings of Armenian Cilicia are exceptions to this guideline? Surtsicna (talk) 17:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Not that I can see. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

You mean that the word "King" is included in the title? Isn't it because otherwise there would be ambiguity with Princes? (E.g. we have Leo I, King of Armenia and Leo I, Prince of Armenia - leave out the "King" and people won't know which one it is.)--Kotniski (talk) 17:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

If this is indeed the reason, can we mention this situation in the guideline as an exception?--Kotniski (talk) 04:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Exception to what? Kittybrewster ☎ 11:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The principle that we don't include the words "King" and "Queen" in the titles of articles on monarchs.--Kotniski (talk) 12:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

All right, I'm going to do it - if anyone objects, please revert and explain.--Kotniski (talk) 14:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Do what? Surtsicna (talk) 14:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

What I just did.--Kotniski (talk) 14:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Arguments for and against status quo/and change

All right, here are some actual proposals (let's discuss them before we make up our minds with supports/opposes - they will need refinement in any case):

1. For monarchs, that it not be required (nor forbidden) to include mention of the realm if not needed for disambiguation (this in fact would just document existing practice - we already have e.g. Elizabeth II, Napoleon I, II, III).
2. For monarchs with no numeral and no cognomen, use the form Queen Victoria if primary topic, Anne, Queen of Great Britain if not.
3. Abandon the convention for Russian tsarinas (use "Empress..." instead, and disambiguate with parentheticals in the normal way if required).
4. For life peers, use the form of the personal name, or form of the noble title, by which they are best known, disambiguating with parentheticals if required.
5. For hereditary peers, if they are better recognized by a particular form of name or title (such as "Lord X"), and are the primary topic for it, use it (this is kind of already mentioned in the guideline, with Alfred, Lord Tennyson as an example).
6. Don't know if this has ever come up, but for baronets, if they are best known for something else than being baronets, and disambiguation is required, then use an ordinary parenthetical disambiguator rather than disambiguating with the baronetal title.

I think it will be obvious by now what the arguments in favour of these proposals are; basically it's

• recognizability - the proposals are based on normal usage, not artifically standardized forms, and so would produce more recognizable names; disambiguating according to notability rather than nobility will also improve recognizability;
• conciseness - extraneous information, not needed for disambiguation, would be eliminated from many titles;
• consistency - the titles used for articles on royalty and nobility would more closely follow the approach used for articles on other types of people, and for Wikipedia articles generally.

Comments invited.--Kotniski (talk) 07:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this is remotely close to what we will need for consensus, so there apparently does remain a lot of work to be done. I see no reason for distinguishing, as you do, between life peers and hereditary peers, and I would be opposed to us creating an artificially different policy for the two. I think your proposals to change longstanding policy are not gaining much support.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

But rather than just complain about your proposals, I should also do something positive and offer an alternative.

1. For peers, hereditary and life, prefer the use of their title in the title of the article, unless the title is almost never used, e.g. in cases where the peer has specifically disclaimed or otherwise chosen not to use the title, or in cases where the longstanding judgment of history has been to not use the title. In general, titles should be used unless there is a compelling reason not to do so.

I think this better documents actual practice, and makes for a better, more comprehensive and educational encyclopedia. Remember, "use common names" is but one of many competing guidelines.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Jimbo. So we move Margaret Thatcher but not Peter Ramsbotham. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand this reasoning at all. Deb (talk) 11:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick background point on the hereditary/life distinction. Originally we had separate rules of using the peerage title for most hereditaries but not for life peers on the reasoning that a lot of the life peers who then had articles were those who received them as retirement honours and history tends to know the person by their commoner title. This, however, created problems for a significant proportion of peers, usually "working peers", who were low profile before their ennoblement but have since come to prominence once in the Lords - a particular example is Jean Barker, Baroness Trumpington, a former junior minister who prior to elevation was active in local government in Cambridge and national public bodies but not well known outside of these. The rules were changed but on the understanding that a greater degree of proof was needed for adding the title in the case of "retirement honours" - this is particularly the case with Cabinet ministers from the Wilson through Thatcher era (1964-1990) who for the most part finished their political careers before the internet boomed (British newspapers generally don't have decades upon decades of past articles available online in such a way to be easily Googled). Timrollpickering (talk) 11:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I think "almost never used" is the wrong standard here. It seems to be consensus that we should use Peter Mandelson, for example, rather than Baron Mandelson or Lord Mandelson, even though these latter two are very commonly used. It seems to me that in most cases where there is notability under an ordinary name, then that ordinary name should be the article title. This would apply to Sebastian Coe, Bertrand Russell and Alan Sugar, for example, but also for the majority of law lords and lords spiritual (eg Rowan Williams). Furthermore, I don't even think the subject needs to be anything like a household name for this to apply. --FormerIP (talk) 11:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I think we are wrong to use Peter Mandelson and note well that no one is proposing Baron Mandelson or Lord Mandelson but rather to follow our naming convention.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is the real practice, I think. Jimbo is now proposing doing what I was told off for suggesting eariler - trying to educate people through article titles by including information that they don't need to recognize the subject, and which we wouldn't normally include in our article titles (because the real world doesn't do it like that). We are actually miseducating people by needlessly adopting a different standard for these article titles than we do elsewhere (indeed, it's recently been asserted that these long forms aren't even the "correct styles" at all, which makes them far worse than even I imagined - they've certainly been miseducating me if that's the case). To adopt a different standard for hereditary and life peers makes perfect sense - they are different types of people, referred to in the real world in different ways. But to adopt a different standard for ennobled politicians and, say, knighted ones - or those with no honour at all - that is the real inconsistency that I find hard to accept.--Kotniski (talk) 12:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

No. A life peer is a legislator. A knight is not. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Which makes them notable, if they weren't already notable before, as does a knighthood (probably). But if they were already notable under their previous name, how does that affect this debate? AJRG (talk) 13:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

With the exception of royalty the persons name should be the title. So just because someone becomes a lord, baron or knight should not result in the persons article name being changed although the opening of the introduction should state their full title and honours. There may be cases where for disam purposes their title could be added after their name. Arthur Wellesley highlights how that can be useful.

Royalty should be treated differently though.

Prince Harry of Wales should be Prince Harry

Prince William of Wales should be Prince William

Charles, Prince of Wales should be Prince Charles

Elizabeth II should be Queen Elizabeth II

And other articles in the same way.

If such a title clashes with another person equally notable today or from the past then obviously a dab page would be needed at those locations, but the 4 listed already redirect to the main articles on the correct people anyway so i do not see why they can not be at those locations which better reflect how they are known. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm astounded. No British person would suggest that "Prince Harry" and "Prince William" are titles that don't need primary disambiguation. Deb (talk) 17:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo: are you saying you think that noble titles should always be used for articles about peers? That would make for a simple policy, at least. The exceptions you outline, I think, would never apply in practice, though. I think there is only one person who has "un-titled" themselves (Tony Benn, but he is therefore not a peer in any case (edit - I just looked it up, and it seems there are a number of others. Isn't Wikipedia useful.). Many peers style themselves by their ordinary name for non-official purposes (I think Peter Mandelson would be among these), but I don't think they are at liberty to do away with it altogether. The exceptions listed in the article would not seem to me to pass the test because they can all be reasonably called by their noble titles. Margaret Thatcher, I would say, probably is more commonly referred to as a Baroness or a Lady than as a Margaret. Why is she an exception but not Mandelson? --FormerIP (talk) 13:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure that I think Margaret Thatcher should be an exception. I'm willing to allow that perhaps she should be (because she is extraordinarily famous under her pre-title name?) but I'm not arguing specifically in favor of it. (And I agree, by the way, that the issue of disclaimed peerages is a side-issue.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Peerage_Act_1963#List_of_disclaimed_peerages - Kittybrewster ☎ 14:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen this, Kitty. Think it's a bit of side-issue, though, since people who have renounced their peerages almost certainly don't fall within the guideline in any case. --FormerIP (talk) 14:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm also curious about this claim: "Many peers style themselves by their ordinary name for non-official purposes..." What kind of context do you mean? I was just at a conference in London yesterday where Lord Browne, former CEO of BP, was a panel speaker, and I submitted a question to him about the oil spill, which the moderator read to him. He was addressed on the panel as "Lord Browne". He is generally referred to by his title in the press, as well.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Bertrand Russell would be one very well-known example, I guess. I think peers are entitled to style themselves by their noble names whenever they want, but they often use their pre-noble names when not on Parlimentary or otherwise official business. Melvyn Bragg is still Melvyn Bragg when he appears on TV or writes books. I suppose it may be a bit like keeping your maiden name for professional purposes. Hope you catch some tennis while you're here BTW.--FormerIP (talk) 15:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Consider also P.D. James, Adam Nicolson and John Julius Norwich. - Kittybrewster ☎ 23:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Norwich, of course, is a title, not a surname, which would be Cooper. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

There is a whole pile of proposals here and it's going to be difficult to discuss them all at once. Proposals 1 and 2 have been discussed at considerable length and the crucial argument against is that we lose consistency. If I understand it correctly I agree with point 3, this could prove fairly non-controversial. We are currently applying a peculiar naming convention, I suggest we call the last one "Alexandra, Empress of Russia", and her predecessors similarly as a general rule. Before we deal with the naming convention for baronets, it might be worth deciding if they are inherently notable, or if they need to be notable for more than just being a baronet, see another discussion going on. PatGallacher (talk) 14:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Going on where? - Kittybrewster ☎ 23:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sir Oswald Mosley, 4th Baronet. PatGallacher (talk) 15:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Please consider Alexandra Feodorovna (Charlotte of Prussia). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm taking this section to be a continuation of the RfC (should it be moved up there? am I mistaken?). For this purpose, I am not sure we need to complicate things by deciding other issues about baronets and empresses at the same time. --FormerIP (talk) 15:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, I was perhaps overoptimistic in hoping we could discuss these things all at once. There are so mnay bogus arguments thrown around, that it's hard to keep up with them all. Let's stick with the peers. It's claimed that we should title life peers like hereditary peers because "they are legislators". I don't know quite where to start with that (most hereditary peers are no longer legislators; MPs are legislators and we don't include (Rt.) Hon. and MP in their titles; both kinds of peers are very often better known as something other than legislators - particularly that kind of legislators). Jimbo seems to be repeating the (I thought) already debunked claim that peers' calling themselves "Lord X" is an argument in favour of the present convention (when if there's anything the present convention hardly contemplates permitting, it's titles with "Lord" in them). I just don't see what arguments there are left in support of the present practice except "it's what we do". I've given several very concrete reasons why we should change and how we can do so without any particular loss of consistency (we don't have total consistency now, by any means). Could people at least come up with some equally concrete counterarguments?--Kotniski (talk) 18:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, there's "it's what we do" combined with "what's wrong with it?". If I'm understanding you right, you're finding it hard to see exactly what is wrong with just applying WP:AT here. I have to say, so am I, but the counterargument is that we have an agreed naming convention, which we undeniably do, and there doesn't seem to be any appetite for getting rid of it.

Given that, I think the issue is as posed in the RfC. What are the criteria for deciding when there should be an exception to the general naming convention? The guideline currently says: "primarily known by their personal names", but there doesn't seem to be a clear understanding of how this should apply, or whether it is the right standard. Jimbo and other editors seem to favour a higher standard which would make exceptions extremely rare. I would suggest that these are the questions that need answering. --FormerIP (talk) 23:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

What RFC? - Kittybrewster ☎ 23:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)#British peers --FormerIP (talk) 23:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anything as been debunked elsewhere but in your head, Kotniski. The use of "Lord X" is evidence of being known by one's title. How the title is expressed in an article title is a separate question. Many people reflexively disapprove of the use of a title before a name (i.e., they reject "Queen Victoria"). Also, for hereditaries, "5th Lord Strathclyde" just doesn't seem right. To solve the problem, the drafters of the naming conventions came up with X Y, Rank Title. They could have done X, Rank Title; presumably, they chose as they did to deal with people like John, Lord Deben (John Gummer) and Tomas, Lord Strathclyde (Thomas Galbraith). Thus, use of the peerage title in reliable sources does support the current convention over not using peerage title in article titles. -Rrius (talk) 23:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand any of that. All you seem to be saying is that someone once decided something, and we mustn't change it however stupid we can demonstrate it to be; then you state a conclusion using "Thus" as if it followed from what you'd written before, which as far as I can see it doesn't. (But as I note below, logic doesn't seem to be important in what's written to support this convention, as long as something is written.)--Kotniski (talk) 08:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Kotniski, there are too many options and variables in your proposal. A major problem I have with the proposal is that it does not take account of changing society. Before World War II Britain was a much more deferential society in every way. In that society there was a hierarchy of social positions which to a large extent was reflected in titles. So an earl was a notable person just because they were an earl, and a baronet was less notable but still more notable than someone without a title. For much of British history the title of a person does reflect their notability. For example one of the reasons why Olive Cromwell's Other House did not work as he had planned was because Robert Rich, 3rd Earl of Warwick and other nobles declined to sit in it. Warwick refused because he would not sit in a house that included men from humble backgrounds such as Pride and Hewson, one of whom had been a drayman and the other a cobbler. And these views were not restricted to nobility -- after his appointment to the Other House the young apprentices of London used to throw old shoes at Hewson to show their contempt for someone they considered as acting above his station. Now while we (the editors of these pages) usually do not have the same world view as as those apprentices, to reflect and explain a person's position in society in Britain for nearly 1000 years, a persons title is a useful yardstick for an approximation of their standing in society and hence their notability. Or put another way, just as today we have some people who are notable for being "celebrities" in the past people were notable for being noble.

There are other problems with your ideas. All barons in Britain are addressed as Lord, as are viscounts, so someone may write "Lord Cobham" or Lord Nelson, but they are not titles. Just as in the same way President Obama may be the most frequent handle for the man at the moment but that is not his name. There is also a problem with baronets, like many noble families they often hold similar positions within society for generations, standing as MPs JPs etc, so dabbing them they way you suggest can be difficult, particularly when they have been soldiers, MPs, and JPs (not an uncommon trait). It also causes problems in finding the correct article. It is much easier to find the correct baronet by number than by just name and profession. I often write articles where the source states someone was "Lord xyz" or "Sir abc" and thanks to spelling changes and similar careers working out which "Lord xyz" is which can be very tricky. Take a look at Duchess of Richmond's ball#List of the invitations to the ball, would it be better that the yet to be written article for "Lord Rendlesham" be at "Lord Rendlesham (dancer)" or "John Thellusson, 2nd Baron Rendlesham" a name which can worked out from the rules in this guideline and at the Baron Rendlesham article? The nice thing about the current red link is even if we do not have an article on the man, a reader of the article is given sufficient information that they can look him up in other sources. But take another name in the list Lord John Somerset, care to guess who he was? (Try Google you will see what I mean). If indeed reliable sources do usually name a person like John Thellusson by some name other than his title then we should use that name, but for the vast majority of British nobility, their full title is compatible with reliable source and sticking with the formula as described here does usually produce a name that is not inconsistent with reliable sources so I am not in favour of either proposals of five or six. -- PBS (talk) 00:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand what any of that has to do with anything. Surely you, PBS, at least must support these proposals, or at least abandon your constant campaigning for consistency not to be acknowledged as a naming criterion equal to the others. It seems there are a group of people here who have grown so emotionally attached to this naming convention that they'll write anything, however irrelevant or illogical, to create the impression that it is in some way defensible. But the results are plain for everyone to see, and it doesn't take reams of pseudo-historical justification to explain - unrecognisable titles for articles which could easily have recognisable titles; and gross inconsistency with normal Wikipedia naming principles for no good reason except to satisfy the whims of a few hobbyists. Clearly we're not going to make any progress here; sometime we should find a way of discussing this matter in a way that is accessible to the whole community, where good sense might possibly prevail over the various substitutes for it that operate here.--Kotniski (talk) 06:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

What I wrote was very long because I was to trying to explain why for most British nobs over the last 1000 years the guidance (as a formula) works quite well, but see the last sentence I wrote "If indeed reliable sources do usually name a person like John Thellusson by some name other than his title then we should use that name, but ..." and I think that fits in with the wording I wish to use on the main article page "Consistent – When other criteria do not indicate an obvious choice, consider giving similar articles similar titles." -- PBS (talk) 07:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

So perhaps we actually agree? My proposals would indeed leave the titles for most British nobs unchanged; and the proposed changes would indeed be to names that "reliable sources do usually name a person by".--Kotniski (talk) 07:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I very strongly oppose most of Kotniski's proposals - and his continued insistence on discussing this issue when there is no consensus and no prospect of consensus.

1. is based on a lie: there are four exceptional examples, all on grounds that apply to nobody else.
   • The Napoleons were Emperors, not Kings of France, and whether they were of France at all can be reasonably disputed. We should not, in any case, have the Duke of Reichstadt under Napoleon II - any more than we acknowledge the Bourbon or Stuart pretenders.
   • Her Present Majesty was moved because of the insistence of a bunch of Canadian monarchists that we do something to acknowledge her "unparallelled" rulership of 16 realms. Apparently these contributors know little about the Habsburgs or the Romanovs; however, this ground is applied to no-one else, and should certainly not be applied to Franz Joseph or Nicholas II.
2. Royalty without numerals is a continuing problem. This is one of a series of non-solutions; Kotniski should know that Queen Victoria is ambiguous now and likely not to be primary usage quite soon.
3. Has Kotniski actually read the articles on the Russian Empresses before making a proposal? They are all known by two distinct names - one Western, one Russian Orthodox - and both series are ambiguous within themselves.
4. Why should we disambiguate life peers by parenthetical when their peerage is designed (among other things) to disambiguate?
5. needs nothing more than is said for Tennyson. Until there is consensus to move Byron (if there ever is) nothing stronger describes Wikipedia.
6. is hypothetical - and I have already edited in that sense before seeing these proposals.

Can we go home now? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Why are we now prevented from even mentioning that Elizabeth II is the article title that we use (after long, very extensive community discussion)? Well, apparently this page is only descriptive in that it describes the things that are so and that PMA believes should be so; anything else apparently doesn't belong. And the idea that all the people who wanted to rename her article were Cansdian monarchists is the greatest lie of all. Queen Victoria is primary usage now; my proposal contains indication of what to do if/when she isn't; there is nothing "non" about this solution, while the present "solution" is awful - it creates names which are barely recognisable, as people continually point out. And why should we disambiguate life peers by parenthetical? Well, that's been explained at length with the Michael Martin example, which PMA was there for, so the reason should be obvious by now. The Russian empresses are currently handled in a totally idiosyncratic way - something should be dnoe (not necessarily the exact suggestion I've made) to bring them into line with what they are actually called recognizably in English. I agree with no. 5 it isn't necessary to change the guideline (just start applying it), and no. 6 doesn't seem to be a problem. But dismissing these arguments as "never likely to gain consensus", when it is clear that the present way of doing things has nothing approaching consensus, is hardly helpful in reaching a solution that works satisfactorily.--Kotniski (talk) 16:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The misguided decision that we should use Elizabeth II was deeply flawed and is doubtfully consensus. But set that aside; it was decided on a basis which applies to no other article - indeed several of the proponents made that part of their argument; it is not precedent.

Indeed the whole paragraph to which Kotniski keeps adding her is redundant with {{guideline}}. If we must have redundant verbiage, let us have as little of it as possible - and that little as widely agreed and as widely applicable as we can manage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Original question again

To get back to the original question of how to word the line that currently says (depending on status of edit war) "Peers who are primarily known by their personal name should have their article so titled,...", I would suggest that there is clearly no consensus at the moment in favour of any particular standard, so how about the following solution:

• Peers who are primarily known by their personal name may have their article so titled, ...

That way it is left up to discussion at individual articles, which seems most appropriate given that there is no consensus for an overall rule.--Kotniski (talk) 07:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. The current guideline may actually be the nearest thing we have to a consensus. Deciding this on a case-by-case basis is likely to lead to a rash of move discussions in relation to several articles. PatGallacher (talk) 10:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

And you think that would be a bad thing? If we could find out what more people think, through such move discussions, we would perhaps have a basis for describing more accurately what the standard is. Anyway, the "current guideline" (if you mean in the form quoted above) would be weakened by my proposal - I mean, any move discussions which might be generated by the proposed version would certainly also be potentially generated by the current version. (Oh, unless you're thinking of possible move discussions from personal names to full titles, like Thatcher to MT,BT.)--Kotniski (talk) 10:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, if he doesn't think it would be a bad thing, I certainly do! At the moment, people can find articles with minimal effort. There are so many more coonstructive things we could be doing than going over this old ground repeatedly. Deb (talk) 11:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, it seems PMA has once again appointed himself the arbiter of consensus, and decided the disputed adverb should be "overwhelmingly"? Does that properly describe the consensus? (It seems at odds with the Caroline Ashton result, which is perhaps a special case, but was at least discussed a bit more widely than by the regulars of this page.)--Kotniski (talk) 16:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me that the problem remains that that particular part of the guidance is not easy to apply. "Exclusively" makes no sense, but there does not seem to be any consensus between "primarily" and "overwhelmingly", and I can't see that a rationale has been offered for either. What's the actual reason why there should be a very exclusive group of articles that are treated differently? --FormerIP (talk) 17:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

And on that basis we should stay with overwhelmingly, which is the old wording. If anybody insists, we can restore the italics. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if you picked the wrong diff, but that one has "exclusively". It is also very differently worded overall. --FormerIP (talk) 22:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Kotniski has made several bold changes, some of them improvements, so the rest of the page has changed. This is the one on which he has gone too far and been reverted. But I am equally willing to restore exclusively; it will be understood as "overwhelmingly", as it always was. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Well it looks like that is the status quo, so that's what we should stick with for now. I don't think that fixes the matter though, because we clearly have a guideline that doesn't say what it means, and there is no consensus as to what it does or should mean. --FormerIP (talk) 00:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

There is consensus on what it does mean; it means "almost always", as with the examples cited. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

That's not apparent from the very very long discussion above. I also don't think the examples illustrate "almost always". --FormerIP (talk) 00:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• (left)The examples are Bertrand Russell, Anthony Eden, and Margaret Thatcher. Which of them do you deny is almost always referred to without their title? (Strictly, almost is of course necessary; the titles are verifiable.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

  Thatcher is very often referred to as Baroness Thatcher or Lady Thatcher. Eden is often referred to as the Earl of Avon (more in contemporary than current sources) and wrote books under that title rather than his ordinary name. I would concede that it applies in Russell's case, though. --FormerIP (talk) 00:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

  Actually even then the difference is quite striking. Excluding reviews of his memoirs, and dealing with the decade after his ennoblement, Anthony Eden appears in 34,100 books; Earl of Avon in two thousand. The last figure will include all those sources which usually call him Eden and have "now the Earl of Avon" in parentheses. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• Who - aside from Kotniski's more rhetorical moments - disputed what the guideline means? (And if his interpretation, "without googleable exception," were right, we would not have included Eden, precisely because of his memoirs.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

PatGallacher has just changed "exclusively" to "primarily". It seems there is not a consensus between that and your suggestion of "overwhelmingly". For my part, I am genuinely unable to say what I think the guidance is supposed to mean or how to apply it to individual cases. It is just unclear. --FormerIP (talk) 01:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Changing to "almost always"; or - in view of the extreme seriousness of this issue - recasting to "hardly ever". What is clear enough for Gilbert is clear enough for us; these are guidelines, not manufacturing specifications. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

On what basis? This may be right, who on earth knows, but there is no clarity or consensus on the issue. --FormerIP (talk) 01:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

That this was the intended meaning of the pre-existing language; when there is consensus on a change of guidance, as opposed to a change of wording, then we can go further. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I see you've abandoned your old philosophy that if there is no agreement on a matter, then we should be silent on it?--Kotniski (talk) 07:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

How do you know this was the intended meaning? How is it more than just your opinion? --FormerIP (talk) 09:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Because I have been contributing to this talk page for years, and observing actual title discussions. It has read exclusively or overwhelmingly throughout that time, and has been interpreted thus in discussion here - and, far more importantly, in practice. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, claims about "intended meaning" are getting into murky waters. "Almost always" also raises problems, since I don't think Thatcher and Mandelson are almost always known by their ordinary names, you will come across significant mention of "Baroness Thatcher" and "Lord Mandelson", Bertrand Russell could be one of the few people who pass this test. This goes against the principle of normally using people's common names. PatGallacher (talk) 10:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no such principle. Our principle is a balance between what is commonly used (often the title, sometimes a courtesy title, sometimes a hand-rolled form like John Julius Norwich), systematic treatment of a common class of articles, and other considerations. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by the last sentence, Pat, but generall I agree. Either the examples are wrong or "almost all" is not the correct guidance. --FormerIP (talk) 10:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I think if we wanted to be purely descriptive of current practice, we would have to write something like "very well known, and mostly by the personal name". But there's no logical reason for doing it like that; it's just a result of the circumstance that the community as a whole prefers concise common names, while guideline aficionados prefer the long names, so the former view is more likely to prevail for a well-known person where it's more likely that more ordinary editors will show up to object to what the latter group wants to impose. If we want to gloss over all this in the guideline (as being too embarrassing to admit to), then we should write something vague like "sometimes, if the person is best known..." (i.e. not imply that there's an actual rule we follow).--Kotniski (talk) 10:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Another instance of "the community wants what I like." The community has in fact imposed and maintains the systematic approach Kotniski doesn't like - despite all the whinging - except in one extremely questionable instance. Those who support it are the people who wrote the articles in question. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

You seem to paint a very strange picture of reality. I'm not going to respond to your ridiculous personal attacks any more - I just take comfort in knowing that you are perfectly capable of arguing a good case when you've got one, so I assume that when you resort to abuse, it means my arguments are solid.--Kotniski (talk) 14:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Good call. AJRG (talk) 14:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted the recent change to "overwhelmingly" for a number of reasons. "Primarily" was the status quo before this RFC was raised and there is no consensus to change it. There seems to be consensus that a small number of very well known politicians should be at their ordinary names. Whatever the rationale for this, it is not because their peerage titles are that unusual, Baroness Thatcher is not that unusual, today's Guardian has mention of Lord Mandelson and Lord Prescott, "overwhelmingly" at this point is confusing matters. PatGallacher (talk) 18:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, "overwhelmingly" or "almost always" is clearly not the standard. There seems to be no consensus here at the moment; I maintain my view that actual practice is as I describe above. We really need a proper RfC on this with the various issues and options explained, so as to encourage wide community participation.--Kotniski (talk) 08:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Yet another form of words has appeared: "Peers who are particularly well known by their personal names should ...". This could be confused. Virtually all peers who received a title relatively late in their political careers remain to some extent well known by their personal names, to the extent that they are known at all. This could be an attempt to draw a distinction between peers who are very well known an those who are not. In my view, this is an artificial distinction which complicates matters unnecessarily, and will lead to disputes in borderline cases. PatGallacher (talk) 09:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

But that's how it seems to work at the moment. It's the very well known peers (regardless of the extent to which they are relatively better known by particular names) who get the common names, as I thought you were pointing out. I agree we shouldn't be making this distinction, but in the absence of any sort of consensus about what we should be doing, we can at least describe what we do do.--Kotniski (talk) 09:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this is the best approach. There is clearly no consensus about what the standard should ideally be and returning to the status quo would be nonsensical (in spite of what you say, Pat, it seems to me to be clear from the edit history that the status quo is "exclusively" - the one thing that everyone agrees is plain wrong). So we should describe practice as best we can. If practice it felt to be wrong, then I think wide input would be needed to formulate a new guideline. --FormerIP (talk) 10:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

More comments

I am not sure we need the section on Napoleon. I am also not sure our convention on Russian empresses is a good one, but do we have any better? PatGallacher (talk) 01:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

It's redundant with {{guideline}}, but if it keeps the guideline from being applied mechanically and without exceptions, it may be worth the clutter. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it is taken as read that with every guideline we can make the odd exception. While there was agreement that Napoleon was sui generis, there may not have been agreement on why he was sui generis. The section originally included Elizabeth II, an even more problematic case. Better to remove this altogether. PatGallacher (talk) 09:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything problematic about Elizabeth II (or Napoleon I), except that some stalwarts of this guideline opposed the name changes. We already mention a lot of obscure exceptions on this page; I don't see any reason not to mention these, particularly as they are high-profile articles whose deviation from the guideline is something a lot of people are likely to be puzzled about.--Kotniski (talk) 09:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Tsarinas

If we had a better convention for tsarinas, we'd be using it. This is at least sytematic and gives each article a unique title. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Huh? It isn't very systematic, it uses a completely different system for Russian-born and Western-born women, and the latter system is quite unlike anything used anywhere else; neither system provides recognizable titles. This approach has absolutely nothing to be said for it as far as I can see. Of course it gives every article a unique title - any system that was in use would - but that's not hard to achieve. What is wrong with the suggestion of "Name, Empress of Russia" (or, to avoid confusion with regnants) "Empress Name of Russia" (or just "Empress Name"). And disambiguation - where needed - done either as we do now with maiden name, or with a phrase such as "(consort to Nicholas II)". That way people everyone will know who we're talking about, and we'll have greater consistency, so everyone should be happy.--Kotniski (talk) 07:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Good suggestion. I think that to be consistent with German and Holy Roman Emperors we should go for Name, Empress of Russia. Their husbands will usually better known than their maiden name. So the last tsaritsa becomes "Alexandra, Empress of Russia (consort to Nicholas II)". This is clumsy, but not any less clumsy than the existing title, and anyone with a basic knowledge of Russian history knows who this is. "Feodorovna" is a very obscure name. Except is "consort of" better than "consort to"? PatGallacher (talk) 10:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure, though "wife of" would also be possible. But do we want to be consistent with German/HR Emperors? I would have thought that the difference between ruler and consort would be an important enough difference to positively prefer inconsistency between the two.--Kotniski (talk) 10:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I continue to oppose this suggestion; we use two completely different systems because the sources do, and because using either system by itself introduces naming conflicts; I don't see that Kotniski's suggestion is any improvement (except of course to his auctorial vanity). If we could use Empress Alexandra for the last one, that would be nice - but unfortunately the facts have an ineluctable bias towards complication. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean - are you saying the sources don't use "Empress X"? (There are naming conflicts to start with; we currently solve them in a very strange way, the proposal is to solve them in a different way which has the advantage of producing recognizable titles.)--Kotniski (talk) 14:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The sources use many things: both Alexandras are so called, one of them is called Charlotte of Prussia, and so on. We are required to choose among these; we do so in as straightforward way as the facts will admit. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I still don't see what "facts" the proposed titles are at variance with. (Or what virtue the present titles have to compensate for the obvious vice of lesser recognizability.)--Kotniski (talk) 16:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Kotniski doesn't understand the issues and uses that as an argument for his own whim. Why should we be surprised? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

See above about personal attacks.--Kotniski (talk) 16:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

No, that's a description of your post. Post something more coherent than "I don't get it, so it should be changed" and you will get a different reply. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've explained why it should be changed - it's not because "I don't get it". Of course, if you could explain "it" properly, so that I did get it, I might change my opinion.--Kotniski (talk) 16:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

"I don't see", "I still don't see" may be reasons to Kotniski - but not to me. But I will try once more. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Let us take the title we give the Empress of Nicholas I: Alexandra Feodorovna (Charlotte of Prussia); it has two elements:

• Her Orthodox name
• As disambiguation (necessary in this case, harmless in others) her birth name and count, in exactly the same form we use for most princesses - including her mother Louise of Mecklenburg-Strelitz. Those sources which do not call her Alexandra Feodorovna or Alexandra call her Charlotte of Prussia.

We use exactly the same form with the other foreign tsarinas - for the Russian ones it would be redundant, so we use the Orthodox name alone. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that is the system we follow, but I don't see what advantage it has over our suggested system, to outweigh the advantage of greater recognizability which our system offers. (It isn't even as consistent as you imply; "the Orthodox name" means forename+surname in the case of the Russian ones, forename+patronymic with the foreign ones.) I also don't see why this is so important to you that you have to keep making insulting remarks and edit summaries just because I happen to have a different view of the matter than yours - this was being discussed in a perfectly civilized way until you entered.--Kotniski (talk) 06:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand Septronalis's frustration. He reflects consensus. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Even if so, that doesn't give him the right to be rude. DrKiernan (talk) 09:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Right, and I don't really see any consensus anyway. Can any other participant in this supposed consensus explain the reasoning behind it (or point me to where it was originally discussed)? --Kotniski (talk) 10:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Kotniski "doesn't see" again; that's no more reason than it was the last time. This system was devised (by John Kenny and others) around November 2006, and discussed and approved on this talk page; its archives are open to all. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I would like to know what is meant by "our system" above. Is this, as I suspect, further evidence of the "not invented here" syndrome that has infected these pages recently? Deb (talk) 11:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I just meant the still-to-be-precisely-defined "system" that Pat and I had been discussing/proposing at the start of the thread.--Kotniski (talk) 15:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

An idea with which everyone might agree, did it not produce naming conflicts; when you have a actual proposal, that would be a different matter. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, if people wouldn't keep turning the place into a battlefield, we can have a constructive discussion that might lead to a proposal better than anything one person could have come up their on their own. Let's go back to the last constructive suggestion then: "Alexandra, Empress of Russia (consort to Nicholas I)" as a form of article title to be generally used for these women (I presume we prefer to omit the parenthetical when no disambiguation is required). As Pat said, it's more recognizable than the present title ("Alexandra Feodorovna (Charlotte of Prussia)", and no more clumsy (and if the system were implemented throughout the category, somewhat more consistent). I'm still not seeing what the disadvantage(s) are - but am waiting patiently for someone to explain them.--Kotniski (talk) 16:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The only battlefield here is Kotniski's campaign to leave a mark at all costs; that ambition is better served by writing an article - which can be done without "not seeing" what one needs only open one's eyes to see.

In this case, Kotniski's unwavering opposition to the governing policy has blinded him to the overriding consistency being followed here: Charlotte of Prussia is our default form for a Hohenzollern princess, as well as what she is actually called when she is not called Alexandra. His proposal to substitute equally long and clumsier phrases has neither justification.

If this useless and pointless disruption had consensus, it would be tolerable; but it doesn't. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, Kotniski has noticed that we call Charlotte of Prussia, who never had a Russified surname (Hohenzollerna? the mind reels) Alexandra Feodorovna; and yet we call Eudoxia Feodorovna Lopukhina Eudoxia Lopukhina. This is usage, just as the difference between Anne of Cleves and Catherine Howard is usage, and for much the same reasons - indeed, allowing for Russian influence, it is the same system. Will K be complaining next that he "doesn't see" why we call the Six Wives what everybody else calls them? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

No, of course not, but are you claiming (still there's no reason for this personal animosity - I don't have any reason to change these titles just for the sake of it) that "Empress Alexandra" is not something she is commonly called? (By the way, it's not "the same system", really - one is the maiden name, one is effectively the married name.) --Kotniski (talk) 16:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I claim that Empress Alexandra is ambiguous, and that the best disambiguator is what we would call her if usage were indeterminate. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, now I'm starting to understand your position. There are really two questions, then: "Empress Alexandra" vs. "Alexandra Feodorovna" as main title, and description vs. maiden name as disambiguator. I would still claim that the first choice in both cases will lead to more recognizable titles (and also: the first choice in the first case will allow consistent treatment of all these ladies; and the first choice in the second case is consistent with how we always do parenthetical disambiguation everywhere else in Wikipedia where it's done). OH sorry, I forgot the "of Russia" bit, which makes the title less concise - but I don't think this is a major disadvantage compared with the recognizability thing. --Kotniski (talk) 17:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

We use Alexandra Feodorovna consistently now - as far as usage will admit; we cannot use Empress Eudoxia for Lopachina (it is also ambiguous with a couple of Byzantine Empresses and it is not usage). 18:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The ambiguity isn't a problem (the proposal explains how we get round that), but if it turns out not to be usage, we don't have to use it. Maybe it will turn out that all the Russian-born ones are better known by their maiden names - if so, we can leave them as they are - but it's already been acknowledged that the foreign-born ones are not so recognized (which is the reason we don't just use Charlotte of Prussia and so on), nor is the way we currently treat them "consistent" with the way we treat the Russians (or anyone else anywhere on Wikipedia, AFAIK), so I still don't see that anything is going to be lost by changing those titles to bring them into line with usage/recognizability.--Kotniski (talk) 03:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The current system has been in place for a long time now, and is, I think, pretty elegant in giving both the names by which Russian empresses are commonly known while aboiding ambiguity. Pat and Kotniski's suggested version is just incredibly awkward, and provides no advantage I can see over a system which has been in place with little dissent for a long time. john k (talk) 15:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Well the advantage (as already pointed out) is that the current titles do not include the names by which the women are commonly known (they not being commonly known by their patronymics; and apparently not by their maiden names either, or we would use them).--Kotniski (talk) 15:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be your constant war to include "Empress" and so forth in as many article titles as possible. Alexandra is, in fact, known as "Alexandra," just like her husband is known as "Nicholas II". We can't call the article Alexandra, so we add the other stuff as disambiguation. The last dowager empress is absolutely commonly known as "Maria Feodorovna" or a variant. john k (talk) 22:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

War? Constant?? (Now if I'd waged a constant war, like some people do, I might have got somewhere...) No, I don't want to include these titles in as many article titles as possible (I'm quite happy with Henry IV of France etc.), but when the word "King" or "Queen" is the most natural way of indicating to the reader who it is we're writing about, I don't see any reason to stick with this superstitious practice of avoiding them at all costs.--Kotniski (talk) 11:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Your intermittent effort to increase usage of "Empress" and so forth in article titles, then. I oppose this because I prefer titles to be consistent. I also don't think that "indicating to the reader who it is we're writing about" is the most important thing about an article title. The article title should identify the person uniquely and as elegantly as possible; the article introduction is for explaining who the person is. john k (talk) 12:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, so we disagree about the "elegance" of the present titles. But I don't know how you think consistency supports your argument here - these titles are consistent with nothing on earth (well, nothing on Wikipedia).--Kotniski (talk) 13:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The current titles are not particularly elegant, it's true. But they're still better than your proposal (Empress Alexandra (consort to Nicholas II), and so forth. As far as consistency, I was talking about use of "Empress" and the like in article titles, not the Russian convention. They are however, consistent with each other, which is something. They also include both names by which each consort is known (i.e. Alexandra and Alix of Hesse; Maria and Dagmar of Denmark). It has also been one of the most stable naming conventions for monarchs - it works for everyone in the category, and hasn't inspired any major fights until now. If you want to go about fixing naming conventions for royalty and nobility, why not try to work out conventions for German and French nobility, or for princesses who marry someone other than reigning kings and emperors, areas where we've never been able to come up with consistent rules that anyone can agree on? john k (talk) 14:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I have always felt that any encyclopedia should have, as a basis, its own style guide while relying on sources for facts but not sacrificing consistency. It is nice that there is a guideline and convention for the naming of royal figures and I feel that the current standard fits both with other royal consorts but adds the names where it has changed, like Charlotte of Prussia who was also Alexandra Feodorovna. I would not want to change the convention. Seven Letters 18:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

"de Lorraine" or "of Lorraine"?

I'd appreciate if a few pairs of fresh eyes joined the discussion at Talk:Charles Henri, Prince of Commercy. Surtsicna (talk) 20:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Given that surnames are anachronistic for royalty and same-language sources of the era never clearly make a case for "de Lorraine" as a surname, I'd say it's as much a surname as "of Great Britain and (Northern) Ireland" or "von und zu Liechtenstein"! Seven Letters 18:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

[12]"In the Middle Ages, the feudal nobility needed to associate themselves with the fief or landed property which justified their rank. As a result, they adopted place-named surnames using either a prefix such as von or di, or suffix, such as -ski. Hence the French prince Charles de Lorraine would be known in German as "Karl von Lotharingen" or in Polish as "Karol Lotarinski"." -- Europe:A History, by Norman Davies, p 169. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Byron

Notice another move attempt at Talk:George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron - an attempt to move it to Lord Byron. john k (talk) 15:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Exception to royals with substantive titles examples

In the convention it states that where a royal prince or princess holds a substantive title by which they not known to not use it and it gives Princess Margarita of (Bourbon-) Parma and Prince Carl Philip of Sweden as examples. I emphatically support this element of the convention but it is not in use for Carl Philip... I never see him commonly referred to as the Duke of Värmland when he is always known as "of Sweden" (the same with his sister Madeleine). Slightly unrelated, and perhaps pedantic, but the different treatment of princely substantive titles is odd. I would say use Prince(ss) before all or none... Such as Prince Charles, Prince of Wales and Prince Andrew, Duke of York or just Charles, Prince of Wales and Andrew, Duke of York. Two different "types" of prince going on here... German has the wonderful distinction (Prinz and Fürst). Just a thought. Seven Letters 18:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, two different kinds of prince, but that doesn't make "Prince Charles, Prince of Wales" or "Princess Anne, Princess Royal" any less awkward. I agree with you on Carl Philip. john k (talk) 21:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Glad you agree on Carl Philip (the focus of the thread), I only added my thoughts on the other forms because they are listed near one another. Would like to get rid of the "prince" before, myself, but see examples like "of Sweden" being used more to be more important. Seven Letters 23:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

A proposed new favorite example

We often have discussed Margaret Thatcher as an example of someone who is a Baroness but whose article doesn't follow our naming conventions. In my view, this is a strange naming choice to have made, although I don't recommend anyone go and fight about it right now. I consider it a case where people who don't work in this area don't know the convention and because she's famous and her article is edited a lot by people who aren't normally working in this area, it's just done out-of-convention.

The argument for her to be named according to convention is stronger, I think, than for many others, because she is, after all, a politician. And if you google her name in contemporary news reports, she is referred to as Lady Thatcher or Baroness Thatcher quite often. (Though not exclusively.)

So I have a new favorite example: Richard Attenborough. He is not a politician. In the press he is not often referred to as Lord Attenborough or Baron Attenborough. Even the BBC not just ignores his actual title, but even gets it wrong, believe it or not, as follows: in 1993 he was created a life peer. In 2007 he directed Closing the Ring. And on July 2nd of 2010 (11 days ago) the BBC refers to him as "Sir Richard Attenborough".

I think this is a great example of someone for whom I think the title is actually rarely used.

I should add that I don't think this is a valid reason not to title his article according to our convention, but rather a valid reason to eliminate "almost exclusively" and similar language altogether, and just enforce the convention. (Again, I'm not recommending any fight about that.) One might suppose that if we informed our readers more clearly, we might see fewer errors of the type committed by the BBC in this case.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that that's a better example. With respect to Thatcher, she is certainly referred to as "Lady Thatcher" or "Baroness Thatcher" now. But most of her notability comes from her activities before 1992. Historical accounts don't and won't call her "Baroness Thatcher" for the period when she was actually doing things. john k (talk) 18:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo: I think I agree with what you say about Thatcher, but I am not sure that Attenborough is so different an example as you suggest. I think it is reasonably common to refer to him by his noble title. Which probably just goes to show the difficulties that are likely to arise in deciding on exceptions if there are to be any. (On an irrelevant point of so-called order, I think "Sir Richard Attenborough" is probably a breach of etiquette and the BBC style manual, but not technically wrong).

John: Appreciate this reasoning, but think applying it case-by-case would also be complicated. Thatcher's deeds as a commoner certainly overshadow her notability as a Lady. But where would the tipping-point lie?

My own suggestion: It seems to me that there are two categories where the case for an exception to the convention is particularly strong:

1) A case like Bertrand Russell. Russell appears to have gone to lengths to avoid being called by his noble title, as a somewhat mild political gesture in line with his egalitarian views. It seems to me that it is appropriate for Wikipedia to respect the stance of the subject of the article when naming it, in such a case. This is slightly analogous to the practice of considering the stance of the subject when deciding whether to describe them and English, Welsh, British etc.

2) A case like Lord Palmerston. There is a very famous historical figure almost always referred to as "Lord Palmerston", but the title of the Wikipedia article is so different from this name that it takes a certain amount of work to figure out that you are indeed looking at the right article. Some readers may even simply fail to complete the detective work necessary.

Even though it clearly forms some part of current practice, I do not see why the level of celebrity achieved by the subject should give rise to an exception of itself. --FormerIP (talk) 22:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The back covers of Bertrand Russell books will refer to him as "Lord Russell," so I am dubious that he went to any very great lengths to avoid being called by it. As for Palmerston, I think the problem is that the same argument applies to the vast majority of peers. For example, virtually every peer who has served as prime minister is virtually always known as either "Lord X" or "Peerage title of X", and almost never by their given name. There's a reason that virtually every reference work in existence includes the given name, ordinal, and full title in their articles on peers. john k (talk) 05:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

But we don't title our articles like other reference works do. We do common names almost everywhere in Wikipedia (Bill Clinton and so on) - there is no reason to treat peers differently, particularly when they are not most notable for being peers. The convention makes sense for lines of hereditary peers with repeating names and titles; it makes no sense whatsoever for life peers, who are known either (a) by a personal name for which they are the primary topic (in which case they should have that as the article title, for consistency' with all our other bio articles); (b) by a personal name for wihch they are not the primary topic (in which case the peerage title might serve as a disambiguator, but it almost certainly isn't the best one, as discussed with Martin above); (c) as "Lord X" or "Baroness/Lady Y" where X/Y are normally unique, in which case we do our readers no service (in the male case at least) by omitting the "Lord" and including "Baron" and an obscure personal name. Jimbo might think that the form given by our strict convention is the only "correct" form - I don't see that that's true in any sense whatever. --Kotniski (talk) 07:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

John: If you're right about Russell then fair enough - I'm not his biographer, but I believe what I said is true. I guess it would be a matter of finding references - it may be that his publishers didn't always respect the way he styled himself. Think Palemerston is different from most cases, because the article title is "Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston", from which it is difficult to work out that we are dealing with the person everyone knows as "Lord Palmerston" ("Margaret Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher", for example would not pose a similar problem for the reader). --FormerIP (talk) 09:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

PS: I can't see where in the Amazon preview you link to Russell is referred to as Lord Russell. The back page has no writing on it, and each time his name is mentioned he is "Bertrand Russell" as far as I can see. --FormerIP (talk) 09:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Nor here. AJRG (talk) 10:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Palmerston might be different from (numerically) "most" cases, but his is still a common situation - certainly with some life peers (particularly law lords, I would think), but also with some of the better known hereditaries. If we want to be consistent with Wikipedia's normal practices, then we ought to be making ourselves comfortable with article titles in the form "Lord X".--Kotniski (talk) 11:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Or, in Richard Attenborough's case, "Lord A". . AJRG (talk) 12:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Bertrand Russell - page 154 of this book: [13] --FormerIP (talk) 12:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Gently pretentious of him! Picking up Jimbo's point I feel sure that Thatcher, Mandelson & Prescott should have the long form. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

A pretentious philosophy professor? I'm not sure I've ever encountered such a person. At any rate, my point is that Russell discouraged use of his title, which is probably why it remains very rarely used and why this should count as an example of a good exception for our puproses (and, yes, I do realise that in this case the article title is already as I would have it). --FormerIP (talk) 13:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to the "book description" on Amazon, which is normally taken from the back or jacket description. "Since its first publication in 1945, Lord Russell's A History of Western Philosophy has been universally acclaimed as the outstanding one-volume work on the subject" My apologies if this comes from something else. Anyone with any familiarity with the British peerage would know that "Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston" would be commonly known as "Lord Palmerston." If that is confusing, then so are dozens of articles - any peer at any level besides duke is referred to as "Lord Peeragetitle", whereas their article is at Firstname Lastname, Ordinalth Peeragerank (of) Peeragetitle. john k (talk) 12:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, the Honourable Ordinalth Peeragerank. I think I went to school with him, dontchakniow. --FormerIP (talk) 12:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, dozens of articles is probably the amount we're talking about. But about "anyone with any familiarity with the British peerage..." - this is the point - our readers don't have to be familiar with the peerage in order to be familiar with these people (who are not famous primarily for being peers). In fact, the argument works better the other way round - anyone seeing "Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston" would not know that this is the Lord Palmerston of their history books (it might be another of his line), whereas see "Lord Palmerston" and if you know how Wikipedia does things, you know it must be the famous one (and peerage buffs know that his actual title would have been something other than Lord). If it were Wikipedia's practice to give people's full formal names in the article title and the common name in the lead (e.g. if we titled articles "William Jefferson Clinton" and so on), then I'd agree with you, but to do it the other way round for peers, just because that's what a few interested editors have decided they like, seems bizarre, particularly when those same editors defend what they're doing on the grounds of "consistency" (what could be more inconsistent, I wonder?) --Kotniski (talk) 13:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Try hundreds. Anyone unfamiliar with the British peerage is going to be puzzled by pretty much the entire peerage naming conventions. I hate to use a slippery slope argument, but I really do think this is a case where you're opening a can of worms And when, exactly, are people going to see "Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston" and be puzzled as to whether that's "Lord Palmerston" or not? If they search for Lord Palmerston in the search box, they'll be redirected to the article, which explains who he is in the first paragraph. Otherwise, they're clicking on it from another article, which presumably has some context, and will, at any rate, learn who the guy is from the lead to Palmerston's own article, anyway. I guess if you're browsing categories there might be some confusion, but that's about the only situation I can imagine where that would occur. You seem to have some idea that Wikipedia readers will frequently be encountering article titles without the article text. That virtually never happens. The one situation where it is unavoidable is categories, and that more points out that categories are annoying and much less useful than they should be. john k (talk) 15:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The fact that readers browsing categories might be confused is good enough for me. The potential to confuse any readers should be an overriding concern in formulating policy. Other circusmstances where this might arise would be if a user came to the article by Googling for facts contained in it, if it was in hard copy, if they came to the article via a wikilink saying something other than "Lord Palmerston", if they came from something like List of British Prime Ministers or if they hit "random article". These are all common ways of using WP. --FormerIP (talk) 15:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

If they came from "List of British Prime Ministers" they wouldn't know that the Lord Palmerston linked is the one who was prime minister? That seems like kind of a stretch? At any rate, again, the fact that he is known as "Lord Palmerston" and was prime minister is clearly explained in the introduction to the article, which anyone encountering the article is likely to see. john k (talk) 15:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

You're assuming more general knowledge than a lot of people have. Someone might know of Lord Palmerston as a famous Foreign Secretary and not realise that Prime Minister Henry Temple is the same person. Or they might have a vague notion that there is a famous historical figure called Lord Palmerston, but our naming convention is failing to educate them that this was a Prime Minister.

Also, the "if they read the article all will become clear" argument won't do. It's expecting the reader to do the work instead of just giving them the most helpful title. --FormerIP (talk) 16:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

What Prime Minister Henry Temple? Who is this person? What sources ever refer to such a person? I don't really understand what you're talking about. All books call him Palmerston. List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom calls him Palmerston. His article notes in the first paragraph that he is known as "Lord Palmerston" and that he was prime minister. Could you please lay out a specific scenario where the article's current location results in someone being confused? As it stands, I can't make any sense out of your objection. john k (talk) 00:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

It's fairly clear, isn't it? I mean, as I've accepted just below, it doesn't really matter that much - either way - but there are two scenarios: (a) I know Lord Palmerston is ordinarily called Lord Palmerston, and I know that Wikipedia ordinarily uses common names, so if I alight on the article or its title (in any of the many scenarios where this may happen) I conclude that this is not the article about Lord Palmerston and go looking elsewhere; (b) I don't know much about this guy, but I've alighted on his article, and I know Wikipedia uses common names, so I conclude that the title Wikipedia has given to his article is his common name, so I (let's say) refer to him among friends as Henry Temple, and everyone thinks I'm nuts. OK, fairly superficial persual of the article would put me right in both cases; but why make things harder for the reader just for the sake of, well, a "consistency" which actually leads to inconsistency?--Kotniski (talk) 08:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

So basically, we should assume our readers are idiots? BTW, I think you're making a rather absurd logical leap to assume that wikipedia readers will assume that articles will be at the most common name and thus assume that articles at other places must not be about their subject. You are both overestimating and underestimating readers here. john k (talk) 16:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

This latest argument seems to be that article titles don't really matter that much, which is perhaps true, but it isn't an argument in support of any system over any other system (just that we - all of us - perhaps worry too much about these things). But article titles do have their uses (providing information about what things are commonly called, and making readers feel comfortable that they are on the right page), and if we adopt a consistent approach (I mean globally, not just consistent following of local rules which jar with each other) then I think we make titles more useful as a feature. --Kotniski (talk) 15:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

My argument is that page titles matter for a variety of different reasons, and being recognizable is only one of them. Consistency between articles of the same class is another consideration. (as opposed to "global consistency," which is impossible to achieve.) john k (talk) 15:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the problem is that you consider all peers to be "of the same class" - that everyone who's a peer is most notable for being a peer. Not so - admittedly most of them probably did nothing more special in life than succeed to a title, but the more prominent of them (life peers and some of the hereditaries) actually did other things that matter more than the donning of ermine - they were statesmen, poets, John Prescott and so on. So if we want to name them consistently with others in their class, then those are the classes we should be considering (and in those classes, Wikipedia doesn't write out full formal names in the title). --Kotniski (talk) 08:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think very many peers who have wikipedia articles are most notable for being peers (some stubs, I guess, but not most of them), and I don't see what that has to do with anything. Titling them in this format is because this is the standard way that reference works title articles about people who happen to be peers, and the standard way that most works include peers in indexes. I think that this, rather than some cloudy conception of "most common use" in running text and the like, is what article titles should be based on. john k (talk) 16:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd have thought that on a subset of Wikipedia, it would be better to follow the normal approach taken everywhere else on Wikipedia than that followed by some other reference works (which are subject to different needs and constraints). And I don't see anything wrong in expecting readers to assume that Wikipedia will follow its normal standards (and make - at least momentary - assumptions on that basis).--Kotniski (talk) 17:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Two more for the pot are Duke of Marlborough the Duke of Wellington both those could link to a hatnote on the duke's article. But we choose to instead have articles there. I for one could live with either arrangement, but at least the current arrangement is consistent with articles such as the Duke of Buckingham (several notable dukes) and Duke of Beaufort where there have been ... . -- PBS (talk) 04:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I've pointed out before that it's absurd (and causes editors to make wrong links) that Duke of Wellington not only isn't the title of his article (not a great tragedy, as pointed out above), but doesn't even redirect there! In other words, people from around here have decided that not only is the moderately eminent general and prime minister most notable for being a member of that exalted body the British Peerage, but that the name "Duke of Wellington" has as its primary usage not him, but that great line of Dukes of Wellington of which he happened to be the first. And this time you can't say it doesn't matter because readers end up at the right article anyway, because they don't.--Kotniski (talk) 08:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it could be argued that most people who know anything at all about the subject are aware that the first Duke of Wellington was called Arthur Wellesley and the first Duke of Marlborough was John Churchill. Those who know nothing at all about them are just as likely to be looking for a pub as they are for an article on military history. Deb (talk) 11:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

LoL -- PBS (talk) 20:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it makes sense to design Wikipedia articles so that they are only user-friendly to people who already have a fair amount of knoweldge about the subject in question. People who don't know what the Duke of Wellington's ordinary name was are a significant part of our target audience. --FormerIP (talk) 11:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. And even people who do know what his original name was are still likely to be searching for him and linking to him under his most commonly used name. --Kotniski (talk) 11:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's put it another way: one will frequently come across references to Wellington as "Arthur Wellesley," or to Marlborough as "John Churchill." By your bizarre estimate of our readers, if a reader is reading about "John Churchill" and then finds themselves at an article called "Duke of Marlborough" they will panic and assume that this "Duke of Marlborough" fellow must be a different character entirely. John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough includes both names by which he is known. john k (talk) 16:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The question there is which scenario is more likely: the reader has previous come across a reference to "Duke of Wellington" or the reader has previously come across a reference to "Arthur Wellesley"? --FormerIP (talk) 16:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Unlikely that the source text would mention "John Churchill" without mentioning that he was Marlborough, but still, my primary complaint here isn't even about the titles of these men's articles, it's about the fact that the "Duke of ..." titles don't even redirect to those articles.--Kotniski (talk) 17:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

In fact, thinking about the other point, even if someone clicks on John Churchill not knowing who this name referred to, we do him a better service by titling the target article simply Duke of Marlborough, thus telling him: "hey, this John Churchill you clicked on, wasn't just some guy who was made Duke of Marlborough, but he actually was the Duke of Marlborough, and that's how he's best known to history, and quite possibly to you." --Kotniski (talk) 17:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps all hereditary titles should take you to a disambiguation page, since they inherently refer to more than one person. If a particular holder of the title accounts for more than half the references in reliable sources, then our normal rules would take you straight there instead. The full name and title are going to be at the top of the lede anyway, so the title of the article is more about most common usage and disambiguation. AJRG (talk) 18:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

"Unlikely that the source text would mention "John Churchill"". Well this is actually a problem. Unlike their descendants who were often not notable until they inherit the title (with some exceptions), these two Dukes did not start out as Dukes and people who automatically link articles to Duke of Marlborough are likely as not to be giving him an incorrect form of address. It is like writing in a WWII article "President Eisenhower was in command of Operation Torch". If there is an unqualified link to the Duke of Marlborough it is probably better that a copy editor checks to see if it is the correct monicker. -- PBS (talk) 20:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

That's perhaps true, but isn't particularly relevant to what we're discussing (it applies equally to cases such as Cassius Clay/Muhammad Ali, Gdańsk/Danzig, etc., where WP has long rejected double-titling). I think I agree with AJRG, if I understand correctly that the second sentence is supposed to provide an exception to the general rule expressed in the first. (Well technically they don't have to be disambiguation pages - they can be just as they are, with information about the title and a list of holders of the title, thus killing two birds - but they shouldn't be exempt from the normal rules about primary topic.)--Kotniski (talk) 07:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Question is, how many cases are we talking about where a title has one holder as a "primary topic" - [[Duke of Wellington] seems pretty clear-cut, as none of the later holders have done very much, but things get much more complicated for other titles. Also, the logic of your position, expressed here as well as above in your objections to the tsarina convention, suggests that we should never use the standard peer formula. No peer is best known in the form John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough or Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury - the former is either John Churchill or Duke of Marlborough, the latter Lord Salisbury. In the latter case, there've been numerous "Lord Salisbury's of considerable fame, so we have to disambiguate. But your logic would suggest an explanatory disambiguation format. The third marquess could be at Lord Salisbury (prime minister). I'm not sure what you'd then do with the fourth and fifth marquesses, since they were both politicians who held very similar offices, but the logic of your position suggests that James Gascoyne-Cecil, 4th Marquess of Salisbury and Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 5th Marquess of Salisbury is not the way to go about it. I'm probably being unfair here, but I'd be interested if you could explain why your arguments against the standard peerage form only apply when the person is the primary topic. john k (talk) 18:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm quite happy to use the "standard form" when disambiguation is required and there's no obviously more natural way to disambiguate. When it's clearly a primary topic, disambiguation is not required (and would not be expected by Wikipedia users). If the erstwhile PM is not considered the primary topic for "Lord Salisbury", then I certainly think "Lord Salisbury (prime minister)" would be worth considering as a more natural title for the article than "Robert Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury". But for the ordinary run-of-the-mill hereditary peer who isn't particularly well known for anything except inheriting his title, I've no objection to the current convention being applied - I don't insist on using the absolutely most common name in every instance, but it seems unhelpful to use an obscure name for someone when there's a very well recognized name we could be using. (The same applies to royalty - I don't object to the "Henry IV of France" formula for the bulk of monarchs, but we should set it aside when it throws up a barely-used name for someone we all know - like Queen Victoria, or even Queen Anne, who might require disambiguation, but no natural disambiguation technique would omit the word "Queen".)--Kotniski (talk) 10:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 7th marquesses of Salisbury have all been cabinet ministers, so none of them is best known "for inheriting his title." My basic problem is that once you open the door to this, it basically strikes a heavy blow to the whole peer naming system. You've already admitted that you probably prefer Lord Salisbury (prime minister) to the current title. Then I suppose we go to Lord Derby (prime minister) and Lord Derby (foreign secretary) (unless that's Lord Stanley (foreign secretary) - he was known by his courtesy title for much of his political career) and Lord Derby (Secretary of State for War)? And if we don't do that, why not? The current standard is very simple - peers go at a particular format, with only a few very clear exceptions. That format will almost always include the two names by which the person is best known, and it is almost always unique. There are hundreds of articles on peers, and having to decide for each one a) if they're the primary topic for Lord X or Duke of X or Earl of X or whatever; and b) if they're not the primary topic, whether there's a "more recognizable" disambiguation for them than the peerage format is just a bad idea. There is a convention for the names of peers which is used by the vast majority of reputable reference works, and there's absolutely no reason to mess with it in the dubious interests of "recognizability". john k (talk) 18:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything dubious about "recognizability" as a criterion for article titles - it's the direction Wikipedia has long chosen to go in, in almost every area. In fact, we already make exceptions even for some peers - all I'm proposing is that we move the boundary line.--Kotniski (talk) 18:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

It's easy to have a guideline that there should be a redirect in the standard peerage format. That makes it easy for specialist readers, who wouldn't be confused by a more recognizable article title. The non-specialist readers are the ones who need to have their hands held. AJRG (talk) 20:03, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

And I propose we don't move the boundary as suggested by Kotniski. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree with John - this is just change for change's sake. I know I've said it before, but there are much more useful things we could all be doing. Deb (talk) 09:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Non-specialist readers really do need to have their hands held on this. A simple redirect is too confusing. At the very least they need a stub article under the most commonly used form that reassures them they're in the right place, perhaps with a link to a more scholarly main article. AJRG (talk) 11:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

This is an assertion, not an argument. john k (talk) 14:30, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The choice of article titles should put the interests of readers before those of editors, and those of a general audience before those of specialists. (WP:AT) AJRG (talk) 15:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to your unsupported contention that "Non-specialist readers really do need to have their hands held on this. A simple redirect is too confusing." You also seem to be proposing the creation of content forks. john k (talk) 16:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

It would be an example of WP:SUMMARY. Texts should be written for everyday readers, not for academics. Article titles should reflect common usage, not academic terminology, whenever possible. (WP:NOTGUIDE 7) AJRG (talk) 17:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Given that this form of article title (e.g., "Archibald Campbell, 3rd Duke of Argyll") is the one used by 'Britannica' online and by print encyclopedias, the idea that it's unsuitable for titling articles used by the general public is ludicrous in the extreme. Choess (talk) 18:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

That depends on whether the individual concerned is better known in reliable sources by another name, per WP:AT. This form has clearly been found unsuitable for titling some articles, since several Wikipedia articles on peers don't follow the convention. AJRG (talk) 18:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

@Choess - I agree. It works for the majority of nobles already. And life peers could simply be "Margaret Thatcher, Baroness" etc. (which I think is how they are addressed in writing anyway isn't it?). It is much better to have a system based on reliable sources which at least is consistent, than trying to apply the "common use" approach which simply leads to lots of individual arguments - a waste of time when we could be writing articles. The only problem are the knights. I would favour "Sir Donald Bradman" or "Sir Cliff Richard". The only example I can think of that doesn't fit the system is the naming of Dukes of Brunswick-Lüneburg where there could be several reigning in different parts of the duchy simultaneously, sometimes with the same first name. But I'm working on that one! --Bermicourt (talk) 18:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:AT is quite clear that there are five criteria that Article Titles ideally meet: consistency is not the most important. When other criteria do not indicate an obvious choice, consider giving similar articles similar titles. AJRG (talk) 18:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

As far as WP:AT's criteria go, both consistency and precision militate in favor of the current form. I don't think any of the other three is a slam dunk for your position. john k (talk) 19:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:AT applies on a case by case basis. For some cases this guideline creates titles that are over-precise, long-winded, barely recognizable or otherwise difficult to find. In those cases the other criteria of WP:AT naturally carry more weight. AJRG (talk) 20:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

As I've said before, my position provides more consistency over Wikipedia as a whole (and its biographical articles in particular). It doesn't lose precision either (except in as far as Wikipedia is always prepared to lose precision - it generally uses an ambiguous term, not qualified, as the title of the primary topic for that term). So no, nothing militates against it. On the other hand, recognizability, and (in most cases) conciseness, certainly militate for it. So this isn't change for change's sake as some have said - it is change for very concrete advantages (which have been spelt out explicitly in the foregoing discussion, if the wording of policy is not to be taken as meaningful). I really don't see what actual objections people have except for an innate loathing of change. If you think there are more valuable things we could be doing, then you yourselves could stop wasting everyone's time by vigorously opposing every little proposal for improvement. --Kotniski (talk) 14:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Consistency is specifically about "similar articles" not wikipedia as a whole, so I don't see how you have a point here. The proper comparison for "consistency" is articles on other holders of peerages, not all of wikipedia. And of course it does lose precision - Lord Byron is less precise than George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron, no matter how you look at it. There might be corresponding gains from recognizability, conciseness, and easiness to find that make such a change a good idea anyway, but clearly "precision" and "consistency" favor the current title. john k (talk) 15:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Any half-decent guideline can provide consistency most of the time. Articles' titles usually merely indicate the name of the topic. When additional precision is necessary to distinguish an article from other uses of the topic name, over-precision should be avoided. Be precise but only as precise as is needed.(WP:PRECISION) AJRG (talk) 16:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and John seems again to be using the fallacious argument of "peer-centrism" - considering these people to be primarily peers (their articles to be more "similar" to other articles about peers), rather than primarily politicians or poets or whatever it is they are actually famous for. (Another point is about the other reference works - it's claimed that they use long forms as titles for their entries, which is true - but those "titles" don't correspond to Wikipedia's "article titles", they correspond to the bold names with which Wikipedia begins the text of its articles. Admittedly online Brtannica seems to do something more similar to what we do - I presume because of the same type of muddled thinking, perhaps they even copied us - but in printed Britannica or other standard reference works, there is simply nothing analogous to our "Bill Clinton" or "Tony Blair" in big letters at the top of the page. It's something Wikipedia does in a quite specific way, and we would improve consistency and all-round usefulness by doing it on the same principles all the way through our encyclopedia.)--Kotniski (talk) 09:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Their article titles should be more similar to the article titles about other peers. Byron's importance is more like that of Shelley than like that of Palmerston, and Palmerston's is more like Gladstone's than it is like Byron's. But Byron and Palmerston have special considerations for how their article should be titled that Shelley and Gladstone do not. Or, to put it another way, their names are more similar to each other than they are to Shelley's or Gladstone's, and that should influence how we title their articles. john k (talk) 14:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

By that argument we should have a guideline for naming people called "Smith". This practice of using specialized names is often controversial, and should not be adopted unless it produces clear benefits outweighing the use of common names; when it is, the article titles adopted should follow a neutral and common convention specific to that subject domain, and otherwise adhere to the general principles for titling articles on Wikipedia. (WP:AT) AJRG (talk) 16:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I don't accept John's argument at all; in determining whether articles are "similar" we are not concerned with the form of names, but with the subject matter. However we are clearly not going to persuade each other here, so there isn't much point in continuing arguing in the same circles - sometime we'll have to organize a wider community discussion (but at a later date, or without my help - I'm on holiday).--Kotniski (talk) 10:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad what I wrote in AT is popular - but it is intended as a warning, not a prohibition. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Pretenders

We have a guideline that we do not refer to pretenders by royal titles, but should we also refrain from referring to them by noble titles, if these are not generally recognised? See Talk:Carlos Hugo of Bourbon-Parma. PatGallacher (talk) 09:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe the guideline for pretenders is don't apply a regnal number for them but doesn't say don't refer to them by royal titles. I would think royal titles for no longer reigning families are generally recognised not legally by a republican government perhaps but socially or in the media etc. - dwc lr (talk) 12:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Ducal titles are easier for pretenders to pretend to and, indeed, most dukes of Parma are called just that. The issue with pretenders comes with kings and emperors and most grand dukes. Even in princely families, someone will become the "Fürst". The move of the Duke of Parma was misguided. Seven Letters 13:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Ideally, requested moves like this should be listed here before the move closes. I watch this page, but requested moves is a gigantic morass I avoid; it'd be nice to be notified of things like this beforehand so we can present our views before the article gets moved. john k (talk) 15:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I had moved the article back to its original title as there was no consensus (voting is not consensus and the closing editor described the margin of one or so as "overwhelming") and it contradicted naming conventions however Pat Gallacher was very quick to move it back and warn me about not following naming guidelines, etc. Seven Letters 18:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree it should be moved back. The naming conventions are quite clear I would very much like Pat Gallacher to show us how “Carlos Hugo of Bourbon-Parma” complies with naming conventions. From what I can read in the conventions it would be either “Carlos Hugo, Duke of Parma” or at the very least “Prince Carlos Hugo of Bourbon-Parma”. - dwc lr (talk) 00:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I saw the previous !vote as objections to a dynastic claimant using as his title of pretence a title he would bear as a monarch, rather than a !vote against according pretenders any title of pretence, which is completely ahistorical and novel on Wikipedia. Moreover, these feints are confusing matters because NCROY indicates we've agreed that we use specific conventions rather than most-common-name-per-google when naming articles on royalty, and this situation falls prima facie under NCROY: Royals with a substantive title point #3): That's what's worth resolving here. The fundamental objection others made is that "Duke of Parma" should not be accorded to one who is the historical claimant to sovereignty of the "Duchy of Parma" (even though he and the public consider him the Carlist pretender to Spain {a claim he's recently, inexplicably, revived -- perhaps in opposition to the attempted usurpation of his younger brother Prince Sixte-Henri of Bourbon-Parma} and not as a serious pretender to the Italian duchy). My argument: "duke" is, like "prince" (Furst), a title which may suggest to the public mere nobility rather than current sovereignty (unlike emperor, queen, crown prince, grand duke {Grossherzog}, etc), and has therefore been traditionally acceptable in English usage as a title of pretence for dynastic claimants a la "Duke of Schleswig-Holstein" and "Prince of Waldeck-Pyrmont" pre- and post-1918). I urge that we focus here on the underlying issue ("May names of articles on claimants to ducal & princely thrones include the title by which they are most reliably known even if that is their ducal/princely title?"). FactStraight (talk) 00:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd say so. Precedent is against titles like king and emperor. Seven Letters 02:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Please see the talk page of the article for the duke... It's been moved again. This is becoming what I would call a "hot mess". Seven Letters 02:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Because of irregularities in the move, I asked the closing administrator to re-open it which he did. It was then closed by another administrator, without AFAICT asking the original administrator why he changed his mind, so I have reopened the request and would ask those who look at this talk page to take a butchers and give their opinions. -- PBS (talk) 03:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Westernized monarchical titles

May the WP:NCROY guideline substitute "Asian and African royalty" for "monarchs with Arabic names" under the last bullet at Names and titles outside the West in the phrase "There is no explicit convention for Middle Eastern countries; but contemporary monarchs with Arabic names are often treated much as this guideline would suggest: Mohammed V of Morocco, Abdullah II of Jordan"? This would more explicitly embrace former and present dynasties (Jordan, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia) who use a royal nomenclature sufficiently similar to the West's ("Emperor", "Crown Prince", "coronation", etc) that Wiki's readers are likely to recognize the similarity (see Reza Pahlavi's talk page). FactStraight (talk) 07:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I would not recommend this; the point of the recommendation is the use of Arab names, and therefore the usefulness of pre-emptive disambiguation. The Ethiopians (not to mention the Pahlavis, the Chinese, the Matabele, the Buganda, the Swazi, who would be covered by the change just as much) do not use Arab names. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Describing the parents of the children of British knights

Should Donald Campbell's father be listed as Malcolm Campbell, or Sir Malcolm Campbell? Sir Malcolm was knighted around ten years after Donald was born.

This is in ref to this change, which once again(c.f. article history) added the "Sir" prefix to the parents' entry in Donald Campbell's infobox (although I'd note that his mother, Dorothy Evelyn Whittall, wasn't similarly credited). IMHO, it shouldn't appear here, owing to the chronology. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I would agree. Note that George V of the United Kingdom calls George V son of the prince and princess of Wales, and that Edward VIII of the United Kingdom calls Edward son of the duke and duchess of York. john k (talk) 05:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

This is really an infobox question, since article text would have room for "son of Malcolm Campbell (later knighted)", or some such, if the point is worth making at all. But my solution to that tends to be to trim the infobox.

However, making a link from the text "Sir Malcolm Campbell" to Malcolm Campbell is likely to surprise the reader, which is a Bad Thing. Unless there is a very Good Thing being done to compensate, I wouldn't. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

What would be surprising here? john k (talk) 15:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

If I were a newbie and clicked on Sir Malcolm Campbell, I'd expect to be looking at a page called Sir Malcolm Campbell and if I weren't, I'd wonder if this was a mislink. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be an argument against ever piping. I don't think it's a tenable objection. In this case, the very first line of the article calls him "Sir Malcolm Campbell." If anyone is confused by this, they have nobody to blame but themselves. john k (talk) 18:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

No, it's an objection to unexplained piping without clear benefit. To put it another way, I prefer clarity in text, and do not like infoboxes, which generally inhibit it. But I think we are both wandering from the question, on which we may agree.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, wandering definitely. I have no problem with linking either Malcolm Campbell or Sir Malcolm Campbell, as appropriate. I agree with you about what article text should say. The infobox should probably note the highest title of his father, if there is an infobox, but I don't think it's especially important one way or another. As to the wandering topic, while I can understand that in some cases piping/redirecting can be misleading and confusing, I think it is a dramatic stretch to say that it would be confusing in this instance - really, someone would click on "Sir Malcolm Campbell" and come to an article called "Malcolm Campbell" which calls its subject "Sir Malcolm Campbell" in the first line an the infobox, and come away thinking they were at the wrong article? Are you really saying that? More broadly speaking, so long as article titles have to be at what are often very awkward locations, I think that extensive use of pipes or links to redirects is completely appropriate, so long as it is done judiciously and in the least confusing way possible. In particular, I think we should use the correct name for a person at the time we are discussing. Our article about the Glorious Revolution very appropriately refers to the man who later became duke of Marlborough as "Lord Churchill," which is what he was known as in 1688. Battle of Talavera refers to the British commander there as "Sir Arthur Wellesley." I suppose this could cause confusion, but so would using the wrong name just because it is the article title - saying "the duke of Wellington" would, for instance, imply that he had already received that title at the time of the battle. Speaking at the broadest level, I don't see any reason to think that wikipedia readers would expect every link to go to an article titled the exact same thing as the link. This is not how wikipedia has ever functioned. john k (talk) 18:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd expect to be looking at a page called Sir Malcolm Campbell

But isn't our convention (AFAIR) to avoid such a knightly title on article titles anyway?

Yes; and that's why we shouldn't use Sir Malcolm Campbell as link-text either - except possibly for special cases, where there's a purpose. Not here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

My practice so far has been to follow chronology - I use "Sir MC" whenever the linking context is after his knighthood. Nor do I pipe that, this is what redirects are for. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Besides which, the problem here is a link being added as [[MC|Sir MC]] rather than the simple and unsurprising [[MC]]. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Which I think John and I agree in deprecating. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Consistency

There is a discussion on WT:AT, which has turned into a discussion of whether to change the policy on consistency to

• Consistency When other criteria do not indicate an obvious choice, consider giving similar articles similar titles.

Comments are welcome here Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

German emperors

A move discussion is taking place to move “Name, German Emperor” to “Name of Germnay” at Talk:Wilhelm II, German Emperor#Requested move and may be of interest. - dwc lr (talk) 23:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

British monarchs

There is a move discussion at Talk:George VI of the United Kingdom to move 4 recent UK monarchs, which may have implications for this naming convention as a whole. PatGallacher (talk) 01:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

See my opening discussion (Sept 4), concerning this topic. GoodDay (talk) 12:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Elizabeth Somerset, Countess of Worcester

There are three women of this name, and we disambiguate them by date. That is incredibly clumsy. Is there a better way?

One of them is being moved, since she may never have been Countess at all (her husband's promotion was probably after her death); but that leaves two and the likelihood of other cases. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Is the most recent countess even notable? Choess (talk) 01:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The stub doesn't say so, but she's of Plantagenet descent, from George of Clarence through Margaret Pole. Other than that, not that I can see. Do we want a notability guideline for peeresses? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I suppose it could be done like you insist on doing the Russian tsarinas - disambiguating by "(maiden name)". Or as I would like to do the tsarinas - with tags like "(wife of 10th Earl)". However, I don't see that these solutions have much to recommend them over just using dates.--Kotniski (talk) 08:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Readers are more likely to remember that the last one was Elizabeth Hastings (which is her claim, if any, to notability) or that she was the wife of the 4th Earl than her exact birth and death dates - which are in any case largely guesswork for Renaissance women and likely to vary from authority to authority. That's why we avoid using dates as dabs; they don't help anybody find the article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

No, but (for once) I have to agree that countesses are a problematic area where a date can at least serve to assist those who are not sure which person they are looking for. In the many cases where similarly-named women are equally obscure, I don't see many better solutions on offer. 17:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deb (talk • contribs)

I suppose if we're looking for a general rule, then my (not particularly strong) preference would be for "(wife of nth Earl)", since generally speaking these people are not going to be known for anything else except whom they got married to, and it's normal Wikipedia practice for disambiguation tags to refer to what the person is best known for in preference to information like dates or previous names.--Kotniski (talk) 10:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Dukes of Parma and other claimants

I doubt many people who contributed to the recent discussion at Talk:Carlos Hugo of Bourbon-Parma are particularly instead in rehashing their arguments over and over again, but if you are see Talk:Carlos, Duke of Parma. - dwc lr (talk) 20:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

These two articles have raised some complex issues, I think one point many people would accept is that there is a need for consistency instead of piecemeal discussions spread over several articles. There is agreement that we do not recognise the titles of pretenders to thrones. However, what about the alleged holders of noble titles in countries which have declared a republic, and noble titles have been abolished or their position is disputed? It gets even more complicated where states have changed comparatively recently e.g. what is the position of territorial noble titles awarded by the Pope in the former Papal States? Are these titles still recognised by the Vatican, or by Italy? What about the noble titles of states which were annexed without agreement by their monarchs e.g. Naples, Tuscany, Parma, Modena, Hanover?

One concern I have is that we may be introducing a degree of monarchist bias by recognising some of these titles, refusing to accept that a country has the right to declare a republic and abolish all titles. Some sources may contain a degree of bias e.g. "Burke's" may include all titles which existed in 1815 or have been created since, without considering whether they have been abolished. We may be giving undue weight to some marginal sources who are playing games, still recognising titles which no longer have any real political or social importance. PatGallacher (talk) 11:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

See Napoleon's comments on the Almanach de Gotha as an example of the problems here. PatGallacher (talk) 12:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Name # of country 'to' Name # (country)

We been here before, let's go at it again. IMHO, we should have the monarch article titles as Name # & where necessary due to multple monarchs with same name # - we use Name # (country). Currently (to my knowledge) such move-requests are occuring at George VI of the United Kingdom, Edward VIII of the United Kingdom, George V of the United Kingdom, Edward VII of the United Kingdom & Juan Carlos I of Spain. -- GoodDay (talk) 12:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree that we should (or at least could) drop the country when it's not necessary for disambiguation, but what's the rationale for "(country)" rather than "of country" ? (There's also the question of the unnumbered monarchs to sort out, which I see as the main problem with this convention, since for those people the current convention produces quite bizarre titles.)--Kotniski (talk) 19:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, you've a good point,..of country can be used for disambiguation (thus avoiding brackets). As for the un-numbered? there's no reason why their names can't stand alone, where possible. GoodDay (talk) 19:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The unnumbered monarchs turn out even worse in this proposal than they are currently. My proposal is as follows:

1. Monarchs who are best known by cognomens go there. This is as now, but should be more fully applied. Examples (where we currently are not using it): Frederick the Great, Catherine the Great, Ivan the Terrible. We should not do this in cases where the cognomen is sometimes used, but is not particularly well known. For example, we should not have Louis the Sluggard or Charles the Victorious. john k (talk) 21:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
2. Monarchs whose titles are unambiguous, or who are primary topics, at "Name #". Examples: Alfonso XIII, George VI, Louis XIV, Victor Emmanuel II, Juan Carlos I, Carl XVI Gustaf, Christian X, Elizabeth I.
3. Monarchs whose names are ambiguous and who are not primary topics go at "Name #, Title of Place". Examples: Henry IV, King of France, Henry IV, King of England, John, King of England, Elizabeth, Empress of Russia, Anne, Queen of Great Britain, Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom.

Thoughts? john k (talk) 21:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Also makes sense in light of WP:NAME, which is more than we could say about the current text. Increases consistency too. Really. The duo of Albert II of Belgium and Albert II, Duke of Austria is clearly less internally consistent than the pairing of Albert II, King of Belgium and Albert II, Duke of Austria as proposed here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Albert II, King of the Belgians, I should think. john k (talk) 03:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Point 1- Even though they might be more common, I rather avoid nick names. For disambiguation's sake: Frederick II of Prussia, Catherine II of Russia & Ivan IV of Russia is preferred. Point 2 - Is acceptable. Point 3 - Absolutely not, as we already have it mentioned in the article, what they are (title wise). GoodDay (talk) 13:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

But point 3 specifically applies to the ambiguous ones, so we really have no choice but to mention their titles in the article titles as well. I'm happy with John's proposal - I'd prefer allowing common unambiguous names like "Queen Victoria" as well, and I've nothing really against "Henry IV of France" as long as use of that format isn't carried over ("for consistency") to cases where it's inappropriate - but the proposal as it stands would certainly eliminate the worst of the present system.--Kotniski (talk) 15:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

It's just that we don't have (though they aint monarchs) Barack Obama, President of the United States or Tony Blair, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom etc, etc. GoodDay (talk) 16:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

But presumably we would have to use such titles if those names were ambiguous by themselves.--Kotniski (talk) 16:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I understand, whatcha mean. I reckon #3 is indeed acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 16:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't support any of these proposals. I see no way in which they are an improvement over the existing situation. Deb (talk) 18:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

No way? Well, having Maximilian I, Elector of Bavaria and Maximilian I, King of Bavaria makes a lot more sense than Maximilian I, Elector of Bavaria and Maximilian I of Bavaria. Surely that one instance would be improved by my proposal? john k (talk) 21:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how your proposal would help with this particular case. Could you elucidate for my benefit? Deb (talk) 11:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Parallel construction isn't a benefit? There are two people called "Maximilian I of Bavaria". There is no particular reason to think of the king as more of a primary topic than the elector. The current situation is entirely arbitrary; the king gets "Maximilian I of Bavaria" simply because we have a guideline that says he does. Having the two articles at Maximilian I, Elector of Bavaria and Maximilian I, King of Bavaria is more natural, because the disambiguators are now both clear about who is being referred to. john k (talk) 15:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

These issues have been chewed over at considerable length before, and the consensus has been against them. I stand by that view (except that cognomens should be judged on their individual merits). I could explain my reasons again. PatGallacher (talk) 18:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, if all this is rejected? then Elizabeth II should be moved back to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 18:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Please do. john k (talk) 21:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Been supporting John's proposal for years. I'm surprised the old conservatives are still opposing it. The ancient "X N of Y" system is so cumbersome that it's actually causing Wikipedians to cease to believe in any kind of standardization and their losing they're position very gradually. As I understand it standardization is their overreaching goal. The "X N, ruler of Y" system is a standard too, it just doesn't have the other's weaknesses. If the conservatives (you know who you are) could come over we'd have consensus on this topic for the first time in 3 or 4 years. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't really get the opposition to this either. Obviously, people who watch this page are going to disproportionately be people who've been interested in this issue in the past. Thoughts on how to canvas a broader range of opinion? john k (talk) 21:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it's an issue of such wide-ranging interest (it's relevant to virtually every WikiProject for a country that has ever had monarchs - I don't really see even why there should be different conventions for outside Europe) that it would be justifiable to publicize it fairly loudly at the central venues. But first, let's be clear about what proposals are on the table, and the arguments for/against them.--Kotniski (talk) 07:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

How about, "obviously, people who watch this page are going to disproportionately be people who've been interested in this issue in the past. Thoughts on how to elicit a broader expression of reservations they may entertain based on having read a broad range of relevant past opinions, options, change proposals and issues? FactStraight (talk) 23:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

To those who oppose, whatabout the Japanes monarch articles. Notice they're (for example) Akihito & not Akihito of Japan. GoodDay (talk) 17:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

To repeat the well-known; there is no other ruling Akihito - and no reason for the reader to expect one. No ruling House but the Japanese uses Japanese names. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

It's easy to talk about "conservatism" - if that was what it's about, these conventions would have changed years ago. The reason they haven't is that they are still the best solution to the problem. Deb (talk) 18:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

So, can you explain why you disagree with the idea that "having Maximilian I, Elector of Bavaria and Maximilian I, King of Bavaria makes a lot more sense than Maximilian I, Elector of Bavaria and Maximilian I of Bavaria"? The obvious question to be asked about Maximilian I of Bavaria is "Maximilian the first what of Bavaria?". Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

In what way? Could you explain what you don't like about my proposal? john k (talk) 18:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't hear her say she didn't like your proposal, rather that she didn't prefer it (annealing someone's dissent is distortion). I concur. (For the second time recently, I'm surprised that you, whose arguments I've always admired even when disagreeing, depart from a long record of thoughtful consideration of others' positions to this "opponents oppose for the sake thereof -- screw 'em!" harangue which borders on intimidation.) As I recall, over the time when the "Name # of Realm" format was being considered (and I thought you, as well as Deb were in on those discussions?) the prevalent rationale in support of "Name of Realm" for kings and emperors that I discerned was that they, more commonly than rulers of duchies and princedoms, were already referred to in this fashion in competent historical writing. As an imaginary example, "Isabella the Catholic was more wont to fund exploration beyond the known seas than her husband Ferdinand of Aragon, their son Philip the Fair died too soon to choose the path of either parent, while his son Holy Roman Emperor Charles V found his far-flung empire of sufficient extent to occupy his concerns. Meanwhile, Elizabeth of England's seamen ambitiously embarked upon uncharted waters, the Dutch too, though they had not yet found the protection of a William the Silent to patron their voyages, while Henry II of France, Frederick I of Denmark and King Ladislas of Poland found themselves distracted from colonisation opportunities by local wars in defense of their borders from such upstart rebels as Charles the Bold of Burgundy (and later Claude, duc de Guise), Christian, Count of Oldenburg and Lladislas, Duke of Silesia." Accurately or not, worthwhile or not, we were attempting to pattern the guideline, as closely as we could, after typically encyclopedic historical prose of the type Wiki bios were taking up. We didn't pick standards out of nowhere and don't defend them for naught. Innovation, to win support, needs to better accomplish the original goal or be persuasive that the goal should be changed. FactStraight (talk) 23:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I would say that your comments are founded on a misapprehension. The issue is not what anyone is called to in prose. It is how they appear in indexes. The article title is no more than our equivalent of the index entries found in printed works. We (should) have redirects to suit each and every need in running text. If it suits an editor to refer to William I of England in a particular case, nothing will prevent that, equally he can be William II, Duke of Normandy if the text calls for that form, and William the Bastard somewhere else. The issues with the status quo remain as ever: whose queen was Bridget of Sweden, likewise Marie de France?; where was Anne of Denmark, to name just one among thousands, queen of and how can you tell from the page name?; was Joan queen of the lost kingdom of Arc and Henry king of Almain?; will Henry of England be a dab page like Richard of England and if not, why not?; and many more unanswered questions besides. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, what Angus said; article titles should not be based around the needs of running text. Redirects and pipes should meet all the needs of running text. The current convention leads to unclear titles like John of England, needlessly ambiguous ones like Maximilian I of Bavaria, and redundant ones like Louis XIV of France or Victor Emmanuel I of Sardinia. Deb has said she prefers the current system; I was interested in understanding what, exactly, she prefers about it. As for the original discussions for this convention, I came around to them after this particular convention was already in place - going through the archives, my first post on this talk page was in April 2003 (god, can't believe it's been so long!), and there are 8 pages of archives from before I showed up. I had just found wikipedia at that point, and my early postings were generally about unresolved issues. The basic convention seemed, at the time, adequate, so I didn't get into it, but I don't think I've ever loved it. You can find instances of me attempting to get it changed going back for some time.

I also think FactStraight's imaginary example, and justification for it, is not really right. These forms are not all that commonly used in running text in works by historians, at least in my experience. For example, here are the first references to various eighteenth century monarchs in H.M. Scott's 2001 book The Emergence of the Eastern Powers, 1756-1775 (Cambridge, 2001), which I happen to have at hand: "The Empress Catherine II"; "Louis XV" "Louis XVI"; "Frederick the Great" (shortly thereafter referred to as "the Prussian King Frederick the Great"); "The Emperor Joseph II"; "Maria Theresa"; "Louis XIV"; "Peter I (1682/96-1725, known as 'Peter the Great');" "the King, Charles XII;" "Frederick William I"; "the Emperor, Charles VI"; "Prince Leopold of Anhalt"; "Augustus III"; "Maria Theresa's husband, Francis Stephen"; the Empress Elizabeth; "George II"; "the anti-British Carles III"; "the ardent Prussophile, Peter III"; "the new Elector, Frederick Christian"; "Frederick William II"; "George III"; "the Great Elector"; "the future King of Denmark, Christian VII"; "Adolf Frederik"; "Gustav III"; "Grand Duke Leopold of Tuscany". So far as I can tell, the only instances where "[Title] Name of Place" are used is for a grand duke and a reigning prince. None of the kings are referred to in that way. Obviously, this is just one book, but its usage tracks pretty well with my experience of books on European history in general. You see forms like "The new king of Saxony, Frederick Augustus II" at least as much as "King Frederick Augustus II of Saxony", and much of the time in running text you don't need either, because the context is already clear. john k (talk) 04:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Indices? Where did this novelty come from? We've always valued titles which fit into running text; unlike printed books, we have hyperlinks. That's part of our naming policy.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

There is only one mention of "running text" in our naming policy, and it refers to capitalization. What the current titles do is encourage the use of an unfortunate form in our running text. Even if we are saying "Louis XIV of France", the linking should be "Louis XIV of France," not Louis XIV of France. The current policy encourages laziness and less useful linking. john k (talk) 14:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Then I have condensed too far in writing titles are expected to use names and terms that readers are most likely to look for in order to find the article (and to which editors will most naturally link from other articles); the last clause reflects a long-standing preference for titles usable in running text. I shall amend. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

You can't (or shouldn't be able to) simply rewrite policy to help you win the current argument. I don't believe we generally apply this criterion; if we did, we wouldn't use "John Smith (singer)", but "singer John Smith" or "John Smith, the singer". --Kotniski (talk) 09:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree this "indexing" emphasis is a different approach to the challenge than I've appled before and I appreciate Angus McLellan's bringing it into focus for me. That said, given the ubiquity of redirects and links, it seems to be needful only in exceptional cases. For search purposes, name and realm still get me options in Wiki's searchbox apt to work. Ordinal is then more useful than title, because it narrows my search more. We seem to have reached consensus now that rulers lacking ordinals need a title (when we get to Yes! can we please shut up?). If I know the era, birth/death dates help, but only come up once I've alredy got name and ordinal, and are too easily confused with dates of reign: so they're needed only when disambiguation must be most precise (and I happen to find them un-aesthetic). For edit purposes, prose format facilitates. On first reference, "Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom" works best, but on second, "Queen Victoria" is smoother although the first, gives essential info without resort to the link and so is reader-friendly. Aesthetically, I prefer the former. I continue to resist the trend toward dropping realms both philosophically and pragmatically. My experience differs from john k's: on first reference (as in researching encyclopedias) ruler's name sans realm is, except for the most famous monarchs, jarring jargon, and I support retention thereof in our guideline, agreeing that monarchs are meaningfully rulers of something. Apparently I'm losing the philosophical argument, but pre-emptive disambiguation seems so helpful to the reader that I have not given up my battle station on that front, and only willingly yield it when political correctness demands it. Our guideline minimized cognomena only because the march of revisionist history kept bringing them to this page under siege. FactStraight (talk) 10:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Taking the realm out of the article title does not mean that we should not provide context. Any person's name, provided without context is, except for the most famous people, jarring jargon. But we still list people by their name unless the name is ambiguous. Most people probably don't know who George Grenville is. If his name is introduced into an article without explaining who he is, that would be confusing to people. but that doesn't mean we should move his article to British Prime Minister George Grenville. It means we should say in text, "the (British) prime minister, George Grenville". Similarly, why should it matter whether people know what country Louis XII was king of? Any mention of him in another article should explain that he was the king of France, and of course his article explains that in the first paragraph and the infobox. This is not work that the article title should be doing. john k (talk) 14:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why pre-emptive disambiguation is helpful to readers with monarchs any more than it would be with presidents or pop-stars. And the problem comes when it actually feeds misinformation to readers. "George VI(, King) of the United Kingdom?" Well yes, he was king of the United Kingdom, but it turns out that wasn't his title (or even part of it), and that he was actually king (or even emperor) of a lot more than the United Kingdom. So while we would be helping readers by disambiguating him, if disambiguation were needed, we are also (in a different sense) potentially harming (misinforming) readers by disambiguating him in this way. If disambiguation is needed, then the good we do by disambiguating outweighs the harm we do by misinforming (though we can always look for ways of disambiguating which don't misinform); but if we're not doing any good by disambiguating, then we should avoid doing the unnecessary harm of misinformation.--Kotniski (talk) 14:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Naturally, I agree with FactStraight on this. One of the issues is certainly the ease of links, but I wouldn't die in a ditch over it. However, what I perceive is that you want to change a convention that doesn't work perfectly for every case for a convention that is equally flawed. The index of an on-line encyclopaedia will naturally have different characteristics from that of a printed book. For a start, people have to key these titles in, and it's always going to be quicker to key in "John of England" than "John, King of England". So yes, I don't dispute that pipes, redirects, etc, get you to the right place in the end, but I also think consistency matters. I'm looking for the all-round best solution, and I believe it's the one we already have (or should I say, "had"). Deb (talk) 11:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

There are 3 separate proposals here, it would have helped if they had been made separately. The Bavarian case may be a slightly awkward one, but one awkward case does not justify moving a few hundred articles. The logic here is that a king is (usually) a fully-fledged independent sovereign ruler, whereas electors were at least nominally subordinate to the Holy Roman Emperor. You could find that Bavaria was slightly larger in the later Maximilian's time. He could still be the primary topic (see WP:PRIMARYTOPIC) since some Wikipedians consider that if there are only 2 people of a given name, it does not take much of a margin to decide this.

There is also the argument for conciseness, "king of" etc. introduces unnecessary verbiage. With the present guideline we avoid arguments about e.g. whether the rulers of Russia were Tsars, Czars or Emperors, or whether the rulers of Persia were Shahs, Kings or Emperors.

See archive 21 item 17 for my last contribution in defence of pre-emptive disambiguation. PatGallacher (talk) 11:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I see a certain inconsistency here - your first point implies that you don't think consistency between titles is important (you don't want consistency between kings and electors of the same place), your second implies that you think conciseness is important, your third implies that you don't care about conciseness but do care about consistency. In other words, you seem to be picking-and-choosing criteria simply in order to defend the status quo in any particular situation. Can you explain?--Kotniski (talk) 12:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I've made Maximilian I of Bavaria a disambiguation page. I don't see how one or other can be argued as the prime meaning, and the incoming links to the page refer to both men. DrKiernan (talk) 12:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

There's no probs with the Russian monarchs. Before Peter I, the were ...Czar/Czarina of Russia. Afterward, they were ...Emperor/Empress of Russia. As Peter I changed the title-name in 1721. GoodDay (talk) 13:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

There is bound to be an awkward trade-off between various issues, on the whole I think the existing guidelines get it right, "if it ain't broke don't fix it". I do place consistentcy fairly highly, but I also support conciseness. I oppose making large scale-changes because of the odd awkward case, not many places have had both a king and an elector. You may be right about Russia, but that's an example of the sort of arguments we could get into, "tsar" is the more common spelling, and it's really "tsaritsa". PatGallacher (talk) 14:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The place where I think it is most definitely broke is still the case of the numberless monarchs. Titles like "John of England" or "Victoria of the United Kingdom" are, to my mind, simply wrong, because they fail to perform the two basic functions of an article title - they don't identify the article subject recognizably, and they don't correctly inform the reader what the subject is normally called. Whatever other advantages they may have - consistency, conciseness (compared to some alternatives) - for me can't possibly make up for those two essential flaws. I don't particularly object to "Henry IV of France" type titles in general, though we must be prepared to depart from that format at least in the cases where it's problematic for some reason - and if consistency is to be set above all else, then John's proposed scheme seems to be the one that offers the greatest consistency while handling most of the problematic cases.--Kotniski (talk) 14:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed John, King of England; Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom; Anne, Queen of Great Britain; Hugh, King of France etc; would work wonders. GoodDay (talk) 14:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Hugh, King of France? The current title Hugh Capet seems far superior to me. john k (talk) 15:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Eh, I reckon so. GoodDay (talk) 15:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

(after ec) The current conventions result in a number of awkward cases. I think the worst are titles like Henry of Portugal. At any rate, I've made three separate proposals which, I think, stand on their own. The first two proposals would reduce our dependence on "pre-emptive ambiguation by country ruled" when such disambiguation is unnecessary, or there is a way to disambiguate that is clearer to readers; the third would deal with cases where the current convention is not precise enough and still leads to confusion. If there's general opposition to the idea of X n, King of Y instead of X n of Y, I'd be up for leaving such articles be, as long as the ones without ordinals get moved.

My main objection to this is that 1) it reduces consistency still further; and 2) it continues the fiction that "of Place" is part of the name, and not a disambiguator. Having Henry IV, King of France implies, or at least can imply, that "Henry IV" is his name, and "King of France" is a disambiguator to distinguish him from others of the same name. I think it's more natural to go from Henry IV, King of France to Louis XIII than from Henry IV of France to Louis XIII. At any rate, I'd be happy to split up the three proposals and discuss each separately. My basic feeling is that there's increasing hostility to NCROY as it currently stands, and that we should take the bull by the horns and come up with a new way of doing this before the process of individual moves gets out of control. The moves of articles like Elizabeth II and Napoleon I and the strong support received by just about every move proposal in contravention of these guidelines suggests that the current guidelines are not consensus. We should work to come up with new guidelines that would be able to achieve consensus, not just insist on the current ones and hope that each individual move vote is defeated. john k (talk) 15:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with John's first proposal (re: cognomina) and mostly with his second one (I think there will be borderline cases that will cause controversy, and it might also open up the question of English vs native language). I can't quite convince myself of his third proposal. Why can't the standard/guideline be set for different lines of succession separately? In fact this is already done for several lines of imperial succession, and I spearheaded a solution for the kings of Cilicia (see Talk:List of monarchs of the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia/Proposed naming convention) over two years ago. Similarly, but in keeping with the current conventions, I got some early Spanish monarchs moved at Talk:Ferdinand I of León and Castile#Requested move, and I don't think I could stomach Alfonso VI, King of León and Castile alongside Alfonso VII. I also recently complained to a user (see User talk:Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy#What are you doing?) and got the reversal of series of moves of the general form Pandulf IV of Capua → Pandulf IV, Prince of Capua, which I think were unhelpful. And one question: How far do we go with the "no need to disambiguate" thing? Is Louis VII unambiguous? Even Louis XIII is ambiguous for many North Americans, I'm sure. That is, they don't know there was only one Louis XIII of note. Srnec (talk) 23:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

And even those who do know which names are unambiguous (not many readers; primarily those of us who have been attending to these debates) dislike having to consult an encyclopedia to find out where wikipedia articles are.

And it seems to me a pointless puzzle to have Henry VII, King of England, but Henry VIII. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand the first point at all (no-one has to consult an encyclopedia - they type the name they know into the search box, and get to their target in one of the normal ways). On the second point, I think readers will guess quite readily why some titles are disambiguated and some not, particularly if they're familiar with the way Wikipedia handles the vast bulk of its articles. (And wouldn't it be just as much of a puzzle to have Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom alongside Akihito?)--Kotniski (talk) 06:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I am required, Sir, to supply you an argument; I am not obliged to supply you an understanding. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd be happy with the idea of devising different standards for different countries. I will say that I don't think that a name is ambiguous simply because people might be ignorant about its holder. How does that even work? What difference does it make whether "North Americans" don't know if there are any other Louis XIII's? In what context would that even cause confusion? "Louis VII" is probably a primary topic - the other Louis VII's are an obscure medieval duke of Bavaria and an obscure seventeenth century landgrave of Hesse. Having the article at Louis VII with a hatnote to the disambiguation page would seem appropriate. You are absolutely right about issues with English vs. native language on my second point; that's something that would have to be thought on. Is "Afonso" a unique name, or is it ambiguous with the kings named "Alfonso"? john k (talk) 00:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Is Alfonso/Afonso forbidden by the software constraint? No.

Is it likely to cause confusion, especially since some sources use Alfonso of Portugal? Of course it is. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

But of course, we could have Alfonso VI as a disambiguation page but have the Portuguese king at Afonso VI. john k (talk) 14:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

These guys would be better as Afonso VI & Alfonso VI. -- GoodDay (talk) 14:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm entering this discussion late - and admittedly without having read every word written above yet. But I do want to state my opinion before anything drastic happens. In general (i.e. as a convention, and not as an absolute rule) I prefer the construction "Firstname Number, Rank of Country" (e.g. "Juan Carlos I, King of Spain"). I do not see the title merely as a disambiguator, but as part of the complete name. This construction also allows us to use a similar construction for those consorts who are more commonly known by married names - instead of forcing the birth name on someone who is rarely identified in that way. Above all though, I think that it must be made clear that the convention is a convention. There are all sorts of individual situations where the common name would be different. I oppose any attempt to force consistency when it is contrary to common usage. Noel S McFerran (talk) 15:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Having Henry IV, King of France implies, or at least can imply, that "Henry IV" is his name, and "King of France" is a disambiguator to distinguish him from others of the same name. I think it's more natural to go from Henry IV, King of France to Louis XIII than from Henry IV of France to Louis XIII. I believe this is a wondeful thought. We already have "Margaret of Burgundy, Queen of France" due to the existence of "Margaret of Burgundy, Queen of Sicily" and Blanche of Burgundy because there was no other Blanche of Burgundy. Surtsicna (talk) 21:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Consorts

Has anybody noticed? under the current set-up, the consorts get Queen & Prince consort mentioned in their article titles. Yet the monarchs don't get King or Queen mentioned in theirs. GoodDay (talk) 22:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

And it's the consorts which are wrong, if that is true; there is no agreed consort convention; we do use Mary of Teck, and should use Prince Albert, neither specifying a consort - and both are common usage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The former goes by common-name. The latter by what many consort article titles are. GoodDay (talk) 22:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

That is not correct. It is actually the other way round. The former goes by the convention, the latter by "common name". Deb (talk) 17:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

But there is no convention, except to use common name (so far as uniqueness will allow). "Mary of Teck" was presumably thought to be the commonest name that would identify her uniquely (I'd prefer "Queen Mary" with a parenthetical, but there we are); the question of whether we use the common name "Prince Albert" seems to be coming down to whether that name identifies that man uniquely (in the Wikipedia sense, i.e. primary topics count as being identified uniquely enough).--Kotniski (talk) 21:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Many? Do we have many consort articles? The only other ones I can think of off-hand are at James Hepburn, 4th Earl of Bothwell, Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley, Prince George of Denmark - more or less where they ought to be. (George of Denmark would be better, but that's another battle.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I still like JK's ideas for the monarch article titles. GoodDay (talk) 22:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I see no advantage to a general switch to longer and clumsier forms; I never have. I have proposed moving Albert, if anybody cares. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, change is inevitable. GoodDay (talk) 22:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Apparently not; the move proposal is foundering. But while change may be inevitable, we can choose which change to permit. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

It'll be a gradual acceptance of change. Here & there, a monarch article will get RM'd & viewers will become comfortable with it. GoodDay (talk) 15:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a pity that Wikipedia software doesn't have the ability to generate a subtitle so we could have:
Henry IV
King of France
...but I suspect that would generate just as much discussion and debate! --Bermicourt (talk) 06:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, discussion and debate doesn't have to be a bad thing... I agree that that would be a better arrangement in many respects (but too revolutionary to actually happen).--Kotniski (talk) 07:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

An interesting and probably useful idea. It may be implementable with an appearance template, like {{lowercase}}. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

A brilliant idea. If it could only be done. Surtsicna (talk) 14:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe it is technically possible at the moment, though not in any way that would stand a chance of gaining wide acceptance - for it to happen, I think the developers would have to formally add a "subtitle" field, and then we would have to deal with how links would work.--Kotniski (talk) 15:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I have suggested the idea at the Village Pump (Policy) and it has some initial support. --Bermicourt (talk) 07:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

a puzzling claim

Somehow, NCROY has claimed for several months that we are to use "of Austria-Hungary" for Austrian monarchs after 1867. I'm not sure how this got in there, but it does not reflect actual practice. Franz Joseph I of Austria and Charles I of Austria are our titles for the Habsburg rulers after 1867. No mention of Austria-Hungary. Nor has there ever been such a mention. This is because the ruler was "Emperor of Austria" and "Apostolic King of Hungary," and we generally use only the highest title. I removed this contention in the naming conventions. john k (talk) 03:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Well noticed, but it seems rather inconsistent, in that case - the general rule is apparently to use "of (realm)", where realm is the name of the state someone ruled over (and never mind what their personal title was - we say "of the United Kingdom", "of Belgium", "of Greece" etc. even though the actual title may have been "of Great Britain and Ireland", "of the Belgians", "of the Hellenes") - assuming there is any good in this rule, is there a reason to deviate from it in the specific case of Austria-Hungary?--Kotniski (talk) 09:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Charles has different numerals in each of the states. DrKiernan (talk) 09:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I have to point out that is a very surprising practice than when an article title conflicts with a naming guideline you promptly change the guideline for that reason. This seems contrary to the whole point of having such guidelines in the first place. Hobartimus (talk) 09:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The guideline should reflect practice, not the other way about. That's why the guideline is so messy. It would be far better to simplify it to "Use [name] [ordinal] of [country] unless otherwise decided on the individual article's talk page". DrKiernan (talk) 09:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

If that's so why is there a vote above with oppose-s and supports for something that would change the way some monarchs are named. Especially that the proposal would upset a lot of articles and create a mass of request for move processes, or else would mean that the articles are moved out of process by force? Hobartimus (talk) 09:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Probably because wikipedia is madcap and haphazard. DrKiernan (talk) 10:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Guidelines are not policies so it's not that big an issue but to be taken seriously even a guideline shouldn't be subject to being changed on a whim like this. Hobartimus (talk) 17:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this is a whim. DrKiernan (talk) 18:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

If anyone changed the guideline on a whim, it's whoever decided to say that we should use "of Austria-Hungary" after 1867 despite this not being what we do and there not being a discussion of it. john k (talk) 19:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Hobartimus - the mention of Austria-Hungary in the guidelines was an undiscussed change that occurred a few months ago. The articles have always been at "of Austria," despite one desultory effort to move to "of Austria-Hungary". It would be one thing if there was a lengthy discussion here which came to a decision to change the guideline. What happened in this case was one user changed the guidelines in a way which didn't reflect practice without ever discussing it. Such a change should be removed unless it's clear there is a consensus to actually make that change. john k (talk) 19:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I've looked at the edit that introduced the change; it looks inadvertent (in the sense of being accidental not in the sense of being negligent). I don't think a deliberate change was intended. DrKiernan (talk) 19:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it seems to have come in as a result of some co-editing between myself and PMA - in a desire for historical accuracy, apparently neither of us checked what the articles were actually titled. Apologies, and I hope the latest wording is satisfactory - well, it doesn't mention Austria-Hugary at all now, since it seems "Austria" can be regarded as a separate country, so no exception from the general rule is involved - but if someone thinks it deserves a mention for clarification's sake, then please add. --Kotniski (talk) 12:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I think using "of Austria" post-1867 is equivalent to using Oscar I of Sweden rather than Oscar I of Sweden and Norway. Sweden and Norway were joined together before 1905 in a very similar manner to the way the Dual Monarchy worked from 1867 to 1918. I don't see any need for further clarification. john k (talk) 13:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Another try

How about this limited proposal:

Monarchs who are not known by an ordinal should go at the form Name, Title of Place. This is to avoid the confusion and ambiguity of titles like Anna of Russia or Henry of Portugal. Instead, they'd go to Anna, Empress of Russia and Henry, King of Portugal.

My broader proposal seems to have a significant amount of opposition, but I thought that perhaps this might be less controversial. There seem to be a lot of us, at least, who think that the current standard doesn't work very well for monarchs who don't have ordinals. In individual move proposals for such monarchs (as at Talk:John of England) much of the opposition seems to be on the basis that such a move would contradict the policy here. So I'm proposing that we change the policy here. Other issues can be held off for the future. john k (talk) 23:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose as a general policy change, on the grounds that I don't think titles like John of England or Anna of Russia are particularly confusing, although that could be a subjective point. There may be a case for adding "king" etc. where they ruled over kingdoms which were previously had a lower level of ruler e.g. a count or an elector, to avoid ambiguity, but I think that would only affect a limited number of articles. PatGallacher (talk) 00:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support, of course the present titles are confusing (maybe not as confusing as Latin names for plants, but still), and simply wrong - the people concerned are not called that, or if they are then very rarely. The current convention for these monarchs has absolutely no justification in a reference work that purports to be reflecting usage rather than trying to establish a new one. Effectively it is deliberately lying to and confusing readers for no practical gain whatever, except (and sorry, but I really think this is the case) to protect a convention to which a few editors have become emotionally attached to the extent of not being able to see its faults. --Kotniski (talk) 08:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support, as we've got Name, Duke of Place; Name, Prince of Place etc, for those monarchs & non-monarchs with or withou ordinals. Why not the same for Kings/Queen regnants? GoodDay (talk) 11:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support Of course, makes perfect sense. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose, purely because it is not an improvement over the present situation. Deb (talk) 11:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• • Comment: John K, I'd rather support your other proposal ("Having Henry IV, King of France implies, or at least can imply, that "Henry IV" is his name, and "King of France" is a disambiguator to distinguish him from others of the same name. I think it's more natural to go from Henry IV, King of France to Louis XIII than from Henry IV of France to Louis XIII"). Surtsicna (talk) 14:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose I prefer Name (Ordinal) of Place for kings and emperors and Name, Title of Place for grand dukes and lower. Seven Letters 17:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Just saying you prefer it doesn't get us anywhere. In the light of the various problems that have been pointed out with doing it this way, how do you defend this position?--Kotniski (talk) 17:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I have observed a real different in "treatment" between the rulers who are Majesties and all of those who are various grades of Highness. It may be an artificial line to draw but it is how the "current" method seems to have come into being and I think it is best, consistent and keeps things as simple as they can be. The kingdoms and empires tend to have very little confusion as to what titles the rulers were and the grand duchies and lower usually have gone through many status changes. Seven Letters 18:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

But the overriding problem is that the names we give to these numberless monarchs are virtually unused in the real world - they're misleading to readers in that (a) they don't help the reader (unversed in wikiconventions) to recognize that this is the right article; (b) they misinform the reader as to what the subject of the article is called. These are two very serious faults, faults that being "consistent" and "simple" entirely fail to make up for, and none of the people writing "oppose" under this proposal seem willing to address them.--Kotniski (talk) 06:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Gryffindor (talk) 03:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

This is how a list of post-Conquest English and British monarchs would look like under John K's proposal I favour.

1. William I, King of England instead of William I of England (alternatively William the Conqueror)
2. William II, King of England instead of William II of England
3. Henry I, King of England instead of Henry I of England
4. Stephen, King of England instead of Stephen of England
5. Henry II, King of England instead of Henry II of England
6. Richard I instead of Richard I of England
7. John, King of England instead of John of England
8. Henry III, King of England instead of Henry III of England
9. Edward I instead of Edward I of England
10. Edward II instead of Edward II of England
11. Edward III instead of Edward III of England
12. Richard II instead of Richard II of England
13. Henry IV, King of England instead of Henry IV of England
14. Henry V, King of England instead of Henry V of England
15. Henry VI, King of England instead of Henry VI of England
16. Edward IV instead of Edward IV of England
17. Edward V instead of Edward V of England
18. Richard III instead of Richard III of England
19. Henry VII, King of England instead of Henry VII of England
20. Henry VIII instead of Henry VIII of England
21. Edward VI instead of Edward VI of England
22. Mary I, Queen of England instead of Mary I of England
23. Elizabeth I instead of Elizabeth I of England
24. James I and VI instead of James I of England
25. Charles I, King of England instead of Charles I of England
26. Charles II, King of England instead of Charles II of England
27. James II and VII instead of James II of England
28. Mary II instead of Mary II of England
29. William III and II instead of William III of England
30. Anne, Queen of Great Britain instead of Anne of Great Britain
31. George I, King of Great Britain instead of George I of Great Britain
32. George II, King of Great Britain instead of George II of Great Britain
33. George III instead of George III of the United Kingdom
34. George IV instead of George IV of the United Kingdom
35. William IV instead of William IV of the United Kingdom (with William IV, Grand Duke of Luxembourg remaining where it is)
36. Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom instead of Victoria of the United Kingdom
37. Edward VII instead of Edward VII of the United Kingdom
38. George V instead of George V of the United Kingdom
39. Edward VIII instead of Edward VIII of the United Kingdom
40. George VI instead of George VI of the United Kingdom
41. Elizabeth II instead of Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom

As you can see, it would solve some major problems; we'd get rid of the awkward and problematic titles that call for a move request every month (John of England, Victoria of the United Kingdom, James I of England, Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom and her close predecessors, etc).Surtsicna (talk) 14:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's not forget, we'd also have a George V, King of Hanover. GoodDay (talk) 14:34, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Primary topics come into play as well - I'd say the British king is a primary topic over the Hanoverian one. Surtsicna - this is what I would prefer as well, but there seemed to be a lot of opposition or ambivalence towards it, even from people who don't much like the current convention. So I thought I'd start with the most egregious problem, and then see where we stand. john k (talk) 15:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I reckon so, as the Kingdom of Hanover (1814 to 1866) was a fairly short-lived kingdom. Also, it was subserviant to the German Confederation, I suppose. GoodDay (talk) 15:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Fits with lower nobility convention and aids clarity. Also frequently used in literature. --Bermicourt (talk) 16:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. I'd prefer to have discussions about particular countries. Srnec (talk) 17:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

But when we have discussions about individual countries or articles, people say "oppose, change the guideline first". It's an endless circle (and means that the status quo remains even though we never actually hear any substantial arguments as to why it might be justified).--Kotniski (talk) 12:01, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support for greater consistency and clarity; it won't solve the entire problem of monarchs' names, but it's a step in the right direction. (I do think Queen Victoria needs to be an exception to any general rule, but that is a discussion for another time and/or place.) Alkari (?), 11 September 2010, 22:38 UTC

• Support to reduce ambiguity per john k (and thanks for initiating this here at NCROY). FactStraight (talk) 23:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I would like to thank Surtscina for drawing up this list, but it illustrates several problems. He seems to have gone some way beyone Johnk's current proposal, e.g. removing pre-emptive disambiguation from monarchs who are the sole or primary meaning, adding "king of" even to monarchs who have a number, treating William IV of the UK as the primary meaning of William IV which he is not at present, and the treatment of the 2 Jameses and William of Orange is a big can of worms. I think this illustrates the problem quite well, the "King of England" etc. is switched on and off in a way which has absolutely nothing to do with developments in English history and could easily confuse some readers, it's because e.g. the Holy Roman Emperors called Henry only go up to 7. We would need to look at the implications of this for several other countries e.g. Scotland, France. PatGallacher (talk) 13:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

That's something that applies across the board in article naming - e.g. some titles in a category are disambiguated, some aren't - if you believe in consistency in naming, then I suggest that following normal general Wikipedia practice (i.e. disambiguate only when needed) provides a greater and more useful type of consistency. (Or support the subtitling proposal at village pump - if that were adopted, then I think pre-emptive disambiguation could well become the norm, and all would be happy.) But as you say, this discussion is specifically and deliberately not about that - this concerns only the numeral-less cases, where the problem is a far more serious one than just whether to disambiguate.--Kotniski (talk) 16:56, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

My list illustrates John K's other proposal - to get rid of preemptive disambiguation. See the preceding section. Surtsicna (talk) 17:26, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support this proposal that "monarchs who are not known by an ordinal should go at the form Name, Title of Place." (I actually support the idea that the convention should be that for all monarchs). Noel S McFerran (talk) 14:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Below user john.k said in the section 'a puzzling claim' "Somehow, NCROY has claimed for several months that we are to use "of Austria-Hungary" for Austrian monarchs after 1867. I'm not sure how this got in there, but it does not reflect actual practice." The proposal laid out here "does not reflect actual practice" in a lot more than just two articles and it would just create unnecessary problems as the present system worked well enough for years. I see no reason to change it. Hobartimus (talk) 11:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Anyway I don't see why would be any problem with the current system. How is there any ambiugety in Anna of Russia for example? The reader knows he should expect an article of a ruler there. And by making a distinction between rulers with ordinals and rulers without it just confuses the issue MORE. Why should a ruler with a number be treated differently from a ruler without a number that's confusing in it's own right. Of course some rulers could be even both when one usage is preferred over another Napoleon can be Napoleon I, or could just as well be Bonaparte Napoleon, with him being moved between the names every so often. Hobartimus (talk) 11:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

No, we don't know to expect "Anna of Russia" to refer to a ruler. It could be any princess who originated from the Russian royal house, or potentially just someone from Anna who came from Russia. Why should the two classes be treated differently? - well, they don't have to be (we could change the others as well to bring them into line), but if they are, then it's because the English language treats them differently - refer to England's eighth king Henry out of context, and you'll almost certainly call him "Henry the Eighth", but refer to John or Anne in the same manner, and you'll call them "King John" and "Queen Anne". The numeral does the service of the word "King" or "Queen".--Kotniski (talk) 11:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

What else do you expect at Anna of Russia? Just some random girl named Anna?? We could just as well write Anna I of Russia... I don't see any problem with the current use whatsoever. Writing King everywhere is not needed it is understood well enough from context. Hobartimus (talk) 17:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, there's Anna Pavlovna of Russia, the queen of the Netherlands; Anna Petrovna of Russia, the Duchess of Holstein-Gottorp; and Anna Leopoldovna of Russia, the regent for and mother of Ivan VI. Any of those could just as well be referred to as "Anna of Russia". john k (talk) 19:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

An undiscussed change in the conventions which does not reflect practice is not at all the same thing as offering up for discussion a proposal to change the conventions & change practice at the same time. john k (talk) 19:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment: There should be more uniformity, so users could better navigate and predict other article titles. I would prefer the template to be the person's name and unique identifier, then title. So it would be for sovereigns in the manner of 'John III, King of Narnia', or for consorts it would be 'Queen Jane of Narnia' or 'Jane of Homeland, Queen of Narnia'. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 15:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support: Like others, I would like to see ", King of X" replace "of X", but the ones without ordinals are ambiguous and therefore even more objectionable than the others. I'm not entirely comfortable with creating with having Richard I of England followed by John, King of England, but perhaps we can try discussing the ones with ordinals again after this discussion. -Rrius (talk) 18:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Articles affected

Below is a list of articles (certainly not exhaustive) affected by the proposal:

• Michael of Romania
• Ferdinand of Romania
• Peter Orseolo of Hungary
• Samuel Aba of Hungary
• Solomon of Hungary
• Coloman of Hungary
• Emeric of Hungary
• Mary of Hungary
• Arduin of Italy
• Athelstan of England
• Eadwig of England
• Eadred of England
• Odo of France
• Rudolph of France
• Lothair of France
• Denis of Portugal
• Edward of Portugal
• Sebastian of Portugal
• Henry of Portugal
• Miguel of Portugal
• Amadeo of Spain
• Stephen of England
• John of England
• Anne of Great Britain
• Victoria of the United Kingdom
• Joanna of Castile
• Martin of Aragon
• Petronila of Aragon
• Antoine of Navarre
• Catherine of Navarre
• Francis of Navarre
• Eleanor of Navarre
• Urraca of León and Castile
• Peter of Castile
• Adolf of Germany
• Rupert of Germany
• Tancred of Sicily
• Constance of Sicily
• Manfred of Sicily
• Louis of Sicily
• Robert of Naples
• Ladislaus of Naples
• Pelagius of Asturias
• Silo of Asturias
• Favila of Asturias
• Mauregatus of Asturias
• Nepotian of Asturias
• Aurelius of Asturias
• Dub of Scotland
• Cuilén of Scotland
• Amlaíb of Scotland
• Macbeth of Scotland
• Edgar of Scotland
• John of Scotland
• Niels of Denmark
• Abel of Denmark
• John of Denmark
• Svein of Norway
• Guttorm of Norway
• Anund Jacob of Sweden
• Valdemar of Sweden
• Birger of Sweden
• Albert of Sweden
• Christina of Sweden
• Ulrika Eleonora of Sweden
• Adolf Frederick of Sweden
• Charles Felix of Sardinia
• Charles Albert of Sardinia
• Wilhelmina of the Netherlands
• Juliana of the Netherlands
• Beatrix of the Netherlands
• Baudouin of Belgium
• Henry of Bohemia
• John of Bohemia
• Fulk of Jerusalem
• Melisende of Jerusalem
• Sibylla of Jerusalem
• Charlotte of Cyprus
• Janus of Cyprus
• Jadwiga of Poland
• Michael of Russia
• Alexis of Russia
• Anna of Russia
• Elizabeth of Russia
• Otto of Greece

The following articles have an unnecessary numeral 1, since there was no second of the name. Presumably, they could be affected too:

• Luís I of Portugal
• Carlos I of Portugal
• Louis I of Spain
• Juan Carlos I of Spain
• Ferdinand I of Austria
• Francis Joseph I of Austria
• Charles I of Austria
• Frederick I of Sweden
• Milan I of Serbia
• Alexander I of Serbia
• Alexander I of Yugoslavia
• Nicholas I of Montenegro
• Paul I of Russia

These last are just three of examples of unclear cases. There is no numeral, but the monarch is given a full name. Ramírez, Báthory and Magnusson are not given names. I presume they would not be affected:

• García Ramírez of Navarre
• Olaf Magnusson of Norway
• Stephen Báthory of Poland

I have only looked at Western royalty, since most non-Western monarchs don't follow this convention anyway. And I have only included monarchs which currently follow the convention (monarchs for which exceptions have been created would not, I presume, be affected). I have also ignored little-known monarchies, such as those of the Caucasus and I have not included anything that goes back much further than the year 1000, which would start to effect, for example, the kings of the Heptarchy.

I find in the list I compiled many articles where a better option than either the current one or the proposed one exists, but my proposals for similar moves (at Talk:John of England and Talk:Henry of Portugal) are not going so well. Srnec (talk) 18:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

More comments

The proposal is NOT about articles with a name followed by the Roman numeral I - even those which Srnec describes as "an unnecessary numeral 1, since there was no second of the name". Wikipedia is not about renaming people something which they are not known as. Emperor Ferdinand I of Austria IS Ferdinand I, not just Ferdinand. Even his tomb says that. Noel S McFerran (talk) 01:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I concur, yet some names aren't even on that list because they were unilaterally moved contrary to NCROY, e.g. Michael of Romania. FactStraight (talk) 03:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. In terms of the last category, "Stephen Bathory of Poland" is a stupid title, anyway. He is the primary topic for "Stephen Báthory", and should just be there, with a hatnote to the disambiguation page. And I'm with you, FactStraight, on Michael of Romania, who should definitely be at Michael I. john k (talk) 03:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not too hard to dredge up sources that would justify calling King John "John I of England". It's been done. I don't know about his tomb, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't say "John" at all. So let's not be silly. I merely compiled a list so we could all get a sense of what articles are affected, how wide an effect this proposal will have, the possible issues it will raise (besides the obvious one). That's all. I noticed that the proposal could be applied to some monarchs that currently have a numeral I, and perhaps to monarchs who currently have two names and no numeral in their title. Whatever Ferdinand I of Austria is called I don't know, but I know that Nicholas I of Montenegro does not require that numeral. So is he affected? But please do note where Ferdinand II of Austria redirects. That's certainly not confusing! I am even more confident now that we should devise standards that apply to different kingdoms differently. The early monarchs of Navarre need to be treated differently from the Austrian emperors. And the Savoyard kings of Sardinia don't need any reference to their kingdom at all. There names plus numerals are unique enough. But not the earlier Savoyards. Srnec (talk) 04:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Savoyard rulers from Charles Emmanuel I to Umberto II are unique. Beyond that, 18th-20th century monarchs who themselves used the ordinal "I", which is all of the examples you gave above, are not at all the same thing as medieval monarchs who didn't use an ordinal but who might at some point have been called "John I" by some recent source, some time. john k (talk) 04:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about official usage of numeral I, but I do know that there are plenty of secondary references to, for example, King Nicholas and Tsar Paul that do not use it. I think the Savoyards are unique from Emmanuel Philibert, but the two Umbertos are not unique. There were three earlier counts names Umberto and some Humberts ruled elsewhere as well in the Middle Ages. The Italian kings Umberto are primary usage, I would think. I would make the changeover from "Duke of Savoy" to "King of Sardinia" the place to make our changeover, if we ever make a change, but I wouldn't strongly object to removing mention of Savoy all the way back to Emmanuel Philibert. Srnec (talk) 20:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

You will find plenty of secondary references to any monarch that do not use numerals. Lots of references to Louis XVI will just call him Louis or King Louis or the King or the King of France. I would say that "Umberto" is unique because the medieval counts named Humbert did not speak Italian and are not normally referred to as "Umberto" in English. Certainly Umberto I and II are primary topics. john k (talk) 22:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Keep the titles out of their names, lest you overcomplicate things. Some monarchs were kings of multiple countries, so should we add them too? Also for example Franz Joseph I of Austria (or Francis Joseph I of Austria, however you want) is almost always known in literature with his Roman numeral, not "Franz Joseph of Austria". By inventing a new name or format, you are going into original research. And what about his other crowns, such as King of Hungary? Should that be added to the title's name as well? Again, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Gryffindor (talk) 03:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

"By inventing a new name or format" - if anything, this is what the existing convention does (the names it produces are encountered extremely rarely in practice, so rarely that it really is misleading the reader to present them as the article title). So again, yes, it is broke, and should be fixed.--Kotniski (talk) 11:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• Where monarchs were kings of multiple countries you have the same problem with or without a title. Is it "Franz Joseph of Austria" or "Franz Joseph of Austria and Hungary"? is still a valid question even without "King".
• Looking at the literature: Arnold (1991) uses the form "Duke Frederick II of Swabia" (as well as the abbreviated form "Conrad III") in the text, but the forms "Henry of Andechs, margrave of Istria", "Henry VII, king of the Romans", "Henry II, king of England" and "Frederick I Barbarossa, emperor" in the index. Fulbrook (2004) uses the "Emperor Charles V", "Francis I of France", "Duke Henry of Saxony", "Henry the Lion, Duke of Saxony" in the text and "Frederick William IV, King of Prussia", "Henry V, Emperor", "Frederick III, King of Prussia and Emperor of Germany", "Francis I, King of France" and "Rudolf, Duke of Swabia". I could quote others, but the pattern is similar - richly varied and a tendency to use the form "Title Name X of Domain" in the text and "Name X, Title of Domain" in the index.
• And enough folk think the current system is broke, hence the animated debate. --Bermicourt (talk) 12:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the very long list of monarchs to be moved, whose titles most people seem happy enough with, this is a good argument for not changing the convention. Also, if you introduce "king", some people might want to use formally correct titles e.g. "king of Scots". PatGallacher (talk) 19:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

We ought to use formally correct titles like King of Scots, King of the Belgians, King of the Hellenes. john k (talk) 20:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

We could also end up "William IV, King of the United Kingdom" which some people would regard as a bit of a mouthful (as he is not the primary meaning of William IV). PatGallacher (talk) 21:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd say he very arguably is the primary meaning of William IV. He's the only king in the bunch, and none of the others is particularly well known. john k (talk) 22:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I think this needs to be discussed on a case by case basis. Not individual cases, but the cases of different monarchies. I doubt that "John of England" is less easily comprehended by the general readership than "King of the Hellenes". We need a standard for naming French monarchs that can be different from the standard for English ones, medieval Spanish ones, and modern Balkan ones. I'd prefer that a move proposal be started at, for example, Talk:List of English monarchs, proposing how those articles should be titled (according to the proponent), than that we endlessly discuss general changes that would affect hundreds of articles that nobody thought of entirely at the time of the discussion/vote. Srnec (talk) 22:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

So look, the current guideline (I'm still talking specifically about the numberless monarchs) clearly doesn't have anything resembling consensus support, John's proposal seems to have more support if anything (though I'm not sure about this use of "the Hellenes" and so on); so can we agree to rewrite that line of the guideline so as not to recommend anything specific, but simply to state the facts and say that the titles of such articles should be decided on a case-by-case basis, taking account of general article titling policy? Or should we try again at organizing a general community poll to settle all these matters? --Kotniski (talk) 10:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

If we don't use "King of the Hellenes," we'd be using an incorrect form. Alexander, King of Greece and Paul, King of Greece (to take the two Greek monarchs who would be affected) are actively wrong, the same way that "Louis Philippe, King of France" or "Wilhelm II, Emperor of Germany" would be. It's fine to say "King Paul of Greece," or that he was king of Greece, but it's wrong to refer to him as "the King of Greece". It's unfortunate, though. john k (talk) 14:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and I tend to think a community poll is probably the way to go here. john k (talk) 14:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Having Alexander, King of Greece etc, is cool. All we'd need is Alexander, King of the Hellenes in the opening line of the content, to quell any concerns. GoodDay (talk) 14:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Is there some reason why that Greek word has to be translated as "Hellenes"? Can't it just be "the Greeks"? --Kotniski (talk) 16:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Reckon 'cuz in the english language, they used "..of the Hellenes". GoodDay (talk) 16:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

We moved Louis Philippe I from Louis Philippe I of France because people thought that form was misleading given his actual title. I don't see how the same couldn't be said for giving an actual wrong title like "Alexander, King of Greece". As GoodDay says, "King of the Hellenes" is, for whatever reason, the term that has always been used in English. "King of the Greeks" would be a wikipedia neologism. john k (talk) 17:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Not entirely a neulogism (This search is for Constantine - and only some of the visible hits are false positives; but King of the Hellenes is much more common. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support the general proposal. I have come uncharacteristically late to this discussion. AFD discussions last 7 days. This has now gone on for 10. The Discussion on Elizabeth II that started this wnet on for months. We seem to have a consensus for the change; precisely how we should implement it in certain specific cases can be discussed in the context of particular countries or articles that raise difficulties with it. I support "King of the Hellenes", which is the English version of the title adopted when an unpopular King of Greece was evicted. I do not know why this was the transalation adopted, but it was; similarly, Louis Philippe was "King of the French", and there is no reason why we should not use "King of the Belgians". I see no objection to William IV, King of the United Kingdom. We will presumably retian the existing version as a redirect, so that wikilinking to it can still be done using the existing format. Close and implement. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Who's gonna be the brave one, to begin making RM requests? GoodDay (talk) 15:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

This kind of thing should be announced / discussed as an RfC, to get more opinions from people who don't normally frequent this page. Considering that the consensus for the proposal is not really very strong, a more formal discussion is probably the better solution instead of starting with moves (or move discussions). Fram (talk) 15:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

In agreement. If we try to declare a consensus for change 'now' & make implimentations? it would be counter-productive, to say the least. GoodDay (talk) 15:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't see much evidence of consensus. There seems to be a decent majority for the John, King of England as opposed to John of England form, but also a lot of opposition. There's nothing close to a consensus on my other suggestions. An RFC would be a good idea, although I think we'd want to clean up the talk page and clarify what exactly is being proposed so that people who haven't followed the discussion won't be confused. john k (talk) 19:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

It's only a historic accident that the status quo is marked {{guideline}}. Mark it {{disputed}} and move on to taking every case on its merits until such time as one thing or another has consensus support. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Bishops

- I notice that according to the clergy naming convention WP:NCCL, bishops who have their titles in their article titles are handled in this way: X (bishop of Y) (although the convention seems not to be universally implemented). I've suggested over at that guideline's talk page that this be changed to X, Bishop of Y, to conform to normal capitalization and the way that Wikipedia treats titles generally (as in this guideline). Comments welcome.--Kotniski (talk) 09:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like progress to me. --Bermicourt (talk) 16:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Except that progress has apparently stalled, with just two of us arguing about it and not getting anywhere - comments from outsiders are again invited (at WT:NCCL#Bishops).--Kotniski (talk) 12:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Nice canvassing, Kosnitski. Just note that your suggestion is not about normal capitalization but about methods of disambiguation. Mixing the two is not helpful. Fram (talk) 13:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Consorts with ambigious names

Does anyone really object to using marital titles when the maiden name is ambigious? Does anyone believe that Margaret of Bohemia (1335–1349) is any better and helpful than Margaret of Bohemia, Queen of Hungary? User:Gryffindor has been reverting moves that were results of the consensus on individual talk pages (Talk:Mary of Austria, Queen of Hungary; Talk:Maria of Austria, Holy Roman Empress, etc) and citing this guideline as the reason. The guideline says nothing about using marital titles as means of disambiguation. Surtsicna (talk) 21:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree. I think some previous discussions decided that, although these double titles may look clumsy, they are better than using dates, which should be the last resort for disambiguation. PatGallacher (talk) 21:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Also take a look at these mass moves made after Gryffindor participated in at least one (and probably more) discussions whose conclusion was that marital titles are the best ways of disambiguation. Since I won't be able to revert all of those moves, I kindly ask an administrator for help once we (again!) agree to use marital titles for disambiguation. Surtsicna (talk) 21:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

If the above proposal goes through, this new proposal will make titles just as unclear as before. Now Elizabeth of Russia is said to be unclear, but after the above proposal Elizabeth, Empress of Russia will be equally unclear. That title could equally apply to Elizabeth Alexeievna (Louise of Baden) after this new proposal. Srnec (talk) 21:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Elizabeth of Russia could equally apply to Elizabeth Alexeievna (Louise of Baden), too. At either there would need to be a hat note, but I think the reigning empress is, at any rate, the primary topic. One could also do Elizabeth Petrovna, Empress of Russia, I suppose. At any rate, I think Surtsicna's point is not that disambiguating by marital titles when the maiden name is ambiguous should be mandatory, just that it does not violate policy in any way. I heartily agree. john k (talk) 22:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

First of all Surtsicna, the "mass moves" were unilateraly done by you, without keeping with the Wikipedia policy on royal consorts, which has a set pattern. On top of that you initiated votes without discussing the existing policy, which leads me to believe you were not familiar with it. I had to revert those moves back to their original title, since you were not following policy. There are only very few exceptions to this rule. By adding their titles, you could end up creating more confusion because in some cases, some consorts were queens of multiple realms. Not a good idea to open that Pandora's box. Gryffindor (talk) 03:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Would you mind providing a link to the policy on royal consorts? Thanks. Cindamuse (talk) 09:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

For the future, I think it should be stated that, whatever our personal preferences, it's never a good idea to move an article about a royal person without making a move request first. There are often no wrong and right answers, but there can be strong opinions, and moving without consultation can result in bad feeling. And anyone who does move articles without doing this first can expect to see them moved back. Deb (talk) 11:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'd agree with that. And with royal consorts, there is simply no policy or guideline that says that article titles must be A and not B. Each case needs to be decided on its merits.--Kotniski (talk) 12:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and having looked at what Gryffindor's been doing, it seems highly disruptive and based on serious misunderstanding of how Wikipedia is supposed to work - we ought to make it absolutely clear that, whatever our views on the titles concerned, this kind of unilateral action is entirely unacceptable.--Kotniski (talk) 12:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I must say that I find Gryffindor's actions highly frustrating. I move an article to B, he reverts it several months later to A - that's fine. Then I request moving to B. The community agrees and the article is moved back to B, but several months later Gryffindor moves it back to A, all the while misquoting this policy. This guideline does not prohibit using marital titles to distinguish between Eleanor of Portugal, Holy Roman Empress, Eleanor of Portugal, Queen of Aragon, and Eleanor of Portugal, Queen of Denmark - please, tell me, aren't these titles much more helpful than Eleanor of Portugal (1434-1467), Eleanor of Portugal (1328–1348) and Eleanor of Portugal (1211-1231? I am not suggesting that we add marital titles to titles of all articles (i.e. I am not proposing moving Catherine of Aragon to Catherine, Queen of England or something like that). Surtsicna (talk) 12:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I would have thought that was a better suggestion; use dates as a last resort (and as the guideline says, if they're better known by their royal consort title than their maiden title, then prefer to use the former anyway).--Kotniski (talk) 13:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Relevant move requests:

• Talk:Elisabeth of Bohemia (1292–1330)
• Talk:Elizabeth of Sicily (1261–1300)
• Talk:Maria Komnene (d. 1190)
• Talk:Elisabeth of Poland (1305–1380)
• Talk:Eleanor of Portugal (1434–1467)
• Talk:Margaret of France (1158–1197)

You might wish to comment. Surtsicna (talk) 21:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• "Catherine, Queen of England" will not do save as a disambigation page: it would apply to Catherine of Aragon, Catharine Parr, and Catherine Howard (wives of Henry VIII) and Catherine of Braganza (wife of Charles II). Some of these may be conventionally spelt today with a "K", but that is merely a modern convention and should not be relied upon. For the rest, I would prefer to await the closure of the discussion on kings. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Who proposed a title such as "Catherine, Queen of England"? Have I missed something here? Surtsicna (talk) 13:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Hesse-Kassel vs. Hesse-Cassel (again)

See Talk:Hesse-Kassel. We should really agree on one spelling. I moved the articles that were using "Hesse-Cassel" (and one that was using "Hessen-Kassel") so that all now use "Hesse-Kassel." Then I proposed a move of all articles to "Hesse-Cassel". If there is a consensus for it to be "Hesse-Cassel," so be it. If there is a consensus for them to stay at "Hesse-Kassel," so be it. But can we all agree to just use one form? john k (talk) 14:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

English please! Cassel not (German) Kassel. Thank you for asking! SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Go to Talk:Hesse-Kassel to register your opinion. Both forms are commonly used in English. john k (talk) 14:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Possibly invalid or abolished titles

See a useful source on this issue. [14] However, in the course of a move discussion, I saw it claimed that some Italian titles were awarded by the Pope and are therefore still valid regardless of the view of the Italian government. Maybe so, but is there a source anywhere which states which titles the Vatican still recognises? It was also claimed that there is a journalistic convention that titles of Duke and lower, once awarded by a competent fount of honour, cannot be abolished, and are still recognised as a courtesy title regardless of what a government might think. Is there a source for this? PatGallacher (talk) 19:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Ancestry section for royals that were born commoners

Please see Talk:Mary, Crown Princess of Denmark#Ancestry. I am posting here because this page seems to be much more active than Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility, where I explained the issue. Surtsicna (talk) 10:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Greek monarchs

Do we really need to have a succession box for crown prince of Greece in those articles? GoodDay (talk) 15:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

That does seem silly. Not really a naming conventions issue, though. john k (talk) 16:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. I've deleted them. GoodDay (talk) 15:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)