1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 7 sections are present. |
The result of the discussion is consensus in support of the proposal to update the guideline to explicitly endorse the use of shorter titles where no disambiguation is needed.
Discussion focused around article title WP:CRITERIA and current practices.
Based on the strength of argument from existing policy, and existing practices amongst editors, as well as the preponderance of opinions, there is a strong consensus to adopt the proposal.
I will point out that based on points raised in this discussion, the proposal is very much in line with existing policy, namely WP:CRITERIA. My own opinion is that it may benefit editors to have this guideline updated to better reflect that policy, rather than be laid out as "exceptions to exceptions" to that policy. It could be an opportunity to simplify the guideline. However that note is explicitly not an outcome of the discussion and just my own interpretation of the state of the guideline with respect to the discussion. ( non-admin closure) — siro χ o 09:46, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
For over a decade now the titles of articles about British monarchs have been at Elizabeth II, George VI, Edward VIII, etc. Likewise it has been 13 years since Maria Theresa of Austria was moved to Maria Theresa ( discussion) and Louis-Philippe I of France to Louis-Philippe I ( discussion), longer still since Napoleon I of France was abandoned for Napoleon. Three years ago the country qualifiers were dropped for titles such as Juan Carlos I and others ( discussion), Carl XVI Gustaf and others ( discussion), Elizabeth I ( discussion) and others, Louis XIV and others ( discussion), etc.
This year multiple attempts to move articles back to the Name Number of Country format failed: Alfonso XIII to Alfonso XIII of Spain and similar ( discussion), Napoleon III to Napoleon III of France and similar ( discussion), Elizabeth II to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom and similar ( discussion)
Should a point be added to WP:SOVEREIGNS to reflect these changes and explicitly endorse the use of shorter titles where no disambiguation is needed? Surtsicna ( talk) Surtsicna ( talk) 07:50, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
normally have article titles in the form "{Monarch's first name and ordinal} of {Country}") is misleading by omission. The community has upheld "{Monarch's first name and ordinal}" across a range of articles, a pattern which cannot be swept under the rug as exceptions. Even something as simple as, "in most cases, they have article titles of the form '{Monarch's first name and ordinal} of {Country}'...; in other cases, they have article titles of the form '{First name and ordinal}' (examples: Elizabeth II, Napoleon III)", would be a helpful start. I'm not proposing to bring back the overly rigid-sounding prescriptive language ("if xyz is unambiguous, use xyz") from 2–3 years ago. Rather, the problem is that the guideline should be more accurately descriptive of actual practice. Spending some words on this is not unnecessary creep; it's a significant point that has naturally arisen repeatedly. Adumbrativus ( talk) 11:27, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
the worst being that non-regnant queens are given more formality than regnant queens; why is that bad? I don’t understand your third sentence. Aaron Liu ( talk) 13:35, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Article titles should be recognizable, concise, natural, precise, and consistent, with "recognizable" defined as recognizable to people familiar with the subject. On preciseness it explicitly says
Saint Teresa of Calcutta is too precise, as Mother Teresa is precise enough to indicate exactly the same topic.So according to that policy we should just drop the origin unless there is a clear need to disambiguate, which I don't see with Queen Victoria. The other three are way less well-known than the one of the UK. Aaron Liu ( talk) 23:17, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
There is a real world convention, historically, for royalty to be suffixed “of country”. No there isn't. That's just an unsupported assertion. "George V of the United Kingdom". Nope. What you're missing is the regnal number does all the heavy lifting where there's no need for disambiguation. (Lack of a regnal number may be one of the circumstances where more is needed eg John, King of England.) Otherwise it's just clunky and pointless. DeCausa ( talk) 22:30, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
endorse the use of shorter titles where no disambiguation is needed(emphasis added). The arguments in favor seem to cite WP:CONSISTENT, which explicitly says
Wikipedians have consistently shown that consistency does not control: Disambiguation. For instance, just because Georgia (country) exists, there is no reason to have articles titled, for instance, Azerbaijan (country), Armenia (country), etc. This applies to natural disambiguation, as well; the existence of Querétaro City and Chihuahua City does not mean we have to retitle Guadalajara to Guadalajara City(emphasis in original). WP:CONCISE and WP:CONSISTENT say we should avoid unnecessary "of Country" disambiguation. House Blaster talk 20:11, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
NOTE A: This is my first time participating in an RfC. I apologize if I have done anything improperly, and I especially apologize if posting a rationale in this format is inappropriate. However, I am very passionate about the issue at hand, and I want to make my stance as clear and unambiguous as possible. NOTE B: The following argument is intended to speak only for my viewpoint on the subject of this RfC. I recognize that this issue is very contentious, and I have taken a stance on this matter, as I explain below. However, I will accept the outcome of this RfC, even if it is not my preferred one. In addition, I am aware that there are some other editors that agree with the opinions expressed below. However, I would like for these contributors to speak on their own behalf. Hurricane Andrew ( 444) 00:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
AndrewPeterT’s attempt to neutrally summarize the issueAs the nominator noted, there has been disagreement about what the appropriate title should be for certain European monarchs that have reigned since the end of the Middle Ages. At the core of this debate is an argument over whether WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:COMMONNAME or WP:NCROY and WP:CONSISTENT should take precedence when naming articles on European royalty and nobility. As illustrated in the RMs linked in the next section, both sides of the involved parties have cited WP:PRIMARYTOPIC/WP:COMMONNAME or WP:NCROY/WP:CONSISTENT to justify their reasonings to support their viewpoints. Hurricane Andrew ( 444) 00:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC) Evidence to illustrate that the RfC issue raised has indeed been contentious
As I will elaborate on later, the linked RMs show that neither the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC/WP:COMMONNAME camp nor the WP:NCROY/WP:CONSISTENT camp in this argument have a monopoly on article title naming for European sovereigns, other royals, and nobles. Hurricane Andrew ( 444) 00:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC) AndrewPeterT’s concise opinion on the RfC matterNo, titles such as Elizabeth II and Carl XVI Gustaf are unacceptable for English Wikipedia purposes and should not be explicitly accepted. These titles violate the spirit of WP:NCROY, WP:CONSISTENT, and all of the four other goals of WP:TITLE. Also, as I will argue later, even WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:COMMONNAME make a case for alternative names such as Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom and Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden. Furthermore, given the contentiousness of this RfC matter, WP:IAR should be invoked so that WP:NCROY and WP:CONSISTENT takes precedence when titling articles covered by the scope of WP:NCROY. If an arguable “primary topic” or “common name” exists for a given post-classical European royal or noble, that title can exist as a redirect to the given individual’s article. This practice has precedence on Wikipedia, as I will illustrate in a later section. Hurricane Andrew ( 444) 00:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC) Concessions to the opposition that AndrewPeterT will make
Therefore, for the following groups of royals and nobles, I will accept WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:COMMONNAME taking precedence over WP:NCROY in titling their articles, regardless of what is decided in this RfC:
However, once again, I do not accept WP:PRIMARYTOPIC or WP:COMMONNAME taking precedence over WP:NCROY or WP:CONSISTENT for post-classical European sovereigns, royals, or nobles for reasons that I will elaborate on in subsequent sections. Hurricane Andrew ( 444) 00:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC) WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NCROY, and WP:CONSISTENT are all guidelines, not rigid rulesOn multiple occasions, WP:PRINCIPLE makes the case that the four guidelines in the previous header are not Wikipedia laws:
With these quotes in mind, neither camp in this RfC debate, including my own side, can use our policy preferences to claim a monopoly on how article titles for European royals and nobles should be called. That being said, with certain accommodations, I will argue how WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:COMMONNAME cannot objectively “cover the context” that WP:NCROY describes. Hurricane Andrew ( 444) 00:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:COMMONNAME do not have the best interest of (European) royal and noble article titles in mindAs WP:PGE explains, a common misconception that Wikipedia users have is that a sitewide guideline takes precedence over a local one: (Emphasis mine) WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:COMMONNAME are both examples of a
Hurricane Andrew ( 444) 00:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC) There is no uniform way to adhere to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in general, and this is especially problematic for WP:NCROYSimply stated, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, as written, will never be conclusive when it comes to European royalty. This is supported by the fact that the guideline page mentions (at least) three times that no uniform definition of a primary topic exists:
In addition, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, via WP:DPT, lists several ways to determine a “primary topic”. However, all of these tools involve Internet resources, which is especially restrictive in the context of royalty and nobility. Even when only considering a European context, many sovereigns and nobles ruled before the advent of the Internet. There are likely lost written or verbal manuscripts, speeches, and other primary/secondary sources over the centuries that may indicate a “primary” term could have referred to a different ruler than what Internet results may indicate. Moreover, in the spirit of WP:BIAS, the tools listed in WP:DPT exclude the perspectives of people that do not have access to Internet and can preclude users from checking online documents that have a paywall. Consequently, entire groups of individuals’ “primary” usage of a term are disregarded via these resources, and this is against the mission of Wikipedia. Given that monarchs and their royal relatives are especially pertinent symbols of unity for a nation or sovereign state, every perspective should be brought to the table, especially of those without Internet. In other words, namely for monarchs that share regnal names and numbers, we should not be omitting country names from article titles until those without Internet and otherwise excluded by WP:DPT’s resources have equitable access to voice their opinions on primary topics on Wikipedia to get a truly conclusive debate. Hurricane Andrew ( 444) 00:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC) Example of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC being (very) inconclusive: The simultaneous case of Albert II To make it extremely clear how WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is flawed in the realm of WP:NCROY, consider the following situation. At the start of the 2010s, Monaco and Belgium were both ruled by monarchs named Albert II. Suppose that Wikipedia community tried to determine a “primary topic” for Albert II. There are useful arguments that could be made for either Albert II taking that article title per se. On one hand,
On the other hand,
Evidently, in this situation, the Wikipedia community could choose a legitimate primary topic for Albert II for either sovereign. However, for the bolded reasons for each monarch, Wikipedia could perceived as being nationalistic toward either Belgium or Monaco by the opposing parties. Again, given how prominent European royals are to national unity, Wikipedia runs the same risk of nationalist accusations when moving any article title on a monarch so that a country name is excluded. Hurricane Andrew ( 444) 00:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
It’s not just about WP:CONSISTENT, it’s about all of the other goals of WP:TITLEWhen I requested that Elizabeth II’s article title be moved to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, I made the following argument in my rationale:
Simply stated, consistency sets the tone for all other goals of WP:TITLE to be met. For example, If a reader has just read Wikipedia’s article on Margrethe II of Denmark and knows that her first cousin, Carl XVI Gustaf, rules over Sweden, would they not type in Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden into the search bar next per Criterion 5 of WP:TITLE? (In any case, in the spirit of Criterion 2 of WP:TITLE, “Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden” was more natural for me to type than “Carl XVI Gustaf”, and this will likely be the case for at least some other readers.) Moreover, I hope that we can all agree that titles like “Margrethe II of Denmark” and “Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden” unambiguously define who those monarchs are, per Criterion 3 of WP:TITLE. Furthermore, reflecting Criterion 4 of WP:TITLE, there should be agreement that “Margrethe II” and “Carl XVI Gustaf” do not tell the reader anything about the realms these cousins ruled over. Finally, per Criterion 1 of WP:TITLE, “Margrethe II of Denmark” and “Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden” should tell readers that they are about to read about some royal just as effectively as “Margrethe II” and “Carl XVI Gustaf” would. Hurricane Andrew ( 444) 00:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Evidence of omitting a monarch’s country from the article title being challenged by the communityFor this section, I would like to direct readers’ attention to what happened after the community moved George III (of the United Kingdom)’s article to its current target (I also cited this RM in my RM for Elizabeth II’s article title). Multiple policy-based oppositions quickly emerged. Although I did not participate in this move discussion, I completely agree with the sentiments of the users that challenged the move for George III. Moreover, the opposition expressed on George III’s article talk was a key reason I initiated the RM for Elizabeth II and the other deceased British monarchs’ articles last July. Hurricane Andrew ( 444) 00:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC) Evidence of WP:TITLE itself deferring to WP:NCROYIf it is not convincing enough that WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC either do not take a stance or even overtly discourage this new trend in titling European monarchs’ articles, perhaps these four quotes from WP:TITLE should settle some concerns:
Hurricane Andrew ( 444) 00:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC) Final thoughts by AndrewPeterT
Side issues that AndrewPeterT believes the community also needs to address
These are simply the top three concerns I personally have about WP:NCROY. For the sake of everyone’s focus, I will refrain from commenting on more matters until this RfC is resolved. Hurricane Andrew ( 444) 00:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC) APPENDIX A: Evidence of omitting a monarch’s country from the article title violating the spirit of WP:CONSISTENT, and by extension, WP:TITLEI respect that multiple users believe that article title formats like Elizabeth II is more in the spirit of WP:COMMONNAME. However, WP:COMMONNAME must be balanced against WP:CONSISTENT, WP:PRECISION, and WP:NPOVTITLE. An analysis of the titles of various sovereigns of current European monarchs shows how WP:CONSISTENT and WP:PRECISION are being disregarded for the sake of adhering to WP:COMMONNAME: NOTES: First, to avoid overwhelming readers not familiar with European royalty, rulers of former monarchies are excluded. Also, as alluded to previously, sovereigns of the Vatican City are excluded because they are popes instead covered by WP:NCCL. Furthermore, the Presidents of France and Bishops of Urgell, the Co-Princes of Andorra, are excluded because they are instead subjected to WP:NCP and WP:NCCL, respectively. Monarchs of Belgium All sovereigns that have reigned since Belgium’s independence from the Netherlands in 1830 are included.
Monarchs of Denmark All sovereigns that have reigned since the establishment of the Danish House of Glücksburg in 1863 are included.
Monarchs of the Netherlands All sovereigns that have reigned since the establishment of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in 1815 are included.
Monarchs of Norway All sovereigns that have reigned since the dissolution of the personal union of Norway with Sweden in 1905 are included.
Monarchs of Spain All sovereigns that have reigned in Spain since the establishment of the House of Bourbon-Anjou in 1700 are included, excluding monarchs from other royal houses.
Monarchs of Sweden All sovereigns that have reigned in Sweden since the establishment of the House of Bernadotte in 1818 are included.
Monarchs of Great Britain or the United Kingdom All sovereigns that have reigned since the unification of the Kingdoms of England and Scotland in 1707 are included.
Monarchs of Luxembourg All sovereigns that have reigned since the dissolution of the personal union of Luxembourg with the Netherlands in 1890 are included.
Sovereign Princes of Liechtenstein
Rulers of Monaco Sovereigns since Monaco became a principality in 1633 are listed, excluding periods of occupation.
Hurricane Andrew ( 444) 00:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC) APPENDIX B: Evidence of WP:COMMONNAME already being disregarded for multiple European royals (and WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT being used)As I have mentioned, some users have argued WP:COMMONNAME. However, as I will demonstrate in this section, it is already a precedent that WP:NCROY supersedes WP:COMMONNAME when it comes to naming English Wikipedia articles on royals. Below, I have listed select princes and princesses from five current European monarchies. Moreover, using Google search results, I show that each of their Wikipedia article titles are less common than some alternatives but are still used regardless. I see no reason why monarchs’ titles should not follow the same trend in the spirit of WP:CONSISTENT:
|
Well, the RMs are popping up & a few unilatteral page moves have begun, in these last few weeks. GoodDay ( talk) 19:13, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
In light of the RfC about changing this guideline to endorse concise titles such as Elizabeth II, I have proposed several moves regarding articles about English kings (from Edward I to Edward V). Please see Talk:Edward I#Requested move 5 November 2023. Surtsicna ( talk) 19:47, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
I'm curious. Seeing as (since the recently closed RFC) more RMs (if they're still used) will result in more monarch bio page titles having "of country" removed. One wonders, are the consorts & royals in line of succession to thrones, to be next?
Examples -
Queen Letizia of Spain changed to Queen Letizia
Princess Ingrid Alexandra of Norway to Princess Ingrid Alexandra
Haakon, Crown Prince of Norway to Crown Prince Haakon
Victoria, Crown Princess of Sweden to Crown Princess Victoria
This does appear to be the growing trend.
GoodDay (
talk) 17:58, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
With all due respect to the previous RFC on naming of monarch bios. Why hasn't anyone ever suggested going with Name # (country) style, for those that won't end up as Name # style? Must admit, it would shorten the article title. GoodDay ( talk) 20:49, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
There is a plethora of monarchical names being closed over the strong opposition of the community, citing the recently-changed RFC above. This is causing severe disruption of long-stable article titles across Wikipedia.
The recent closure of the RM on Ferdinand VI of Spain over vigorous and overwhelming opposition seems to indicate that wider community opinion is not in line with the recently-changed guidelines. Neither I, nor many others, were aware nor participated in this RFC.
Most of these pages has been stable for 20 years - never proposed to move. That is an indicator of wider community consensus than the few people that happen to monitor the NCROY page. The RfC change slipped through on a 12-8 vote. The Ferdinand VI of Spain was opposed on 8-3, a bigger margin. It seems to me anomalous that a small group can engineer and overturn a long-term wider community consensus by ramming through a change in a guideline page, that affects a massive amount of pages, destabilizing Wikipedia and overriding long-standing community consensus. The wider community's opinion should not be treated as irrelevant because it was not expressed in the right location and right time.
It has been recommended that I should take this up here. So I would request the RFC be re-opened, and the matter revisited, so the wider community can participate. Walrasiad ( talk) 06:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Based on the strength of argument from existing policy [...] there is a strong consensus to adopt the proposal.Likewise, for the specific example you mention ( Ferdinand VI), the closer noted that
none of the Oppose votes are actually based in policy.
Going through the post-RFC multiple RMs in progress & closed. It appears the RFC-in-question's decision, isn't proving to be easily applied. GoodDay ( talk) 00:08, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedians must place the interests of the encyclopedia and its readers above personal concerns. It is the interest of readers that is precisely what is driving the concerns about this. Because most do not see this change as beneficial to readers, but rather as detrimental to them. This RFC was driven through by a handful of royal enthusiasts who happen to watch this page. It ignored the wider Wikipedia community, and did not take the interests of readers into consideration. That is what needs to be addressed.
Personally, I am getting extremely fed up of articles on the ENGLISH Wikipedia getting moved to non-English names. Royalty and nobility articles are extremely inconsistent in the titling of their pages. On Wikipedia, the title of all monarchs' articles used to be "Name of [country]". Nowadays, different articles, very particularly those of the Spanish and Danish monarchs, have dropped the "of [country]". Why? The reason that "of the United Kingdom" is not included after British monarchs is because this is the English Wikipedia and for much of the English-speaking world (the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc.), the British monarchs are the monarchs! Not Isabella II or Frederik X. - Therealscorp1an ( talk) 22:35, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
just because Georgia (country) exists, there is no reason to have articles titled, for instance, Azerbaijan (country), Armenia (country), etc. This applies to natural disambiguation, as well; the existence of Querétaro City and Chihuahua City does not mean we have to retitle Guadalajara to Guadalajara City). For example, Jimbo II should not be at Jimbo II of Wikipedia solely because of how Jimbo I of Wikipedia is titled. House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 15:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
A summary of Talk:Prince_Harry,_Duke_of_Sussex#Proper_title_correction_needed.,
It is confused by Wikipedia:Official names#Common_name, since he continues to be called "Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex" or "Prince Harry": Newsweek, CNN, Royal Observer.
Would you please help us sort out the correct article title for Harry?– CaroleHenson ( talk) 20:07, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
sons & sons of sons of British monarchs, with ducal titles, like one of the four examples provided,
Prince Edward, Duke of Kent
During the Middle Ages, many Polish sovereigns were never crowned, and as such only used the title of "duke" or "high duke" for their entire reign. However these rulers still ruled over the Kingdom of Poland, just without the title of king. For these rulers, which format should be used: X, Duke of Poland" or X of Poland? UmbrellaTheLeef ( talk) 07:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
As the guideline is biased towards Europe as is most of Wikipedia, and restricts its coverage of non-European monarchs to a few bullet points essentially saying "there is no convention, look at WP:AT", I think this guideline's title should be changed to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (European royalty and nobility). Thoughts? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 15:56, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
SOVEREIGN point 2 says "Use the most common, unambiguous name," and point 3 says "Only use a territorial designation (e.g. country) when disambiguation is needed." Sometimes, the most common name in English sources uses a territorial designation. Point 3 should be changed to "Only use a territorial designation (e.g. country) when disambiguation is needed or the name with the territorial designation is the most commonly recognizable name in line with WP:COMMONNAME. -- JFHutson ( talk) 16:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves § Adding hyphens to French personal names. Ham II ( talk) 05:37, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Closed early in the light of universal opposition and the opening editor blocked as a sock puppet. Celia Homeford ( talk) 13:07, 7 May 2024 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
RfC: Policy clarification/ change for WP:NCBRITPEER Should the policy for WP:NCBRITPEER be clarified/ changed? UnicornSherbert ( talk) 13:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
|
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) § Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) - RfC drafting for reversion of the November 2023 change. Rosbif73 ( talk) 07:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 7 sections are present. |
The result of the discussion is consensus in support of the proposal to update the guideline to explicitly endorse the use of shorter titles where no disambiguation is needed.
Discussion focused around article title WP:CRITERIA and current practices.
Based on the strength of argument from existing policy, and existing practices amongst editors, as well as the preponderance of opinions, there is a strong consensus to adopt the proposal.
I will point out that based on points raised in this discussion, the proposal is very much in line with existing policy, namely WP:CRITERIA. My own opinion is that it may benefit editors to have this guideline updated to better reflect that policy, rather than be laid out as "exceptions to exceptions" to that policy. It could be an opportunity to simplify the guideline. However that note is explicitly not an outcome of the discussion and just my own interpretation of the state of the guideline with respect to the discussion. ( non-admin closure) — siro χ o 09:46, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
For over a decade now the titles of articles about British monarchs have been at Elizabeth II, George VI, Edward VIII, etc. Likewise it has been 13 years since Maria Theresa of Austria was moved to Maria Theresa ( discussion) and Louis-Philippe I of France to Louis-Philippe I ( discussion), longer still since Napoleon I of France was abandoned for Napoleon. Three years ago the country qualifiers were dropped for titles such as Juan Carlos I and others ( discussion), Carl XVI Gustaf and others ( discussion), Elizabeth I ( discussion) and others, Louis XIV and others ( discussion), etc.
This year multiple attempts to move articles back to the Name Number of Country format failed: Alfonso XIII to Alfonso XIII of Spain and similar ( discussion), Napoleon III to Napoleon III of France and similar ( discussion), Elizabeth II to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom and similar ( discussion)
Should a point be added to WP:SOVEREIGNS to reflect these changes and explicitly endorse the use of shorter titles where no disambiguation is needed? Surtsicna ( talk) Surtsicna ( talk) 07:50, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
normally have article titles in the form "{Monarch's first name and ordinal} of {Country}") is misleading by omission. The community has upheld "{Monarch's first name and ordinal}" across a range of articles, a pattern which cannot be swept under the rug as exceptions. Even something as simple as, "in most cases, they have article titles of the form '{Monarch's first name and ordinal} of {Country}'...; in other cases, they have article titles of the form '{First name and ordinal}' (examples: Elizabeth II, Napoleon III)", would be a helpful start. I'm not proposing to bring back the overly rigid-sounding prescriptive language ("if xyz is unambiguous, use xyz") from 2–3 years ago. Rather, the problem is that the guideline should be more accurately descriptive of actual practice. Spending some words on this is not unnecessary creep; it's a significant point that has naturally arisen repeatedly. Adumbrativus ( talk) 11:27, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
the worst being that non-regnant queens are given more formality than regnant queens; why is that bad? I don’t understand your third sentence. Aaron Liu ( talk) 13:35, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Article titles should be recognizable, concise, natural, precise, and consistent, with "recognizable" defined as recognizable to people familiar with the subject. On preciseness it explicitly says
Saint Teresa of Calcutta is too precise, as Mother Teresa is precise enough to indicate exactly the same topic.So according to that policy we should just drop the origin unless there is a clear need to disambiguate, which I don't see with Queen Victoria. The other three are way less well-known than the one of the UK. Aaron Liu ( talk) 23:17, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
There is a real world convention, historically, for royalty to be suffixed “of country”. No there isn't. That's just an unsupported assertion. "George V of the United Kingdom". Nope. What you're missing is the regnal number does all the heavy lifting where there's no need for disambiguation. (Lack of a regnal number may be one of the circumstances where more is needed eg John, King of England.) Otherwise it's just clunky and pointless. DeCausa ( talk) 22:30, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
endorse the use of shorter titles where no disambiguation is needed(emphasis added). The arguments in favor seem to cite WP:CONSISTENT, which explicitly says
Wikipedians have consistently shown that consistency does not control: Disambiguation. For instance, just because Georgia (country) exists, there is no reason to have articles titled, for instance, Azerbaijan (country), Armenia (country), etc. This applies to natural disambiguation, as well; the existence of Querétaro City and Chihuahua City does not mean we have to retitle Guadalajara to Guadalajara City(emphasis in original). WP:CONCISE and WP:CONSISTENT say we should avoid unnecessary "of Country" disambiguation. House Blaster talk 20:11, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
NOTE A: This is my first time participating in an RfC. I apologize if I have done anything improperly, and I especially apologize if posting a rationale in this format is inappropriate. However, I am very passionate about the issue at hand, and I want to make my stance as clear and unambiguous as possible. NOTE B: The following argument is intended to speak only for my viewpoint on the subject of this RfC. I recognize that this issue is very contentious, and I have taken a stance on this matter, as I explain below. However, I will accept the outcome of this RfC, even if it is not my preferred one. In addition, I am aware that there are some other editors that agree with the opinions expressed below. However, I would like for these contributors to speak on their own behalf. Hurricane Andrew ( 444) 00:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
AndrewPeterT’s attempt to neutrally summarize the issueAs the nominator noted, there has been disagreement about what the appropriate title should be for certain European monarchs that have reigned since the end of the Middle Ages. At the core of this debate is an argument over whether WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:COMMONNAME or WP:NCROY and WP:CONSISTENT should take precedence when naming articles on European royalty and nobility. As illustrated in the RMs linked in the next section, both sides of the involved parties have cited WP:PRIMARYTOPIC/WP:COMMONNAME or WP:NCROY/WP:CONSISTENT to justify their reasonings to support their viewpoints. Hurricane Andrew ( 444) 00:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC) Evidence to illustrate that the RfC issue raised has indeed been contentious
As I will elaborate on later, the linked RMs show that neither the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC/WP:COMMONNAME camp nor the WP:NCROY/WP:CONSISTENT camp in this argument have a monopoly on article title naming for European sovereigns, other royals, and nobles. Hurricane Andrew ( 444) 00:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC) AndrewPeterT’s concise opinion on the RfC matterNo, titles such as Elizabeth II and Carl XVI Gustaf are unacceptable for English Wikipedia purposes and should not be explicitly accepted. These titles violate the spirit of WP:NCROY, WP:CONSISTENT, and all of the four other goals of WP:TITLE. Also, as I will argue later, even WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:COMMONNAME make a case for alternative names such as Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom and Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden. Furthermore, given the contentiousness of this RfC matter, WP:IAR should be invoked so that WP:NCROY and WP:CONSISTENT takes precedence when titling articles covered by the scope of WP:NCROY. If an arguable “primary topic” or “common name” exists for a given post-classical European royal or noble, that title can exist as a redirect to the given individual’s article. This practice has precedence on Wikipedia, as I will illustrate in a later section. Hurricane Andrew ( 444) 00:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC) Concessions to the opposition that AndrewPeterT will make
Therefore, for the following groups of royals and nobles, I will accept WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:COMMONNAME taking precedence over WP:NCROY in titling their articles, regardless of what is decided in this RfC:
However, once again, I do not accept WP:PRIMARYTOPIC or WP:COMMONNAME taking precedence over WP:NCROY or WP:CONSISTENT for post-classical European sovereigns, royals, or nobles for reasons that I will elaborate on in subsequent sections. Hurricane Andrew ( 444) 00:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC) WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NCROY, and WP:CONSISTENT are all guidelines, not rigid rulesOn multiple occasions, WP:PRINCIPLE makes the case that the four guidelines in the previous header are not Wikipedia laws:
With these quotes in mind, neither camp in this RfC debate, including my own side, can use our policy preferences to claim a monopoly on how article titles for European royals and nobles should be called. That being said, with certain accommodations, I will argue how WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:COMMONNAME cannot objectively “cover the context” that WP:NCROY describes. Hurricane Andrew ( 444) 00:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:COMMONNAME do not have the best interest of (European) royal and noble article titles in mindAs WP:PGE explains, a common misconception that Wikipedia users have is that a sitewide guideline takes precedence over a local one: (Emphasis mine) WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:COMMONNAME are both examples of a
Hurricane Andrew ( 444) 00:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC) There is no uniform way to adhere to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in general, and this is especially problematic for WP:NCROYSimply stated, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, as written, will never be conclusive when it comes to European royalty. This is supported by the fact that the guideline page mentions (at least) three times that no uniform definition of a primary topic exists:
In addition, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, via WP:DPT, lists several ways to determine a “primary topic”. However, all of these tools involve Internet resources, which is especially restrictive in the context of royalty and nobility. Even when only considering a European context, many sovereigns and nobles ruled before the advent of the Internet. There are likely lost written or verbal manuscripts, speeches, and other primary/secondary sources over the centuries that may indicate a “primary” term could have referred to a different ruler than what Internet results may indicate. Moreover, in the spirit of WP:BIAS, the tools listed in WP:DPT exclude the perspectives of people that do not have access to Internet and can preclude users from checking online documents that have a paywall. Consequently, entire groups of individuals’ “primary” usage of a term are disregarded via these resources, and this is against the mission of Wikipedia. Given that monarchs and their royal relatives are especially pertinent symbols of unity for a nation or sovereign state, every perspective should be brought to the table, especially of those without Internet. In other words, namely for monarchs that share regnal names and numbers, we should not be omitting country names from article titles until those without Internet and otherwise excluded by WP:DPT’s resources have equitable access to voice their opinions on primary topics on Wikipedia to get a truly conclusive debate. Hurricane Andrew ( 444) 00:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC) Example of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC being (very) inconclusive: The simultaneous case of Albert II To make it extremely clear how WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is flawed in the realm of WP:NCROY, consider the following situation. At the start of the 2010s, Monaco and Belgium were both ruled by monarchs named Albert II. Suppose that Wikipedia community tried to determine a “primary topic” for Albert II. There are useful arguments that could be made for either Albert II taking that article title per se. On one hand,
On the other hand,
Evidently, in this situation, the Wikipedia community could choose a legitimate primary topic for Albert II for either sovereign. However, for the bolded reasons for each monarch, Wikipedia could perceived as being nationalistic toward either Belgium or Monaco by the opposing parties. Again, given how prominent European royals are to national unity, Wikipedia runs the same risk of nationalist accusations when moving any article title on a monarch so that a country name is excluded. Hurricane Andrew ( 444) 00:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
It’s not just about WP:CONSISTENT, it’s about all of the other goals of WP:TITLEWhen I requested that Elizabeth II’s article title be moved to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, I made the following argument in my rationale:
Simply stated, consistency sets the tone for all other goals of WP:TITLE to be met. For example, If a reader has just read Wikipedia’s article on Margrethe II of Denmark and knows that her first cousin, Carl XVI Gustaf, rules over Sweden, would they not type in Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden into the search bar next per Criterion 5 of WP:TITLE? (In any case, in the spirit of Criterion 2 of WP:TITLE, “Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden” was more natural for me to type than “Carl XVI Gustaf”, and this will likely be the case for at least some other readers.) Moreover, I hope that we can all agree that titles like “Margrethe II of Denmark” and “Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden” unambiguously define who those monarchs are, per Criterion 3 of WP:TITLE. Furthermore, reflecting Criterion 4 of WP:TITLE, there should be agreement that “Margrethe II” and “Carl XVI Gustaf” do not tell the reader anything about the realms these cousins ruled over. Finally, per Criterion 1 of WP:TITLE, “Margrethe II of Denmark” and “Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden” should tell readers that they are about to read about some royal just as effectively as “Margrethe II” and “Carl XVI Gustaf” would. Hurricane Andrew ( 444) 00:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Evidence of omitting a monarch’s country from the article title being challenged by the communityFor this section, I would like to direct readers’ attention to what happened after the community moved George III (of the United Kingdom)’s article to its current target (I also cited this RM in my RM for Elizabeth II’s article title). Multiple policy-based oppositions quickly emerged. Although I did not participate in this move discussion, I completely agree with the sentiments of the users that challenged the move for George III. Moreover, the opposition expressed on George III’s article talk was a key reason I initiated the RM for Elizabeth II and the other deceased British monarchs’ articles last July. Hurricane Andrew ( 444) 00:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC) Evidence of WP:TITLE itself deferring to WP:NCROYIf it is not convincing enough that WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC either do not take a stance or even overtly discourage this new trend in titling European monarchs’ articles, perhaps these four quotes from WP:TITLE should settle some concerns:
Hurricane Andrew ( 444) 00:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC) Final thoughts by AndrewPeterT
Side issues that AndrewPeterT believes the community also needs to address
These are simply the top three concerns I personally have about WP:NCROY. For the sake of everyone’s focus, I will refrain from commenting on more matters until this RfC is resolved. Hurricane Andrew ( 444) 00:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC) APPENDIX A: Evidence of omitting a monarch’s country from the article title violating the spirit of WP:CONSISTENT, and by extension, WP:TITLEI respect that multiple users believe that article title formats like Elizabeth II is more in the spirit of WP:COMMONNAME. However, WP:COMMONNAME must be balanced against WP:CONSISTENT, WP:PRECISION, and WP:NPOVTITLE. An analysis of the titles of various sovereigns of current European monarchs shows how WP:CONSISTENT and WP:PRECISION are being disregarded for the sake of adhering to WP:COMMONNAME: NOTES: First, to avoid overwhelming readers not familiar with European royalty, rulers of former monarchies are excluded. Also, as alluded to previously, sovereigns of the Vatican City are excluded because they are popes instead covered by WP:NCCL. Furthermore, the Presidents of France and Bishops of Urgell, the Co-Princes of Andorra, are excluded because they are instead subjected to WP:NCP and WP:NCCL, respectively. Monarchs of Belgium All sovereigns that have reigned since Belgium’s independence from the Netherlands in 1830 are included.
Monarchs of Denmark All sovereigns that have reigned since the establishment of the Danish House of Glücksburg in 1863 are included.
Monarchs of the Netherlands All sovereigns that have reigned since the establishment of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in 1815 are included.
Monarchs of Norway All sovereigns that have reigned since the dissolution of the personal union of Norway with Sweden in 1905 are included.
Monarchs of Spain All sovereigns that have reigned in Spain since the establishment of the House of Bourbon-Anjou in 1700 are included, excluding monarchs from other royal houses.
Monarchs of Sweden All sovereigns that have reigned in Sweden since the establishment of the House of Bernadotte in 1818 are included.
Monarchs of Great Britain or the United Kingdom All sovereigns that have reigned since the unification of the Kingdoms of England and Scotland in 1707 are included.
Monarchs of Luxembourg All sovereigns that have reigned since the dissolution of the personal union of Luxembourg with the Netherlands in 1890 are included.
Sovereign Princes of Liechtenstein
Rulers of Monaco Sovereigns since Monaco became a principality in 1633 are listed, excluding periods of occupation.
Hurricane Andrew ( 444) 00:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC) APPENDIX B: Evidence of WP:COMMONNAME already being disregarded for multiple European royals (and WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT being used)As I have mentioned, some users have argued WP:COMMONNAME. However, as I will demonstrate in this section, it is already a precedent that WP:NCROY supersedes WP:COMMONNAME when it comes to naming English Wikipedia articles on royals. Below, I have listed select princes and princesses from five current European monarchies. Moreover, using Google search results, I show that each of their Wikipedia article titles are less common than some alternatives but are still used regardless. I see no reason why monarchs’ titles should not follow the same trend in the spirit of WP:CONSISTENT:
|
Well, the RMs are popping up & a few unilatteral page moves have begun, in these last few weeks. GoodDay ( talk) 19:13, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
In light of the RfC about changing this guideline to endorse concise titles such as Elizabeth II, I have proposed several moves regarding articles about English kings (from Edward I to Edward V). Please see Talk:Edward I#Requested move 5 November 2023. Surtsicna ( talk) 19:47, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
I'm curious. Seeing as (since the recently closed RFC) more RMs (if they're still used) will result in more monarch bio page titles having "of country" removed. One wonders, are the consorts & royals in line of succession to thrones, to be next?
Examples -
Queen Letizia of Spain changed to Queen Letizia
Princess Ingrid Alexandra of Norway to Princess Ingrid Alexandra
Haakon, Crown Prince of Norway to Crown Prince Haakon
Victoria, Crown Princess of Sweden to Crown Princess Victoria
This does appear to be the growing trend.
GoodDay (
talk) 17:58, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
With all due respect to the previous RFC on naming of monarch bios. Why hasn't anyone ever suggested going with Name # (country) style, for those that won't end up as Name # style? Must admit, it would shorten the article title. GoodDay ( talk) 20:49, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
There is a plethora of monarchical names being closed over the strong opposition of the community, citing the recently-changed RFC above. This is causing severe disruption of long-stable article titles across Wikipedia.
The recent closure of the RM on Ferdinand VI of Spain over vigorous and overwhelming opposition seems to indicate that wider community opinion is not in line with the recently-changed guidelines. Neither I, nor many others, were aware nor participated in this RFC.
Most of these pages has been stable for 20 years - never proposed to move. That is an indicator of wider community consensus than the few people that happen to monitor the NCROY page. The RfC change slipped through on a 12-8 vote. The Ferdinand VI of Spain was opposed on 8-3, a bigger margin. It seems to me anomalous that a small group can engineer and overturn a long-term wider community consensus by ramming through a change in a guideline page, that affects a massive amount of pages, destabilizing Wikipedia and overriding long-standing community consensus. The wider community's opinion should not be treated as irrelevant because it was not expressed in the right location and right time.
It has been recommended that I should take this up here. So I would request the RFC be re-opened, and the matter revisited, so the wider community can participate. Walrasiad ( talk) 06:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Based on the strength of argument from existing policy [...] there is a strong consensus to adopt the proposal.Likewise, for the specific example you mention ( Ferdinand VI), the closer noted that
none of the Oppose votes are actually based in policy.
Going through the post-RFC multiple RMs in progress & closed. It appears the RFC-in-question's decision, isn't proving to be easily applied. GoodDay ( talk) 00:08, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedians must place the interests of the encyclopedia and its readers above personal concerns. It is the interest of readers that is precisely what is driving the concerns about this. Because most do not see this change as beneficial to readers, but rather as detrimental to them. This RFC was driven through by a handful of royal enthusiasts who happen to watch this page. It ignored the wider Wikipedia community, and did not take the interests of readers into consideration. That is what needs to be addressed.
Personally, I am getting extremely fed up of articles on the ENGLISH Wikipedia getting moved to non-English names. Royalty and nobility articles are extremely inconsistent in the titling of their pages. On Wikipedia, the title of all monarchs' articles used to be "Name of [country]". Nowadays, different articles, very particularly those of the Spanish and Danish monarchs, have dropped the "of [country]". Why? The reason that "of the United Kingdom" is not included after British monarchs is because this is the English Wikipedia and for much of the English-speaking world (the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc.), the British monarchs are the monarchs! Not Isabella II or Frederik X. - Therealscorp1an ( talk) 22:35, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
just because Georgia (country) exists, there is no reason to have articles titled, for instance, Azerbaijan (country), Armenia (country), etc. This applies to natural disambiguation, as well; the existence of Querétaro City and Chihuahua City does not mean we have to retitle Guadalajara to Guadalajara City). For example, Jimbo II should not be at Jimbo II of Wikipedia solely because of how Jimbo I of Wikipedia is titled. House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 15:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
A summary of Talk:Prince_Harry,_Duke_of_Sussex#Proper_title_correction_needed.,
It is confused by Wikipedia:Official names#Common_name, since he continues to be called "Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex" or "Prince Harry": Newsweek, CNN, Royal Observer.
Would you please help us sort out the correct article title for Harry?– CaroleHenson ( talk) 20:07, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
sons & sons of sons of British monarchs, with ducal titles, like one of the four examples provided,
Prince Edward, Duke of Kent
During the Middle Ages, many Polish sovereigns were never crowned, and as such only used the title of "duke" or "high duke" for their entire reign. However these rulers still ruled over the Kingdom of Poland, just without the title of king. For these rulers, which format should be used: X, Duke of Poland" or X of Poland? UmbrellaTheLeef ( talk) 07:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
As the guideline is biased towards Europe as is most of Wikipedia, and restricts its coverage of non-European monarchs to a few bullet points essentially saying "there is no convention, look at WP:AT", I think this guideline's title should be changed to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (European royalty and nobility). Thoughts? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 15:56, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
SOVEREIGN point 2 says "Use the most common, unambiguous name," and point 3 says "Only use a territorial designation (e.g. country) when disambiguation is needed." Sometimes, the most common name in English sources uses a territorial designation. Point 3 should be changed to "Only use a territorial designation (e.g. country) when disambiguation is needed or the name with the territorial designation is the most commonly recognizable name in line with WP:COMMONNAME. -- JFHutson ( talk) 16:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves § Adding hyphens to French personal names. Ham II ( talk) 05:37, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Closed early in the light of universal opposition and the opening editor blocked as a sock puppet. Celia Homeford ( talk) 13:07, 7 May 2024 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
RfC: Policy clarification/ change for WP:NCBRITPEER Should the policy for WP:NCBRITPEER be clarified/ changed? UnicornSherbert ( talk) 13:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
|
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) § Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) - RfC drafting for reversion of the November 2023 change. Rosbif73 ( talk) 07:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)