THIS IS NOT A LIVE POLL YET - PLEASE DO NOT VOTE. (However, for the record, some votes which were placed prematurely due to misunderstanding are recorded here.)
Premature votes
|
---|
1. usually (rather than always). 2b: this conforms to the accepted format for British peers, but I would be happy with either. 3b (but the 3a form should be a redirect). Though I am British, since WP is international to adopt 3c would apply a GB-centric POV. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
1b, 2b, 3a. The "Considerations" listed above as the main rationales pro and con are not, imho, balanced because they seem to assume that the status quo is ipso facto deemed an argument by its advocates and thus inadvertently tilt in favor of certain proposed changes to the status quo (which are given fuller justifications), although clearly Peterkingiron made a good faith attempt. IMO, the stongest argument pro 2b is that substantive titles usually take a recognizable format that distinguishes them (as unique) from titles shared by all children of a ruler (e.g. the titles of two living brothers, Hans Adam II, Prince of Liechtenstein vs. Prince Nikolaus of Liechtenstein). The stongest argument con 3b, 3c and 3d is that they implicitly establish the precedent that "prevalent usage" may be disallowed for article titles because some editors object to it as POV (and I happen not to buy the argument that "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom" is not prevalent, since I consider that "Elizabeth II" is predominantly used as shorthand specifically for "of England", "of Great Britain" or "of the United Kingdom" -- only the latter of which is currently a realm). FactStraight ( talk) 21:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC) 1a, 3a SergeWoodzing ( talk) 22:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC) 1a, 3b and 3d. I have removed the 'Considerations' from the vote, they were biased and unnecessary. I doubt anyone will vote without familiarising themselves with the arguments put forward on the main talk debate; the presence of the section was like placing political advertising on the ballot paper itself. PS: I've also fixed up what I think was a duplicate option, and rephrased 3c slightly more clearly, hopefully without disrupting existing votes. Diff — what a crazy random happenstance 04:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC) |
Considerations for question 1) ("When should the word "King" or "Queen" be included in the title?")
Considerations for question 2) ("If the word "King" or "Queen" is to be included in the title, where should it go?")
Considerations for question 3) ("When should the realm be omitted?")
I readded the considerations here (since someone thinks it's biased to have them on the poll page, though I thought I'd done them pretty neutrally, and they could still be edited). Please still feel free to edit them, even though they're on the talk page now.-- Kotniski ( talk) 08:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
If we're going to have a poll, I think that we really should not be voting on each issue separately. We should try to have the general solution which engenders the most support, not the solution to each separate question which does, as that might lead to a general solution nobody likes. john k ( talk) 21:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
I take issue with the idea that 1(c) "ensures consistent titles and avoids the artificial constructions, but leads to loss of conciseness." Since some consorts do include the title "Queen", this will introduce some ambiguity and could lead to a lack of consistency. Deb ( talk) 12:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I originally had two separate options under realm-dropping (one for sole topic, one for primary topic), as in the previous discussion someone was proposing replacing "primary" by "sole/unique", so people may want to vote for sole topic only. Why were these two combined?-- Kotniski ( talk) 08:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
May I ask what you intend to do with this section? I think it should not be used in the vote due to unavoidable bias, and it should probably be removed or hidden from this talk too. — what a crazy random happenstance 11:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
If we adopt article names like Elizabeth II, James I, Gustav III etc, could we consider aswell Henry III (England), Henry III (France), Henry III (Holy Roman Empire) (for example) for the monarchs with indentical names/regnal numbers? GoodDay ( talk) 16:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Since the community seems to have other things on its mind at the moment, and this page isn't attracting any debate, I propose leaving it for now, possibly to return to at a later time. In any case, that's what I intend to do, although if anyone else wants to pick this up and run with it, feel free.-- Kotniski ( talk) 13:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Where is choice d) - "Follow the usage of the majority of English-language sources"? OrangeDog ( τ • ε) 18:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
THIS IS NOT A LIVE POLL YET - PLEASE DO NOT VOTE. (However, for the record, some votes which were placed prematurely due to misunderstanding are recorded here.)
Premature votes
|
---|
1. usually (rather than always). 2b: this conforms to the accepted format for British peers, but I would be happy with either. 3b (but the 3a form should be a redirect). Though I am British, since WP is international to adopt 3c would apply a GB-centric POV. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
1b, 2b, 3a. The "Considerations" listed above as the main rationales pro and con are not, imho, balanced because they seem to assume that the status quo is ipso facto deemed an argument by its advocates and thus inadvertently tilt in favor of certain proposed changes to the status quo (which are given fuller justifications), although clearly Peterkingiron made a good faith attempt. IMO, the stongest argument pro 2b is that substantive titles usually take a recognizable format that distinguishes them (as unique) from titles shared by all children of a ruler (e.g. the titles of two living brothers, Hans Adam II, Prince of Liechtenstein vs. Prince Nikolaus of Liechtenstein). The stongest argument con 3b, 3c and 3d is that they implicitly establish the precedent that "prevalent usage" may be disallowed for article titles because some editors object to it as POV (and I happen not to buy the argument that "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom" is not prevalent, since I consider that "Elizabeth II" is predominantly used as shorthand specifically for "of England", "of Great Britain" or "of the United Kingdom" -- only the latter of which is currently a realm). FactStraight ( talk) 21:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC) 1a, 3a SergeWoodzing ( talk) 22:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC) 1a, 3b and 3d. I have removed the 'Considerations' from the vote, they were biased and unnecessary. I doubt anyone will vote without familiarising themselves with the arguments put forward on the main talk debate; the presence of the section was like placing political advertising on the ballot paper itself. PS: I've also fixed up what I think was a duplicate option, and rephrased 3c slightly more clearly, hopefully without disrupting existing votes. Diff — what a crazy random happenstance 04:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC) |
Considerations for question 1) ("When should the word "King" or "Queen" be included in the title?")
Considerations for question 2) ("If the word "King" or "Queen" is to be included in the title, where should it go?")
Considerations for question 3) ("When should the realm be omitted?")
I readded the considerations here (since someone thinks it's biased to have them on the poll page, though I thought I'd done them pretty neutrally, and they could still be edited). Please still feel free to edit them, even though they're on the talk page now.-- Kotniski ( talk) 08:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
If we're going to have a poll, I think that we really should not be voting on each issue separately. We should try to have the general solution which engenders the most support, not the solution to each separate question which does, as that might lead to a general solution nobody likes. john k ( talk) 21:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
I take issue with the idea that 1(c) "ensures consistent titles and avoids the artificial constructions, but leads to loss of conciseness." Since some consorts do include the title "Queen", this will introduce some ambiguity and could lead to a lack of consistency. Deb ( talk) 12:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I originally had two separate options under realm-dropping (one for sole topic, one for primary topic), as in the previous discussion someone was proposing replacing "primary" by "sole/unique", so people may want to vote for sole topic only. Why were these two combined?-- Kotniski ( talk) 08:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
May I ask what you intend to do with this section? I think it should not be used in the vote due to unavoidable bias, and it should probably be removed or hidden from this talk too. — what a crazy random happenstance 11:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
If we adopt article names like Elizabeth II, James I, Gustav III etc, could we consider aswell Henry III (England), Henry III (France), Henry III (Holy Roman Empire) (for example) for the monarchs with indentical names/regnal numbers? GoodDay ( talk) 16:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Since the community seems to have other things on its mind at the moment, and this page isn't attracting any debate, I propose leaving it for now, possibly to return to at a later time. In any case, that's what I intend to do, although if anyone else wants to pick this up and run with it, feel free.-- Kotniski ( talk) 13:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Where is choice d) - "Follow the usage of the majority of English-language sources"? OrangeDog ( τ • ε) 18:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)