![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Jakegard.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 13:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
The last RM held on this article was ruled as no move to William the Lion. Therefore, I revert the erroneous change. GoodDay ( talk) 23:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Ya may aswell go back to the lion version, Pat. Even though I disagree with a page being moved contrary to it's last RM ruling.
GoodDay (
talk)
01:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
A potentially controversial move is a potentially controversial move. You're supposed to go through WP:RM, and, if you don't, I think others should be able to revert no matter how much time has gone by in order to discourage unilateral moves like this. However, every time I've tried to get consensus on this rule at WP:RM (and I've tried several times), I can't get consensus to support it. In fact, consensus is always that once an article is move and established at a new stable name, then once again WP:RM is required to move it. That means, by current rules, it was acceptable to move it today, but once it was reverted, that should have been accepted. In any case, someone who cares probably should file a proposal at WP:RM - and this history should be explained in the nomination. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 09:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is good evidence of why making knowingly controversial moves is a bad thing - all the energy so far (including mine now) has been expended in discussing procedural issues, instead of addressing what we know will we have to discuss in the end anyway: what are the pros and cons of the various proposed titles. Is it possible to move on to that question now? -- Kotniski ( talk) 12:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
To start the ball rolling, Google Books returns me 50,000 hits for William the Lion, 704 for William I the Lion, and 474 for William I of Scotland. Unless I've overlooked some issue with the search, that would appear to settle things rather overwhelmingly. (I don't see what any change in the guidelines has to do with this - WP:NCROY has always acknowledged that common cognomens can be used instead of the name+numeral form.)-- Kotniski ( talk) 12:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Look, stop arguing about who moved what - does anyone have any arguments to support calling this article anything other than the common and unique name of its subject: "William the Lion"?-- Kotniski ( talk) 16:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I note that it was Deacon of Pritzdeam who made the move back in October 12, and marked it as minor, which it clearly wasn't. This is disruptive editing. PatGallacher ( talk) 18:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
The October 12 (2010) move had no consensus. Recommend 'Deacon' or anybody, begin an RM if the wish to seek a consensus for moving to William the Lion. GoodDay ( talk) 18:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Absolutely. I'm wondering which calendar defines 3 and a bit months as "half a year"! Deb ( talk) 18:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
To review: An RM was held in February 2008 for moving William I of Scotland to William the Lion, the RM was ruled no consensus for move & this was respected for about -2.5 yrs-. Deacon then moves page to William the Lion in October 2010. It was alright for him to move a page that was stable for way over 2.5 years, with no-consensus to do so. Yet, it wasn't alright for me to revert his erroneous move, that was stable for only 3 months? Something is wrong here folks, article such as these shouldn't be hijacked in this way. GoodDay ( talk) 16:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Original request withdrawn. Nightw 16:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC) |
---|
The result of the move request was: withdrawn. Article was moved back to its previous title. Nightw 13:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC) William I of Scotland → William the Lion — This was the title of the article before it was recently moved to its current title in a unilateral decision. WP:NCNT states, "If a monarch or prince is overwhelmingly known, in English, by a cognomen, it may be used, and there is then no need to disambiguate by adding Country". A Google search will show that "William the Lion" is far more common, but this could be due to the awkwardness of adding "of Scotland" to the alternative. Online encyclopaedias are divided: he's listed in Britannica as "William I (king of Scotland)"; in Columbia Encyclopaedia as "William the Lion"; and in Britroyals as "King William I (the Lion) of Scotland". For the record, I don't know enough about the subject to cast a !vote of my own, and I remain neutral, but the community should decide what the name should be. Nightw 10:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
|
No consensus to move. Vegaswikian ( talk) 07:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
William the Lion → William I of Scotland — In response to recent move-warring on this page, I've lodged this move request in order to ascertain consensus regarding the article's title. Online encyclopaedias show divided useage: William is listed in Britannica as "William I (king of Scotland)"; in Columbia Encyclopaedia as "William the Lion"; and in Britroyals as "King William I (the Lion) of Scotland". Nightw 16:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's policy on article titles.This might be the first time, I've been in an RM to seek moving a page from its non-consented version (see Feb 2008 RM). But hopefully, this RM's ruling will be respected. GoodDay ( talk) 16:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Eek, the trend isn't looking favourable. GoodDay ( talk) 21:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: article not moved Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 05:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
William the Lion → William the Lyon – as an overwhelmingly used name for this king. Alison Weir also calls him "the Lyon" and a quick Google Books search turns this up:
So, per WP:NCROY, I propose this move.
Although we do have one very dated source to back this up, I am cautious about the claim that he ever touched for the king's evil. This practice was certainly not normal in Scotland, and even in France and England it is questionable whether it was practiced as early as this. PatGallacher ( talk) 14:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Either the birth date for William I or for Ada Fitz William are way off, or William fathered her around the age of 4. Unsure what the right answer is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Republicson ( talk • contribs) 15:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Mentioned husbands of:
It seems likely that the first one is wrong. -- Japarthur ( talk) 12:46, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
It seems like there is a lack of citation in the body of the article. There is not a citation in the life portion until seven paragraphs in the article. Jakegard ( talk) 04:36, 24 October 2017 (UTC) Jakegard ( talk) 04:36, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
I have removed the mention; see Talk:Taylor Swift for more information. Lectonar ( talk) 14:03, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Jakegard.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 13:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
The last RM held on this article was ruled as no move to William the Lion. Therefore, I revert the erroneous change. GoodDay ( talk) 23:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Ya may aswell go back to the lion version, Pat. Even though I disagree with a page being moved contrary to it's last RM ruling.
GoodDay (
talk)
01:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
A potentially controversial move is a potentially controversial move. You're supposed to go through WP:RM, and, if you don't, I think others should be able to revert no matter how much time has gone by in order to discourage unilateral moves like this. However, every time I've tried to get consensus on this rule at WP:RM (and I've tried several times), I can't get consensus to support it. In fact, consensus is always that once an article is move and established at a new stable name, then once again WP:RM is required to move it. That means, by current rules, it was acceptable to move it today, but once it was reverted, that should have been accepted. In any case, someone who cares probably should file a proposal at WP:RM - and this history should be explained in the nomination. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 09:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is good evidence of why making knowingly controversial moves is a bad thing - all the energy so far (including mine now) has been expended in discussing procedural issues, instead of addressing what we know will we have to discuss in the end anyway: what are the pros and cons of the various proposed titles. Is it possible to move on to that question now? -- Kotniski ( talk) 12:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
To start the ball rolling, Google Books returns me 50,000 hits for William the Lion, 704 for William I the Lion, and 474 for William I of Scotland. Unless I've overlooked some issue with the search, that would appear to settle things rather overwhelmingly. (I don't see what any change in the guidelines has to do with this - WP:NCROY has always acknowledged that common cognomens can be used instead of the name+numeral form.)-- Kotniski ( talk) 12:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Look, stop arguing about who moved what - does anyone have any arguments to support calling this article anything other than the common and unique name of its subject: "William the Lion"?-- Kotniski ( talk) 16:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I note that it was Deacon of Pritzdeam who made the move back in October 12, and marked it as minor, which it clearly wasn't. This is disruptive editing. PatGallacher ( talk) 18:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
The October 12 (2010) move had no consensus. Recommend 'Deacon' or anybody, begin an RM if the wish to seek a consensus for moving to William the Lion. GoodDay ( talk) 18:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Absolutely. I'm wondering which calendar defines 3 and a bit months as "half a year"! Deb ( talk) 18:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
To review: An RM was held in February 2008 for moving William I of Scotland to William the Lion, the RM was ruled no consensus for move & this was respected for about -2.5 yrs-. Deacon then moves page to William the Lion in October 2010. It was alright for him to move a page that was stable for way over 2.5 years, with no-consensus to do so. Yet, it wasn't alright for me to revert his erroneous move, that was stable for only 3 months? Something is wrong here folks, article such as these shouldn't be hijacked in this way. GoodDay ( talk) 16:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Original request withdrawn. Nightw 16:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC) |
---|
The result of the move request was: withdrawn. Article was moved back to its previous title. Nightw 13:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC) William I of Scotland → William the Lion — This was the title of the article before it was recently moved to its current title in a unilateral decision. WP:NCNT states, "If a monarch or prince is overwhelmingly known, in English, by a cognomen, it may be used, and there is then no need to disambiguate by adding Country". A Google search will show that "William the Lion" is far more common, but this could be due to the awkwardness of adding "of Scotland" to the alternative. Online encyclopaedias are divided: he's listed in Britannica as "William I (king of Scotland)"; in Columbia Encyclopaedia as "William the Lion"; and in Britroyals as "King William I (the Lion) of Scotland". For the record, I don't know enough about the subject to cast a !vote of my own, and I remain neutral, but the community should decide what the name should be. Nightw 10:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
|
No consensus to move. Vegaswikian ( talk) 07:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
William the Lion → William I of Scotland — In response to recent move-warring on this page, I've lodged this move request in order to ascertain consensus regarding the article's title. Online encyclopaedias show divided useage: William is listed in Britannica as "William I (king of Scotland)"; in Columbia Encyclopaedia as "William the Lion"; and in Britroyals as "King William I (the Lion) of Scotland". Nightw 16:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's policy on article titles.This might be the first time, I've been in an RM to seek moving a page from its non-consented version (see Feb 2008 RM). But hopefully, this RM's ruling will be respected. GoodDay ( talk) 16:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Eek, the trend isn't looking favourable. GoodDay ( talk) 21:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: article not moved Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 05:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
William the Lion → William the Lyon – as an overwhelmingly used name for this king. Alison Weir also calls him "the Lyon" and a quick Google Books search turns this up:
So, per WP:NCROY, I propose this move.
Although we do have one very dated source to back this up, I am cautious about the claim that he ever touched for the king's evil. This practice was certainly not normal in Scotland, and even in France and England it is questionable whether it was practiced as early as this. PatGallacher ( talk) 14:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Either the birth date for William I or for Ada Fitz William are way off, or William fathered her around the age of 4. Unsure what the right answer is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Republicson ( talk • contribs) 15:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Mentioned husbands of:
It seems likely that the first one is wrong. -- Japarthur ( talk) 12:46, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
It seems like there is a lack of citation in the body of the article. There is not a citation in the life portion until seven paragraphs in the article. Jakegard ( talk) 04:36, 24 October 2017 (UTC) Jakegard ( talk) 04:36, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
I have removed the mention; see Talk:Taylor Swift for more information. Lectonar ( talk) 14:03, 11 March 2024 (UTC)