Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)/Archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives

Exception 2 not applied

(Compare to list of names voted under "Exception 2" below)

Requested moves

For those interested there are also several Thai titled pages with a WP:RM outstanding request at the moment Philip Baird Shearer 15:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Russian consorts

see previous Talk:Archive 6#Russian consorts and Talk:Alexandra Fyodorovna of Hesse

Addition proposed

I propose following addition to be added to this guideline, as it might make it a little less controversial, and also might cut down on several exceptions that otherwise have to be absurdly detailed (I try to make it as simple as possible):

If a person is known under a name that is unambiguous with whatever other person that is eligible for a wikipedia article, and if that name is overwhelmingly more often used than the name that otherwise would result from this guideline, the more current name would be used.

As far as I'm concerned "Google test" can be used to determine that "overwhelmingly more", if the usual precautions explained in wikipedia:Google test are taken - however don't forget to exclude wikipedia form the search (e.g. add "-wikipedia" to search string), while wikipedia's popularity has been known to desequilibrate such searches by approx. 1000%.

Examples:

  • At the time of writing this the name "William the Silent" is a many-many-manyfold of the occurence of his name when written according to the present rules (which might also indicate the rules are not too good, but anyway the proposed additional rule might exclude the worst aberrations from the "most usual")
  • John the Fearless, similar: "John, Duke of Burgundy" is about ten times less used to indicate this person.
  • "Winnaretta Singer, Princess of Polignac" unknown to the internet - "Winnaretta Singer" 884 hits; "Princesse de Polignac" when searching exclusively on English pages: 602 hits (be assured you won't find many of these pages that don't talk about Winnaretta: even "Winnaretta Singer, Princesse de Polignac" exclusively on English pages still has 417 hits); "Princess of Polignac": 12 hits. So indeed "Winnaretta Singer, Princess of Polignac" would be nearest to "original research".
  • and how would this guideline tackle Georges Sand? Georges Sand, Baronesse Dudevant? Hilarious, the woman would turn in her grave. Amandine-Aurore-Lucile Dupin, Baronesse Dudevant? Even worse, nobody actually knows her by that name. High time to cut the absurdities.
  • etc...

--Francis Schonken 22:25, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I'm somewhat ambivalent about this. I think I'll wait to see what others say before I comment. (I will note that the question of how to apply this rule could clearly get out of hand) john k 22:54, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Let me add that I believe the proper title for Winnaretta Singer under current conventions would be either Winnaretta Singer, princesse de Polignac or Winnaretta, princesse de Polignac. john k 22:59, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Please, and why not "William I, Prince d'Orange" - they were both native in a different country than France, where there principalty was situated? And why wouldn't it be "William I, prins van Oranje" if the language the person in question most often spoke has to be followed? And why wouldn't it be just simply "Willem van Oranje", that is *exactly* under which name he was chosen second in the "best known Dutchman" competition half a year ago? No, the rules are mounting complexity on complexity, instead of showing the simplest road to encyclopedic quality. --Francis Schonken 07:35, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
For "Baronesse Dudevant" after whatever name for this person this remains as senseless. --Francis Schonken 23:34, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
We are allowed to use pen names for people best known by them, so George Sand is fine. john k 00:04, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but that's in another guideline. This guideline is about whether "George Sand" would need to be followed by ", Baroness Dudevant" or by ", Baronesse Dudevant" or whatever. If that general guideline about pseudonyms can overrule this particular one then surely the basic guideline, saying that the "simplest unambiguous name that is generally used in the real world" has to be followed, can without further adaptation of the specific nobility guideline be implemented in wikipedia. But maybe better to inform your fellow wikipedians about that, without "ambivalence". --Francis Schonken 07:35, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Er, no, the noble title is not part of George Sand's name. It is part of Amandine-Aurore-Lucile Dupin's name. Just as we don't use Amandine-Aurore-Lucile Dupin, we don't use Baroness Dudevant, because they are part of one name - George Sand's real name. However, George Sand is not best known by her real name, but by a pen name. Thus, George Sand. john k 17:04, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Oppose using the ridiculous google test. Google searches are worthless as evidence of anything. Google searches in the past on Wikipedia proved that W.E. Glastone, the Prince of Wales and a host of others have names that are 100% wrong (eg, that the Prince of Wales is Charles Windsor!!!). Google searches link into sites, many of whom are not objective and factual but POV. It would be absurd for an NPOV encyclopædia to use as a source of NPOV POV sites showing up on google. Also I think the whole proposal would produce more controversy, not less, and more POV problems. The current rules are complex because they need to be in an encyclopædia. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:02, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I wrote "usual precautions", linked to the wikipedia "official" how-to guide, and stressed one of the precautions particularly. Are you accusing your fellow wikipedians that they don't know how to write a how-to guide that has all the precautions needed? Indeed I am aware of the kind of troubles that are involved in google-testing. But if "William the Silent" has 16000 hits, if one knows the name is fairly unambiguous, and the proposed wikipedia-name has about 500 hits, of which several link to other persons, I think in that exceptional case intelligent google-testing is allowed. Also if a name proposed according to the guideline has no single hit, compared to the real name of that person several, yeah than probably the absurdistic rules of Wikipedia are probably "better" than Google... What I propose is that a better Wikipedia guideline would be written, that makes tedious Google-testing (often not leading to unambiguous results) redundant. But as that has not yet been successfully achieved, I only propose the guideline can be overridden for the most blatant cases, that are really, really unambiguous. Going to the library is as good for me, but might have similar (or worse) verifiability problems, if needing statistical data about what is most used.
The rules can not be complex because they need to be in WIKIPEDIA, which is editable by anyone who has some interesting knowledge, and who should not be put through a steep learning curve, on top of learning how to work in wiki-edit mode: for that reason article titles need to be recognisable in the first place, and not a specialised nobility "whois" guide (there are other places in wikipedia that can provide that, the article name should not be cluttered with that above the usual). --Francis Schonken 23:34, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
In terms of designing a taxonomy for Wikipedia articles, consistency is more important than the number of Google hits. For monarchs and persons holding particular offices or titles, the most consistent approach is to use their forename and their main titles in a way that reflects history without prejudicing NPOV. If there is a common usage (such as William the Silent or Bloody Mary), then there should be a redirect from that name to the appropriate page title (for example, William I of Orange and Mary I of England and Ireland).
Hi User:Andrew L (2005) (diff),
Thanks for participating in the discussion. I suppose you're relatively new here, so, welcome to wikipedia!
  • Please sign your contributions to talk pages using four tildes ~~~~ or the "signature" button on top of the edit window.
  • Some of the discussion to which you commented is relatively old, well there is wikipedia:naming conventions (people) now, for starters. "William the Silent" was voted on not so long ago (see talk:William the Silent - I don't think many would want to repeat the experience of that voting procedure on short term, but you're of course free to have a look at WP:RM)
--Francis Schonken 11:41, 9 October 2005 (UTC)


This is an encyclopædia and has to follow high encyclopædic standards. It isn't a place for dumbed down text. Anything not of that standard, or which does not match the naming conventions of MoS is automatically re-written to conform to them. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:40, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
I think you're in a minority viewpoint if you put it that way: there's only people wanting to achieve that, there's no "wikipedia has to" - wikipedia is not a person. And what I remarked upon is that for some article names the standard is as low as can be: inventing a name that has no connection with the real world. That's not "high standards". So if you're not prepared to work together with people that also try to achieve high standard maybe better fork an encyclopædia that is half-fictional in its correctness. --Francis Schonken 23:49, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

If you want to adopt tabloid styles, write for a tabloid. If you want to write for an encylopædia then you have to follow encyclopædic standards. You don't seem to grasp the difference. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:56, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I do. You haven't been able to show that:
  • the google test "how-to" guide was not written according to encyclopædic standards (if it is not, please go rewrite it until it is, people using encyclopædic standards might read it in order to be able to use it);
  • that "William the Silent" is "lower" as encyclopædic standard than "William I, Prince of Orange" to indicate a single person.
  • that "John the Fearless", the name any "encyclopædic" historian would use, is "lower" encyclopædic standard than "John, Duke of Burgundy" or "John I of Valois".
  • That "Winnaretta Singer" is "lower" encyclopædic standard than "Winnaretta Singer, Princesse de Polignac" as article title.
  • That "George Sand" is "lower" encyclopædic standard than "Georges Sand, Baronesse Dudevant" or "Amandine-Aurore-Lucile Dupin, Baronesse Dudevant" as article title.
And yes, I repeat, what you wrote is rather insulting for those having worked on the google test how-to. Is this "Naming guideline" by definition higher encyclopædic standard than that other guideline? I haven't figured out yet how extreme you're on that one? --Francis Schonken 00:17, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I think that the nobility of Europe is by and large covered by the guidelines:

and if they are not they should be. Philip Baird Shearer 14:48, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

They should be. --Francis Schonken 19:33, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Exception 2

We already have: "If a person is best known by a cognomen, or by a name that doesn't exactly fit the guidelines above, revert to the base rule: use the most common English name. Examples: Alfred the Great, Charlemagne, Louis the Pious, Henry the Lion, etc...". I think that these words should be written into a tad stricter form. Such as "overwhelmingly best known"...

I look forward to applying this exception only to cases such as Charlemagne instead Charles I of Franks, but not to cases Frederick the Great instead of Frederick II of Prussia nor Catherine the Great instead of Catherine II of Russia.

IMO Philip the Fair should not be adopted instead of Philip IV of France, despite of the fact that Philip's own era never used those ordinals. Actually, for medieval monarchs, ordinal system is almost totally a later fabrication, and still we live with it - the blame is to earlier historians and encyclopedias, a century or more ago etc, which adopted those... Arrigo 00:13, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

see my reply below, after Philip Baird Shearer's comment. --Francis Schonken 10:35, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
The current WP:RM for "William I of England" to "William the Conqueror" has highlighted problems with the wording of Exception 2.
If a person is best known by a cognomen, or by a name that doesn't exactly fit the guidelines above, revert to the base rule: use the most common English name. Examples: Alfred the Great, Charlemagne, Louis the Pious, Henry the Lion, etc...
The words must have been written (and prof read) by people over familiar with English history and their intent was to say that under the usual rules for numbering English kings numbers start with William I in 1066 and because of those rules kings before this time are usually known by their cognomen otherwise Kings like Edward I of England would not be Edward I of England.
If the wording is not changed then we may as well put this page up for a VFD as all but very minor kings and queens are commonly known by a cognomen. So I think we need to come up with a way of stating that if a person belongs to a European house which by histographic traditions do not included in the ordinal then... . As a stop gap measure while we agree on better wording I propose a simple change to stop requests like the requested move to "William the Conqueror":
a) If a person does not fit the guidelines above, use the most common English name. Examples: Alfred the Great, Charlemagne, Louis the Pious, Henry the Lion, etc...
b) As "Exception 2" as a catch-all ought to be moved to be the last exception.
--Philip Baird Shearer 09:20, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
  • oppose further aberration of Naming Conventions basic rules --Francis Schonken 08:15, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
  • support rewriting the "Naming conventions (names and titles)" guideline so that it is again better in line with Naming Conventions basic rules. It has been tried to do it otherwise, for several months now. This has been harassing a lot of people that *normally* would not want to loose time on what an article is named, certainly not if it's about a royal. The rules should be *clear*, *unambiguous*, *avoid complexity* where reasonably possible, *not try to overrule the general naming conventions principles* (that the "general NC" are presented as an "exception" on this page is already wrong from the start), and as a major principle for all wikipedia guidelines: the guideline should be as *self-regulatory* as possible. Detailed treatment of nobility titles and successions should e.g. be in *article text*, on *disambiguation pages*, on *lists*, in *categories*, in *family trees*, making use of *navigational templates*, etc. etc., but not be in _article titles_. --Francis Schonken 10:45, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
  • oppose. This proposal lacks sufficient intelligence. Exception #2 is correctly worded as a safeguard mechanism. Rule #2, however, is the declaration which requires elaboration. #Proposal to add convention to Monarchical Titles Adraeus 17:16, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Since either way we'll probably have an amendment or other change to the present policy, I propose to add the "Proposed" template to the article, which I think would be helping in the process. --Francis Schonken 09:49, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Exception 2 is perhaps written too broadly, but, until today, it has always been construed narrowly so that it only refers to monarchs who are almost never referred to with an ordinal. I think we need to rewrite the exception so that it more clearly says what it has always been interpreted to mean, rather than the current ambiguous text which can, I think, be interpreted to mean what Francis is saying. john k 16:58, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I would support either Philip or Arrigo's wording as an alternative. john k 17:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Francis has changed my initial change to exception 2 to Arrigo's wording which in my opinion is defiantly an improvement on what was there yesterday. But does the wording now protect us from "William the Conqueror" or can the wording be improved upon? -- Philip Baird Shearer 11:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
I don't care all that much for the formulation at present, the thing is under revision. To move it to somewhere else on that project page only based on your own evaluation of the discussion that is far from closed, nobody else saying anything on whether or not to have it moved like you proposed, is unsupported (John K. only referred to the wording). Further it is disruptive while all talk, which is still proceeding, refers to "exception 2", so don't make it "exception 4" before the discussion has reached a point.
Further, FYI, I added an elaboration to the "Frederick the Great" requested change, see Talk:Frederick II of Prussia#Discussion, based *exclusively on all printed sources I could lay hands on*, and please appreciate that the present names & titles naming policy, is not the best "encyclopædic standards" guideline wikipedia could have. --Francis Schonken 12:12, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Proposals: Firstly, I have observed that those exceptions should not be left to be acted upon by individual acts. Therefore, regarding all the exceptions, I propose an additional caveat to be included into NC: "These exceptions may lead to controversial results, whereby it is best to discuss any such idea before naming an article using an exception clause." Arrigo 18:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Secondly, the present Exc 2 actually tries to govern two types of cases, and gets them too confused. One is "best known by a name that does not fit the guidelines" such as Edward the Confessor (because using an ordinal brings impossible situation) and Napoleon and Skanderbeg and Charles Martel and possibly Charles the Fat (re France). The other is "best known by a cognomen" such as William the Conqueror, Frederick the Great, Catherine the Great, William the Silent and Philip the Good, but also such as Henry the Lion, Charlemagne, Louis the Pious and Alfred the Great.

The latter case needs a stricter condition, whereas for those (category 1) anyway is difficult to find a name if a non-systematic solution is not accepted. I would draw a new line for those who do not have any systematic name. "If a person is practically never known by a name that fits the guidelines above, revert to the base rule: use the most common English name." Arrigo 18:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

For category 2, the criterion needs sharpening, as previously agreed. My formulation is: "If a person is practically never known by a name that fits the guidelines above (or: by a systematic name) and overwhelmingly best known by a nickname, use the nicknamed one, if NPOV."

NPOV is rather important with nicknames. We do not want Wikipedia to endorse use such as Christian the Tyrant.

Combining the wordings of these two is not easy, how sounds "If a person is practically never known by a name that fits the guidelines above, revert to the base rule: use the most common English name. If such a person is overwhelmingly best known by a nickname, use the nicknamed one, if NPOV." Arrigo 18:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

This sounds reasonable to me, although it should be noted that Napoleon is, at the moment, at Napoleon I of France. john k 18:29, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I do not propose now any transfer to Nappy the Emperor. Arrigo 18:32, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
I think correct, as Arrigo did above, to distinguish between the "nicknames" and the "difficult to place in a dynasty" (if that is a correct way of putting it). Several have overlap, of course, "Charles the Fat" is also nickname; The "William the Silent" ambiguity is rooted in the dissociation between being de jure monarch of a real city in the South of France, and being de facto the first in a dynasty of a country that in his own day did not yet exist.
So the distinction is not always all that clear.
Choosing a wikipedia article name that is different from the name that is most used in publications (I mean: not in gossip), when referring to a certain person, is always POV. I have no idea for that Danish King whether at the time of writing wikipedia he is most referred to in publications as "the tyrant" or "II of Denmark", but whatever of the two is most used, is the least POV. Julius Caesar was a dictator, he even was a dictator more than once, it's not up to wikipedia to say he was not: what wikipedians can do is give a complete definition, as NPOV as possible, of what the dictator concept was in Julius Caesar's day. So Julius Caesar is in history books most referred to as Julius Caesar, so that's what the article is named. For that Danish king the same: whatever he is called most often in books and other publications referring to him, that will be the wikipedia article title, all the rest is too much like POV.
Not even the most for that reason, but still most of all because I think things start to go quirky from the moment a sub-guideline giving some of the more elaborate detail of the central guideline (in this case: basic principles of NC) starts to deviate from that general guideline, then there's trouble ahead.
So no, no extra restrictions to the general NC guideline.
And no, we "didn't agree before" contrariwise. Here's four guys (Arrigo, Philip, John and me) discussing something quite essential: whether a sub-guideline can revert a top guideline. My answer is no and even if I'm only 25% of the representants in this part of the discussion, either you convince me, either I convince you, either we have more people in this talk, either, in the end, we have a vote (which in that case in my view should get all the attention it can get), or we go for a deliberation of another kind we all accept, e.g. discuss it on meta, or whatever. But there's no consensus yet. Again, like I did already on John's talk page, I want to apologise for any aggravation I might have caused, which was not intended. I thought it important to have more examples, both from votes and just from what we can find. I think it good we should stay focussed like that. And, let's try to get a grip on this guideline in a constructive manner. --Francis Schonken 20:31, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Lists of "exception 2 and parallel" examples

this section begun by Francis Schonken 23:30, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

In order to keep focussed maybe best to keep some lists of examples handy. I make several lists (which can be added to, depending on case).

For other Nobility, the parallel exception is included, e.g., in point 1 and 2 of the "Other non-royal names" sections:

  1. Hereditary peerage:

    EXCEPTIONS: When individuals received hereditary peerages after retiring from the post of Prime Minister (unless they are better known for their later career under an additional/alternative title), or for any other reason are known exclusively by their personal names, do not include the peerage dignity. Examples: Anthony Eden (not "Anthony Eden, 1st Earl of Avon"), Bertrand Russell (not "Bertrand Russell, 3rd Earl Russell") (but Henry Addington, 1st Viscount Sidmouth not "Henry Addington").

  2. Life Peers:

    [...] unless the individual is exclusively referred to by personal name

Set examples

This list contains examples that were of old used in guidelines, like the original "Exception #2"

Monarchical
Other

Other examples of old, not yet challenged by a WP:RM

Monarchical
This has nothing to do with exception #2. This has to do with the fact that our rules for how to name people like him were murky for a long time, and that not all of them have been changed to be in conformity with naming conventions. john k 18:01, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
*Exactly* why I wanted to create this list, to have some reference, not "proving" anything in itself --Francis Schonken 09:01, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Other

More recent examples, resulting from WP:RM's

We'll see what the votes lead up to: checking which ones made it and which ones didn't will make easier to assess how "exception 2" is perceived presently. These examples can be added here:

Monarchical
  • William the Silent instead of "William I, Prince of Orange"
  • Elizabeth of Bohemia was chosen out of several options, of which "Elizabeth Stuart" would (probably) have been the one closest to the present version of the guideline, if not applying "exception #2 and parallel".
Other

Comments

This seems bass-acwkards to me. We ought to figure out what the criteria should be, and then figure out what articles fit under it. john k 23:58, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

no, I've made no secret I think it best the rules would be somewhat different. Neither did you. So I think it best to have examples, in order to know what the wikipedia community thinks. Then base the criteria on representative examples. Which is completely different from the bass-ackwards way of "inventing" a rule (or: criteria), and then enforce it on the community, whether the rule makes sense or not. --Francis Schonken 00:16, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Reactive policy-making results in poor governmental efficiency, and conformity. See United States of America for an example. Policy-making must be proactive. Conforming to idiocy is nonsensical. Adraeus 17:20, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
I don't know what you want to clarify with the "United States" example, but you see, you also used an example. And an example that's probably not so related.
Or did you want to warn against pre-emptive, which is a popular strategy in the United States?
Of course, policies need to be proactive, but that doesn't mean they don't have to be based on the best available material. Proactive based on idiosyncracies like "otherwise we'll have to start all over again with the naming conventions" (etc... I give only one sample of the many reactive attitudes going around) is not going to lead us anywhere. This guideline should be the best we are able to put together for a maximum contribution to the quality of wikipedia. If that means, keep it as it is, OK - if that means rewrite, OK too. But it hasn't shown all that proactive since the last major rewrite at the end of 2004. I've given many examples where it lowered the quality of wikipedia (and still can give many more). And it shouldn't have meant so much loss of time so often, for so many wikipedians. You see, I was a major contributor to a completely new guideline about a year ago. The guideline was about a very controversial topic (I started it because there had been some revert wars between robots affecting dozens of articles). The guideline was as self-regulatory as possible, and as a consequence needed little care (just once, someone had put a template connected to the guideline on TfD). A few days ago someone did a major rewrite of the guideline. Although it was so to speak "my baby" I could only look with a positive emotion to that rewrite: the "self-regulatory" had worked. What I mean to say with this is that in the context of a wiki system, self-regulatory is one of the main components of any policy that wants to be proactive, and that's what missing in the nobility titles naming policy for the moment, IMHO --Francis Schonken 21:35, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
The basic problem is that a naming policy cannot be based on voting on a series of unrelated articles. It is quite possible that the voting on each of these articles will result in completely disparate results for similar cases. We can't construct a policy around a bunch of different requested move votes and the fact that a series of articles are at locations that they shouldn't be at by naming standards. john k 22:13, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, I think you're right, for the time being - Indeed I had hoped that organising a few votes would show a line, a common ground. In which case it would've been easy. The only line that shows now is that some people appear to vote rather from intuition; others rather from "let's protect the existing guideline". Such mixed votes don't learn much regarding the value of existing and/or future guidelines, while one can't distinguish the one type of vote from the other unambiguously. So all the more appropriate I think to return to wikipedia's basic naming conventions - in which case there would be less difference between "intuitive" and "according to policy" votes.
Anyway, for clarity, I never intended "votes" (= what people say they want) to be more than a small part of the bigger picture on this guideline: also what people are used to, which includes as well in wikipedia ("of old" examples, but also: other NC guidelines), as outside wikipedia (which then includes as well on the internet, as in printed resources, etc...) need IMHO be part of that bigger picture. Further, things that are not possible really to get hold of for wikipedia, but also make part of that bigger picture is what people learnt in school, and: latest developments in scholar research,... In an ideal world all this would work together. Which it doesn't. So choices have to be made. But if making choices without first trying to get a broad grasp of the bigger picture, this would be destined to run against a wall. --Francis Schonken 08:58, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Unbelievable

This section is also about exception #2, and was written before the #Exception 2 section above was started

Francis, it is unbelievable that you would add examples of titles currently under debate to the naming conventions. We are still deciding where the articles on William the Silent and John the Fearless should be, and it is unacceptable to add them into the rule. And George Sand has nothing to do with this rule at all - the name is a pen name, and we already have rules for pen names. john k 19:54, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

That is not to say that the exception does not apply to them. It may apply to them. Personally, I tend to construe the exception as narrowly as possible, but I can see how other interpretations might be desirable. But that doesn't mean that it's alright to add currently debated articles as examples of a naming convention. john k 19:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

As I replied to Philip above: European nobility should be covered by the guideline. Well, it isn't (as you also acknowledge by doubting evident examples). I tried to oblige to Philip's request without delay. I won't let myself be held back by those who live by disputes. If the present text of the guideline is prone to dispute, it is best to adapt it so that it's clearer.
Please don't appropriate this guideline as if your life depends from it. The way it is now it often diminishes the quality of the wikipedia encyclopædia, that is: to the best of my knowledge. It deviates too much from so many other guidelines, that cause less trouble to the wikipedia encyclopædia, to its quality and to the people realising that. --Francis Schonken 20:29, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Francis - I am not making an argument one way or the other as to whether the rule applies to John the Fearless or William the Silent. I am saying that it is incredibly bad form to, without any consensus to do so, add examples to a naming convention which are from articles where there is an ongoing dispute as to how that article should be named. How would you like it if I added William I, Prince of Orange and John, Duke of Burgundy to their appropriate section of the naming convention? john k 21:37, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Sigh. It seems that now something is running amok among us. If that something does not soon get calmer in all sorts of moves etc, we possibly need to apply for some block or protection of some pages. It is really not at all productive to destroy naming systematics. This is as bad as those cut+paste moves by the late Antares... Sigh. Arrigo 00:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

see oppose/support comment in #Exception 2 section --Francis Schonken 08:15, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

non-Europeans

See also previous: Archive 6#non-Europeans

Hawaiian MoS people are arriving at rough consensus to enact something in following lines: "Articles of Monarchs of Hawaiian Kingdom have the monarch's Hawaiian reign name as the heading, and the ordinal if necessary for disambiguation. For example, Kamehameha IV, Liliuokalani. The possible christened name is not to be included into the heading, and not any other non-reign name. The titulary (Queen, King) is not used in the heading, nor any style or honorific. The territorial designation ("of Hawaii") is not to be used in the heading since there is no necessity to disambiguate on basis of country. The text of the article follow standards and guidelines for WP biographical articles." 217.140.193.123 13:28, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Muslim countries

Muslim civilization have a common phenomenon with Europeans: same given names common between countries. Thus territorial designation is handy tool for disambiguation. And, also their monarchs havev received (sometimes retrospectively) ordinals. They have their own titulary, though almost everything has European counterparts. Sultan is king. NOW, do we have an Arab revolt in our hands, if we straightforwardly state that European heading standards are direckly applicable to all Muslim royals and nobles? (btw, there isn't a Muslim/Arab MoS project, is there?) Arrigo 00:19, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

An issue, I think, is that in Islamic areas, monarchs, until recently, have been generally identified by dynasty rather than territory. We don't talk about Al-Adil of Egypt, but about the Ayyubid ruler Al-Adil. And so forth. I don't think it would be wise to try to force Muslim monarchs generally identified by dynasty into a format designed for rulers generally identified by territory. But it would be fine, I think, for monarchs of modern countries. Faisal I of Iraq, and what not. john k 18:04, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Proposal to add convention to Monarchical Titles

Rule #2 states: Where there has only been one holder of a specific monarchical name in a state, the ordinal is used only when the ordinal was in official use. For example, Victoria of the United Kingdom, not Victoria I of the United Kingdom; Juan Carlos I of Spain, not Juan Carlos of Spain. [1]

This rule does not apply to the naming of William I of England. According to the rule, a specific monarchical name regards names such as "Victoria", "Juan Carlos", and "William". IF only a single holder of a specific monarchical name existed in a state, then the second clause of the rule comes into play. The application of the second clause would apply to William I of England if William II of England and William III of England did not exist. Since there is more than a single holder of a specific monarchical name, the ordinal is used regardless of the periodic officiality of ordinal usage. For example, if there were a Victoria II of the United Kingdom, then Victoria of the United Kingdom would be legitimately removed to Victoria I of the United Kingdom.
The following convention is requested to be added as a clause to Rule #2:
The usage of ordinals where there has been more than a single holder of a specific monarchical name is correct and appropriate.
Adraeus 00:10, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

I don't see that this is necessary. It is implicit in the rules as they currently stand, and is how they have always been interpreted to mean. john k 02:03, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Implicitness is never useful in policy. (See Patriot Act for details.) Rules, guidelines, and principles must be explicit to have any serious effect. By the way, if what you claimed were true, then we wouldn't be have this debate, would we? Adraeus 17:11, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

I oppose the Adraeus proposal, as unnecessary and not clarifying anything. Besides, the debate Adraeus obviously wanted to contribute to, is application of Exception 2, which is debated above. Arrigo 15:55, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Incorrect. The discussion to which I initiated is that of Rule #2. Exception #2, and therefore your proposal, is irrelevant. Adraeus 17:19, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Huh? Francis's proposed moved of William I of England is not based on rule #2, which clearly only applies to monarchs who have been the only one of their name. It is based on exception #2. It is your proposal which is clearly irrelevant. john k 18:06, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Having read and re-read the project page, I think there is some merit in Adraeus's proposal. It seems to me that his purpose is to prevent the exceptions from superseding the rules -- so maybe not essential but not irrelevant either. Deb 21:09, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Dear Deb, happy you join in on the discussion. Just wanted to remark that the present version of the "names & titles" naming policy indeed had reverted the thing: what should be main policy is in this guideline presented as "one of the exceptions"; What should be clarification and filling in the details of the main policy is in fact a complicated list of exceptions to the main policy. Of course, you can read the policy like you want, but that was how I read it, and how I see the problem with it. --Francis Schonken 21:53, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I like Adraeus's proposal. It does offer a greater clarity. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 22:19, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Be bold Adraeus and add it. Personally I do not see the necessity (as it seems to be implied to me by the text that is alreay there), but as others do and it does no harm to what is already there, I am not opposed to it. Philip Baird Shearer 12:56, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Elizabeth Stuart (that of Bohemia fame) receives odd treatment

The idea in this talkpage is to discuss changes to naming conventions, not of changes to individual articles. 217.140.193.123 20:35, 1 September 2005 (UTC)


I noticed that the eldest daughter of James I of England happened to be located at Elizabeth of Bohemia, which strikes as a less encyclopedic place and as a not neutral name for her to be. I accordingly moved her to pre-marital place, which is presumed to be NPOV, but within minutes, she was again moved to an arguably POV and marital location. It seems to me that persons keeping her at the consort name are same people who elsewhere are more or less forcefully enforcing the pre-marital heading rule. Afaik there has never been a discussion nor consensus that she could even be at the consort location.

(Sadly, those moves also lead to deleting an old page, a dispute at Admin noticeboard/incidents, etc)

This incident has weakened my trust in any "rightfulness" of the rule that requires monarchical consorts to be at pre-marital namings. Also weakens any trust in persons who require this at one place and totally another principle elsewhere.

When I checked google, Elizabeth Stuart seems to be perhaps the most used naming or the person in question. I found no other significant royal with the same name (no one who clearly deserves an article in encyclopedia). (Other Elizabeth Stuart whatevers are plentifully present.) Googling showed that Elizabeth of Bohemia is quite crowded, by various individuals, thus it cannot properly be anything else than a disambiguation page.

Googling also aroused much suspicion whether the so-called Historical Name of consorts is at all true in works of reference, in history and encyclopedias.

But, online Britannica has put her to "Elizabeth Stuart".

According to the current naming convention, she should be at her pre-marital name, as she is a deceased monarchical consort. Whether that is "of England" or "of Scotland", seems relatively easy: England was the bigger, and her father has heading as king of England. "of Bohemia" is (1) POV, and (2) against naming conventions. NC does not leave them in their marital titles. And it is POV as it endorses a pretension to a throne that monarchical couple held disputedly over one winter. No need to battle old Religious Wars again here in Wikipedia.

In naming, English Wikipedia should not reflect any Anglo-American focus. It is contrary to the neutral point of view. Especially when dealing with articles that require an international perspective, such as naming of a royal who mostly lived in Germany, besides being a daughter of a British monarch, and whose "career" was a knot point between protestants and catholics. The presence of articles written from a United States or British perspective is simply a reflection of the fact that there are many U.S. and British citizens working on the project, which in turn is a reflection of the fact that so many of them are online. This is an ongoing problem that should be corrected by active collaboration from people from other countries. But rather than introducing their own cultural bias, they should seek to improve articles by removing any examples of cultural bias that they encounter, or making readers aware of them. In this naming, there is a clear need of Wikipedia:NPOV application, rather than of a cultural bias of a certain country.

Should we change the consort naming in NC, or is its recipe presumed to be NPOV in this case too? Arrigo 13:58, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

(another's comment, which he erased from here afterwards)
Do you mean that the whole rule of "pre-marital naming" is just an anglocentric POV?? Arrigo 16:20, 1 September 2005 (UTC) - i.e, reflecting Anglo-American focus. Written from e.g British perspective. Which has deemed to be an ongoing problem. Contrary to international NPOV. Arrigo 06:26, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Talk moved to Talk:Elisabeth of Bohemia#Import from Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles)

The idea in this talkpage is to discuss changes to naming conventions, not of changes to individual articles. 217.140.193.123 20:35, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

However, please note that this is one of several examples where the current convention for royal spouses directly conflicts with the most common English name WP:UE. General suggestions are appropriate here; not that I have one, yet. Septentrionalis 20:49, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Hi Septentrionalis, I'd suggest to have the present discussion first at one place, that is Talk:Elisabeth of Bohemia - when that discussion leads to a conclusion, I think it easier to bring that conclusion w.r.t. this guideline back here! (note that Arrigo had already triggered a vote on the other page). --Francis Schonken 20:59, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I agree with moving the specific discussion there; but it is a general problem. Septentrionalis 23:14, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Are Arrigo and 217 different users, then? I had assumed they were the same person...huh, odd that. john k 22:18, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Poll

It has been proposed that the above discussion, as far as it relates to the Electress Palatine in particular, be moved (in its entirety, and therfore including Arrigo's comments above) to Talk:Elisabeth of Bohemia or wherever she ends up.

Support

  • support - Arrigo's argumentation seems exagerrated (especially the part of "deformation of meaning" by putting it on another page). Anyway, there never was an intention to make policy decisions on Elisabeth of Bohemia's talk page. But one can not base policy on an example that does not yet exist; for the example to exist, it has to be known first what the community wishes that page to be named, and that can better not be decided here, but better with the procedure already started on that talk page. The discussion of such non-existing example on this talk page is a discussion without object, and thus void, until the example exists, after which the relevant content (which of course can not include a decision on the NC policy) can be brought back here. If the decision of the name of Elizabeth of Bohemia's page were influenced by speculative talk of possible changes to the guideline on this NC talk page, that would be even worse, while that would not make it a clear decision on what EoB's page should be named, only speculation about guidelines (or it might be still worse, speculation about the intention of persons involved in the discussion). If it would be the case that the decision about the name of EoB's page is too obviously contaminated by such talk here, it would probably be unwise to bring it back here as a "valid" example, but I go from the assumption that will not be the case, that's why I hope the part of the talk as suggested by Septentrionalis will be moved ASAP to the EoB talk page, so that we can welcome it back soon as a valid example. --Francis Schonken 20:39, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Other

Discussion

This is a variant of refactoring, which I do not mind as long as it is done even-handedly, which a straight move would be. Others do, so I put it up for discussion. Septentrionalis 12:37, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

My comments above are intended for discussion about NC policy and are relevant for it. NC policy is not decided on an article's talkpage, thus a move to such a place is improper. I will not consent to any removal of my those comments above, and I will regard their move/removal/deletion etc as Wikipedia:Vandalism. Their removal from here affects substantially their content and changes their meaning, in the sense that they no longer are in relevant place, having their effect on NC pölicy discussion. This is not a matter for any voting. This vote is inappropriate and should be deleted, which primarily is the task of its proposer (though admins may help). Arrigo 12:49, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Proper refactoring that preserves information is not vandalism. Please assume good faith and don't throw around charges of vandalism. If a discussion was moved and the move was done in a transparent fashion, there's nothing wrong with that. --MarkSweep✍ 01:24, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Note that in the course of the day Arrigo has been responsible for more contamination of examples (some of the examples "of old", and at least one that is currently undergoing a vote procedure). That's why I'm happy I started the "of old" lists with the situation in the early phase of the talk about "exception 2 and parallel". I, for my part, have said above that I think it would be unwise to try to trigger more examples at this stage, since some were already contaminated (at least the last two votes I triggered myself, that will probably never make it as an example to this page), so that's when I wrote above I thought it would now be wiser to avoid triggering new votes. --Francis Schonken 20:39, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Further at this point in time "Exception #2 and parallel" can not be named "official policy" (however it is formulated): see template on top of the policy page which states "...can not be referred to as policy", which, with the note under that template ONLY APPLIES TO "EXCEPTION 2 AND PARALLEL". And don't start playing games that that temporarily would "abolish" exception 2, so that whatever edit that would normally fall under that exception is now "without rules": all other guidelines still apply, including "general NC guidelines" which perfectly cover what would be lacking if "exception 2" weren't there. As there is discussion about "precedence" of general NC guidelines over this particular NC guideline (or the other way around), all users aware of this discussion and USING exception 2 or it's opposite to justify edits would without exception be "gaming the system" in the WP:POINT meaning. --Francis Schonken 20:39, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Ordinals of medieval personages

I want to draw attention to the fact that almost without exception, ordinals were not yet in contemporary use in medieval monarchies and fiefs. I am mostly (perhaps always) in favor of ordinals, as it is a systematic way to keep disambiguated persons who had much-reused first names. Our justification for using ordinals for them comes from retrospective assignations made by those monarchies later, and/or by genealogists and historians, etc, alrasy for centuries now. Such ordinals are nowadays frequently used, although the persons themselves and their contemporaries would have stared blank looks and replied "whaat!!" if they had been to hear current usages. Would we need to draw a line that an ordinal is to be used only if another, respectable source has used it. Arrigo 08:21, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Ordinals are indices, which help us analyze, organize, and collect data into useful information. Nothing more, nothing less. We are not medieval scholars so to "see as they saw" is unnecessary. We are of the present day, and therefore, we look back on history to study and learn. Indices help focus our attention. Adraeus 00:51, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
I think Arrigo draws the proper distinction - we should not make up our own ordinals that are never used. But using, say, Antiochus II Theos seems perfectly appropriate to me - the fellow is universally called "Antiochus II" by scholars, even if nobody at the time ever called him that. john k 02:10, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
The usage of ordinals where there has been more than a single holder of a specific monarchical name in a state is correct and appropriate in Wikipedia. Whether the holder of a name was attributed an ordinal during their lifetime has no bearing on whether names are attributed ordinals in Wikipedia; however, if the holder of a name was not attributed an ordinal during their lifetime and that same holder of a name was the only person to hold that name, monarchically, in a state, then the ordinal should not be attributed in Wikipedia. Adraeus 06:16, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
Adraeus, should your comment be interpreted that we are to make an ordinal for a monarch who fulfills your criteria (=more than one) although no respectable source uses such and it was not used in their lifetime? Arrigo 06:50, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Adraeus seems again to be misinterpreting what is being proposed. William I of England, and so forth, are conventionally used, and are fine, and I don't think Arrigo is disputing that. But what do with Louis the Younger, say? Or Louis the Child? john k 07:18, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Louis the Younger and Louis the Child: one option is to assign ordinals III and IV to them, treat them as systematic elements of the queue of kings of Germany. And to put a further ordinal "V" to Louis the Bavarian, Louis IV, Holy Roman Emperor. I would not appreciate such solution very much, however. (Unless there were evidence that authoritative sources treat them as kings Louis III of Germany and Louis IV of Germany...) - Another option is to leave them at the nickname naming. Arrigo 11:13, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Nicknames should not be used in titles unless there is only a nickname by which the subject is named (e.g., "James the Steward" of William Wallace fame.) Your consistent reference to what so-called "respectable sources" do or do not is trite and obnoxious. Naming conventions, which are components of a style manual, are organizationally independent. Wikipedia is an independent organization and, thus, develops its own style guidelines. That is, Wikipedia's style guidelines are separate from that of other organizations' style guidelines. Unlike printed encyclopediae, Wikipedia is database-centric and, therefore, its style guidelines are focused on not only proper usage and appearance but also on optimization (e.g., article size limitations and indices.) Ordinals are indices regardless of whether the holder of name used ordinals or not, and in Wikipedia, we use ordinals as indices for all applicable subjects in order to maintain a consistent appearance of the information and disambiguation that we provide readers. Adraeus 04:21, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
By the way, Louis the Younger, Louis the Child, and Louis the Bavarian should be renamed to adhere to the naming conventions. Adraeus 04:21, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
Louis the Bavarian is named to adhere to naming standards. That article is a redirect, the main article is at Louis IV, Holy Roman Emperor. As to the other two, I have no idea what the proper numeration would be. The Empero Louis IV is always so numbered. Emperor Louis I is Louis the Pious, and then Emperors Louis II and III ruled only in Italy. Louis the German, Louis the Younger, and Louis the Child are not usually given ordinals, because they do not fit in the proper sequence of Louis ordinals to which Louis IV fits. To move Louis the Child to Louis IV of Germany would be particularly noxious, since this latter name would much more likely be used by someone looking for Emperor Louis IV than someone looking for Louis the Child. Louis III of Germany is quite ambiguous - I could imagine someone using it for either Louis the Younger or Louis the Child. I see no other place to put these monarchs than at Louis the German, Louis the Younger, and Louis the Child. Of these, only Louis the Younger is at all ambiguous (it being shared with Louis VII of France), but a disambiguation notice at the top would seem sufficient. It is not wikipedia's job to make up "consistent" ordinals for monarchs not normally referred to by an ordinal. john k 05:00, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia has disambiguation pages for good reasons. See Louis and William for examples. Notice that the Ludwigs of France and Germany are easily categorized? I'm reasonably certain that a "Louis of France" and a "Louis of Germany" are extremely separable. By the way, the responsibility of making ordinal usage consistent is, indeed, that of Wikipedia. See style manual for an explanation. Adraeus 05:18, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
Regarding your examples...
Kings of the East Franks
Notes:
  1. (Eastern) Francia is not the same as France. In fact, Eastern Francia (or East Franks) is now Germany.
Of course true. But Louis the Pious was king of all of Francia, and thus Louis I of Eastern Francia as well as Louis I of Western Francia. john k 17:27, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  1. "Germany" could be any of the following depending on the degree of the subject's history: Eastern Francia, Saxony, Thuringia, Bavarian.
The nickname should not be attributed to the article name unless only by that nickname is the subject recorded. Adraeus 05:41, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

But you are just making these ordinals up, except for Louis I of France. Louis the Pious was also King of Germany, and by all rights should be Louis I of Germany (as Charlemagne is Charles I). The other ordinals simply aren't used, and certainly not for the personages you want to attach them to. The Encarta article on Louis the German is at "Louis II (of Germany)." So far as I can tell, every single reference to "Louis II of Germany" is a reference to Louis the German. And there's only 46 google hits for it. Most of the hits for "Louis III of Germany" do appear to be for Louis the Child. But there's no reason to parse this confusing ordination when these people have cognomens that are universally used and unique. These monarchs were not in their own time known by ordinals, and to try to figure out retrospectively what their ordinals should be is both deeply confusing and completely unnecessary. The early Frankish kings are an instance where use of cognomens is clearly the best way to go. john k 06:04, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Google is irrelevant. This is Wikipedia. (By the way, I'm fairly versed in European history, and I'm not extremely familiar with around 90% of the nicknames given to European monarchs. In addition, using nicknames simply hinders the academic quality of Wikipedia. I'm against all notions that Wikipedia should do whatever's "popular" by Google's "standards"; thus, I will never support your argument that nicknames are "okay" unless, of course, the nicknames are the only name by which the subject is historically known.) Adraeus 23:57, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
Well, I'm fairly versed in European history, as well, and while I would agree with you that most monarchical nicknames are not widely used, the ones for Carolingian monarchs are. As to evidence, I don't see as I need to produce evidence. I would like to see some evidence that Louis the German is ever numbered as "Louis I," that Louis the Younger is ever numbered as "Louis II," and that reputable sources frequently call Louis the Child "Louis III." You are the one demanding a change, and as such, you need to provide some evidence beyond aesthetic desires to support your proposed moves. I would add that what you are suggesting would be to introduce needless confusion. Ordinals for the early Frankish monarchs would just make which article is which more confusing, and for no gain. Louis II of Germany is an entirely ambiguous page title. Either Louis the German or Louis the Younger could be meant. Louis the German and Louis the Younger are not only unambiguous, they are also the primary names used for these figures. I think you'll see from my arguments with Francis that I am no friend of widely using cognomens for articles on monarchs. But for the Carolingians it is absolutely necessary, because there is no other clear way of referring to most of these people. As I noted before - should Louis the Pious be at Louis I of France or Louis I, Holy Roman Emperor. Both of these titles would be correct. You suggested the former. Naming conventions, if we ignore exception 2, would suggest the latter. But I see no reason to get into this, because we have an absolutely clear name that works Louis the Pious. And while, as I said before, I will agree that many monarchical nicknames are obscure, I will again note that the nicknames for the carolingian rulers simply are not obscure - or at least, no more obscure than the rulers themselves. Every account of the Treaty of Verdun talks about how the empire was divided among Charles the Bald, Louis the German, and Lothar. I have never seen a single one say it was divided among Charles II, Louis II (or I), and Lothar. The East Frankish rulers in particular are confusingly numbered, and it's simply perverse to insist on coming up with ordinals for them when we have perfectly good other numbers. There are some rulers where we could do it differently, perhaps - Louis the Stammerer could probably go at Louis II of France. But I don't see why such a massive change is needed only to satisfy some vague aesthetic criteria. john k 00:37, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Nonsense. The study of history involves looking back on events that transpired, not sympathizing with the perceptions of then. Adraeus 00:25, September 13, 2005 (UTC)
I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, or how this relates to anything I said. john k 03:39, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

It seems that some respectable sources (Encarta etc) use some ordinals for some of these. Therefore I would be more confident to change some of those monarchs to systematic, ordinal-based names. Let's also remember that various Dagoberts, Sigeberts etc of Franks are ordinaled here, thus a bit funny why not these monarchs of East-Franks. Arrigo 19:03, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I am ready to rename Louis the German as Louis II of Germany, Louis the Stammerer as Louis II of France, Louis the Pious as Louis I, Holy Roman Emperor, as well as Louis the Younger as Louis III of Germany and Louis the Child as Louis IV of Germany - the latter two should then have a disambig note at the beginning of their articles. Further, I wonder why Louis IV of Germany should be reserved for Louis the Bavarian, as he actually was Louis V of Germany, though that was superseded by his being Emperor Louis IV. Arrigo 04:22, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Let's not do this unless somebody can point out a good reason that we should do so. john k 07:45, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

In your opinion, the reasons cited are not "good". Your subjective reasoning defeats your argument. I will support any actions taken to strengthen the academic quality of Wikipedia. Your rigid misunderstanding of the application of style, which is not purely "aesthetic" as you'd like to believe, does not bode well for the academic strength of Wikipedia. Adraeus 00:25, September 13, 2005 (UTC)
Arrigo has not provided any reasons, except that Encarta does it, and that we number the Merovingians. This does not seem sufficient to me. You have not provided any reasons, save a desire for consistency. This, also, does not seem sufficient to me. As to the academic strength of wikipedia, I have no idea how that relates to anything either. These monarchs are normally called Louis the Pious, Louis the German, Louis the Younger, and Louis the Child (I'll leave out Louis the Stammerer, since I think he could legitimately be moved). They are not normally called by ordinals. For some of them, it is unclear what ordinal would even be appropriate, if any. You have yet to make any arguments which defeat the fact that there is no clear ordinal to call several of these monarchs by and that for some of these monarchs, we'd be opening up a huge can of German/French POV fighting. Where would you move Charles the Bald? He was King of France (or Western Francia) for a lot longer than he was Emperor, but emperor is his highest title. So is he Charles II of France, or Charles II, Holy Roman Emperor? Do you really want to fight it out over all these titles? What is the point of this, when Charles the Bald is a) by far the most commonly used name; and b) completely unambiguous? john k 03:39, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
*sigh* Arrigo going at it again. Louis II of Germany and any of that is utter nonsense, as Germany didn't even exist back then per se. If the country is not clear, I would recomment we keep the article the way it is titled until we find a better solution. This means no unilateral moving of articles again, ok Arrigo?-) regards Gryffindor 18:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Certain titles of medieval personages

Our policy of assigning the title (usually prince/princess) to non-reigning royals also in Middle Ages, and altogether the idea that non-reigning royals (and corresponding) could be distinguished from identically named reigning monarchs and their consorts just by using a title in heading of the first-mentioned class, is straigthforwardly contrary to idea that only titles that were used and recognized, are to be used here. I do not appreciate that using such titling rule for headings, we would be endorsing some title that was actually not used nor recognized. That would be even worse than endorsing monarchical pretensions, as it is endorsement to retrospective titling. Almost without exception, the concept of "prince" was not yet in contemporary use in medieval monarchies and fiefs for a courtesy title. The persons themselves and their contemporaries would have stared blank looks and replied "whaat!!" if they had been to hear such titles of themselves. Arrigo 08:28, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with this. We shouldn't call people Princes if they were not themselves called princes. This applies, I think, to pre-Hanoverian members of the British royal families. Before her accession, Elizabeth I would have normally been "The Lady Elizabeth," and not "The Princess Elizabeth." But there are some exceptions to this. john k 02:11, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I had thought that Stuarts already (at least sometimes) used "Prince, Princess". Any contrary evidence? Arrigo 06:15, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Not with any consistency. The Prince of Wales was obviously a prince, and so was the Princess Royal (only one Stuart Princess Royal, though). I am not aware that Charles I's other daughters were normally referred to as "Princess," however. I am fairly certain that James II's children by Anne Hyde were never referred to as Prince or Princess. James and his younger brother Henry were "the Duke of York" and "the Duke of Gloucester," and were not normally "Prince James" or "Prince Henry" that I am aware of. Not sure about Elizabeth of Bohemia, or Charles I before his brother's death. But I think the basic issue is that they may have been sometimes called Prince or Princess, but that this was not a formal title in the sense that it would be under the Hanoverians. john k 07:13, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Like ordinals of medieval personages, it does not realy matter what they were called by their contemporaries. As a guide, we should be using whatever is used in modern authoritative histories. Is there any consistency in them? Philip Baird Shearer 08:43, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
I beg to disagree. Ordinals is a different matter imo, as it is to help disambiguation and to create systematics (and ordinals do not interfere but only slightly with the actual name), but to endorse titles that were not used at all, it is beyond NPOV. I do not care if some (imo misguided) romantics use, they always use an overabundance of titles anyway. Besides, as far as I know, modern historians, genealogists and heraldry experts do not consistently use retrospective title (and the less, the more competent the expert is). So, to answer to that question, no consistency, except perhaps historians in usually not using any courtesy titles at all. Arrigo 11:20, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Let's not confuse retrospective titles (i.e., those assigned after the life of a person) with courtesy titles, which are a completely different thing (e.g., Lord North). Choess 12:35, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
You did not realize that some may be assigning courtesy titles (such as Princess of England) retrospectively to medieval persons?? Arrigo 19:00, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Those aren't courtesy titles, a term of distinct technical meaning. Anyway, this discussion is largely recapitulating material at British prince, which states that the automatic use of "Prince" as a title for children of the Sovereign did not become fixed in England until the reign of George I, and was codified by letters patent during the reign of Victoria. Choess 22:19, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
I believe James's daughters could be "Princesses"; but the situation is complicated. They were both married to "Princes", although Prince George of Denmark was not a reigning prince anywhere, IIRC. Compare "Hamlet, Prince of Denmark" who was also son of a monarch. Septentrionalis 17:13, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh, after their marriage they were definitely called Princesses, because their husbands were princes. I was only referring to how they were referred prior to their marriages. john k 17:34, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Before their marriages they were daughters of the Duke of York; I see no reason they would be called Princesses. Septentrionalis 22:42, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

The daughters of the current Duke of York, in an analogous position, are princesses. Under the current system, James's children would, as agnatic grandchildren of a monarch, have been princes and princesses. Under the pre-1917 system, even agnatic great-grandchildren of the monarch were princes and princesses. This does not seem to have been the case before the Hanoverian succession. john k 05:56, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

If Shakespeare, himself, and not some later writers, used "Prince Hamlet", we should conclude that already in beginning of Stuart dynasty in England, Prince/-ss was in acceptable use. Regarding George of Denmark, I believe he is in the same boat as his close contemporaries, e.g daughters of Charles I. I do not think Denmark had granted George the princely title, if England did not use also such epithets of Anne's aunts. However, seeing how it depends on the usages of different centurues whether only children, grandchildren or even great-grandchildren of monarchs were princes/-cesses, we should not put our NC (and pre-emptive disambiguation) to rely on such titles. Anyway, prince/princess is totally wrong as to medieval younger (or female) children of kings etc. Arrigo 18:56, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I an confused by your last sentence Shakespeare uses the term Prince Hal for Henry V who is a medieval king. Are you saying that we should or should not describe him as Prince Henry before he became king, at say the Battle of Shrewsbury? Presumably all English "Prince of Wales" from Edward II onwards can be called Prince without a problem even those in the medieval period ---Philip Baird Shearer 21:40, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
No need to be confused, Philip. Shakespeare reflects the usages of his own time, but he certainly cannot be any evidence of usages of two hundred years earlier. As we well know, Shakespeare worked until the beginning of James I's reign in England. Conventinally, Elizabeth I and James I were not medieval monarchs. If Shakespeare used "prince" of Hamlet who presumably held no substantial princely title (such as Wales), but was "only" son of an earlier king, then Shakespeare's era presumably accepted use of prince/-ss of children of their own kings. Arrigo 22:52, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
We're drifting rather far afield here, but I looked through "Henry IV, Part II" and John, Duke of Lancaster (younger brother of Henry) is called rather indifferently "prince" or "lord" John of Lancaster. Choess 23:15, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
Just to note - John (the younger brother of Prince Hal, and not of King Henry) was not Duke of Lancaster. He was John of Lancaster, in the same way that Edward IV's daughter was Elizabeth of York. He was not given a peerage title until after his father's death, in 1414, and that title was Duke of Bedford.</pedantry> john k 00:24, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

A further point - just because people sometimes called sons and daughters of the King "princes" and "princesses" doesn't mean that "prince" and "princess" were formal styles in the way they later became. As to Prince George of Denmark, I don't understand Arrigo's point - he seems to assume, without evidence, that Denmark and Britain must have adopted use of "Prince" at the same time. But I think it's fairly clear that use of Prince as a formal style on the continent, at least for Germanic figures, occurred before it did in Britain. Whether or not the terms "prince" and "princess" were sometimes used in the 17th century for Stuart princes and princesses (they were) has no bearing on the question of when the formal style of Prince and Princess (of England, or of Great Britain, or whatever) was introduced. I would say that, as a formal style, it did not occur until the Hanoverians, although the title was intermittently used for earlier princes and princesses. john k 00:28, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I think that formal title is not necessary, already the exercised usage by contemporaries is sufficient. Actually, I think that Wikipedia has gone too far because of certain formalists, those who play here all sorts of nobiliary and royal protocol and etiquette, instead of following just encyclopedic purposes. IF prince/-ss is needed for disambiguation, then contemporary use is sufficient, no need to decide that on basis whether monarchs of that time officially granted the title or not. Arrigo 04:13, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

New initiative

I'm one of those who think that the "Names and Titles" naming conventions guideline could be written in a format that makes it sound less as an exception to general wikipedia principles on article namingref.

The issue has been discussed recently on severeral talk pages, and there appears to be a group of wikipedians that neither wants to get really involved, neither is particularily fond of the present complications for naming a "lucky-by-birth stiff who had some pretentions to a hereditary right to rule others or had the remotest ancestral connections to such a person"ref

The problem is, these wikipedians have no alternative: either it's the complicated "exception" rule, either it's only the basic rules that lead to ambiguity in many cases of article naming on persons.

That's why I announce here my plan to start a {{proposed}} guideline for dealing with article naming of articles on people. I think the logical name for such guideline would be:

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)

Using a guideline name differing from the existing ones, as long as it's merely a proposal, also helps not to disturb existing rules (and their talk pages) too much: while in the end it might result in no more than a few ideas of this proposition being "absorbed" by other guidelines (or the other way around). But that's for the wikipedia community to decide then. First I try to cooperate in building a valid alternative, better in line with general Naming Conventions guidelines. --Francis Schonken 11:56, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I strongly oppose this idea. Even if there are serious problems with this page as it stands (I disagree, but for the sake of argument...), I think the kinds of things that Francis has been objecting to could easily be solved by a few changes to this page, rather than starting over from scratch. Most of the rules here were devised so as to have some kind of consistency in naming of people who are referred to very similarly, but for whom the proper page title is not clearly evident from the "use common names" rule. What Francis is proposing is to essentially ditch the entire body of conventions that have been arrived at over a period of several years, and which for the most part work to insure that we know where page titles should be, simply because he thinks articles like Frederick II of Prussia ought to be at Frederick the Great. Even if we believe that this latter goal is a correct one, there are much easier ways to achieve it than to abandon this entire page. An expansion in the meaning of exception 2 would do well enough. john k 15:59, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Easy, Easy, Easy - is this just creating havoc, for the fun of creating havoc? Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) was linked from the new proposed guideline from the start. I never said I wanted to do away with this. In between both Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Western nobility) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Western clergy) exist, safeguarding all the "rules" of Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles), apart from putting "exceptions" where they should be according to the views I have expressed several times on this page. No problem for merging pages if opinions start to concur. In the mean while (1) I did the talk here; (2) If it's possible to do the few adaptations proposed by me to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles), I'll proceed with it without delay; (3) I didn't bother you all the while I was working on the alternative proposition. --Francis Schonken 20:36, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Well said. I would like to give an example of how the current naming convention helped me recently. It is one thing to argue for common names for people like Frederick the Great but the vast majority of people who come under the direction of this page are not well known and may well hold multiple titles. Without the rules this page imposes finding them can be difficult.
There is a page called the First English Civil War based on the text of 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica which needed Wikifying. Lots of the people named on that page were only given by title. For example the "Earl of Essex" and "Earl of Forth". For someone like the Earl of Essex it is easy to find out who that is. But even if it was not, a look up of Earl of Essex gives a list[2] and then it is a matter of picking the correct one. In the case of Earl of Forth the page was a redirect to Earl of Brentford which was a redirect to Duke of Schomberg now this page was clearly not the correct one. So a quick message on the user page who had made the redirect explaining the problem and within a few hours the Earl of Brentford page had been edited to include mention of the earlier earl. With this information I was able to find a 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica reference to the Earl and create a page. If it had not been for the consistency which this page brings, finding the correct person to link to would have taken much longer, particularly as the chap had three different titles during the war and is often referred to by the senior title he held at the time which is being written about. He is not the only one like that, who had multiple titles during this and other conflicts. Philip Baird Shearer 16:58, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
For me, presently I try to find out what Marie-José of Belgium should actually be called according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) - well it's "unclear", that's the least that can be said, so I'll probably wait till the new set of guidelines is approved by the community. Could in the mean while someone help me out how she was called the month she was Queen in Italy (the time she was princess there it appears to have been (Princess) Maria de Piemonte, but I couldn't find out whether she kept that name on ascension, from the documentary they just showed on TV. --Francis Schonken 20:36, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Notes
  1. ^ I always said that lists and other techniques were better to deal with this than page names. The rest of the example nowhere explains that the most logical & used pagename would have been contraproductive in this example. It all depended on redirects. The alleged "consistency" is nowhere related to whether or not "exception 2" is applied. "Three titles" are never all three mentioned in the page name, so the example appears irrelevant for supporting resitance for the change I propose. --Francis Schonken 20:36, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Princesses by marriage after death

What is the convention of titles of articles on princesses by marriage who are dead? Will Princess Lilian of Sweden be "Lilian Davies" when she dies? Or will it stay Princess Lilian?

The above question was apparently made by User:Matjlav.


Well, the NC (or at least its wording) is totally unclear about consorts of lower royals and of monarchs lower than kings. On one hand, we have the NC for deceased wives of peers: use the peerage title received by marriage. On the other, "royal consorts" (which may mean only consorts of kings) are to be reverted to pre-marital names. There seems to be a bunch of princess consorts floating around WP who have not got reverted to pre-marital name. Of course there also seem to be those consorts of royal peers and/or of sovereigns lower than kings who are mentioned by their maiden names. (I blame over-focus to kings and queens - that probably hindered consideration of a numerous bunch of women, those who have been consorts of various sorts of princes and dukes).

I support simplicity, however using some such name under which the person gained the notability to even have an article here, and therefore I would propose Lilian, Duchess of Halland - please find out which NC clauses provide for that result. Arrigo 20:44, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the naming convention has not yet addressed this issue. Currently, articles on such ladies have a bewildering variety of titles. I'm not sure what is to be done. john k 21:13, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it's still an open issue. "Princesses by marriage" implies women who wouldn't otherwise have a royal title (women who were already princesses by birth would presumably retain their own title if they just married someone of the same "rank"). I would suggest that, unless they are well known in some other sphere (eg. Grace Kelly), they take their married title (eg. Princess Michael of Kent). If they are widowed, they are likely to be given another title (eg. Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester), which should be the one they retain after they die. (Of course, I realise this doesn't entirely answer the question.) Deb 21:37, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Princesses who marry princes from other countries (e.g. the Duchess of Connaught) need their own convention. As should royal princesses who rule sub-king monarchs (e.g. Victoria's daughter Alice), ought also to have a convention. john k 06:07, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

"Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester" is not a good idea. If the same principle is applied consistently, we will have "Princess Maxima, Princess of Orange", "Princess Diana, Princess of Wales", "Princess Claire, Princess of Liege" etc. And, overall, that sort of headings are somewhat stupid use of unnecessary titles. I believe it is an outcome of some royal-romantics desiring to put all sorts of titles on prominent display here. I regard that unencyclopedic. For Alice, e.g Alice, Duchess of Gloucester suffices well. Perhaps even some simpler heading could be formulated for her. And, I find the idea to distinguish between kings and lower ones by using the title of the latter, a bit problematic, so the said existing convention should not enjoy any force of analogy for deciding further what is good convention for such that do not yet have a convention. I think that for consorts of non-reigning royals, we probably could use a convention analogous with how we treat consorts of peers. Meanwhile, I would like some cessation of British focus on these talks of conventions - please present examples of other countries and try to avoid British ones, as very obviously we arrive at headings emulating too much the British protocol and not sufficiently any encyclopedic purposes if Windsors are used as sample. Besides, their territorial designation "of the United Kingdom" smacks always artificial. Another danger of deciding just on basis of British royals is the phenomenon of that not being reciprocal - persons who are avowed in defending those conventions, make intellectual dishonesties as soon as foreign names should be treated according to same rules, witness the question of Elisabeth of Bohemia, which is currently a clear anglocentrism. Arrigo 18:40, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

However, for "Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester," she was granted permission to use that style by the Queen. However, something like "Princess Sophie, Countess of Wessex" or "Princess Diana, Princess of Wales" would be totally incorrect. Princesses by marriage (in the United Kingdom) are not entitled to be called Princess <birthname>. I personally think that we should apply the same principle as we do to deceased Queen-consorts: Maiden name, minus styles (i.e. not "Lady Alice Montagu-Douglas-Scott" but just "Alice Montagu-Douglas-Scott"; not "Princess Louise Marguerite of Prussia" but "Louise Marguerite of Prussia"). 71.64.199.73 00:19, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
How do we know you are not just Arrigo under another name?
Sorry, that was me, I forgot to log in. --Matjlav(talk) 18:04, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Unless Arrigo has suddenly moved to Cincinnati, that's quite unlikely. ("nslookup" is your friend.) But having a registered username can be useful for these contentious little debates... Choess 21:57, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
See also http://www.formyip.com/ipcountry.php --Philip Baird Shearer 11:12, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
He could be on holiday... Deb 16:24, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Duh. And person(s) who increasingly deserve the nickname "the Destroyer", could be paranoid. 217.140.193.123 22:16, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Did you have a nice time? Deb 15:59, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

"Princess Name, Duchess of X" is quite different from "Princess Name, Princess of X." The latter is definitely stupid, since we already know the lady in question is a princess from her substantive title. in the former case, it is not so stupid, because there are many duchesses who are not princesses, and there is perfectly good reason to differentiate royal duchesses from ordinary ones. john k 07:47, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Dear John and others, it is not the task of the heading to give very much information. I remind that it is not encyclopedic to make headings do anything else than disambiguate. Why on earth should a heading give several titles? All those things are to be explained in the text of the article. Moreover, I find it very ridiculous and very unencyclopedic to have a heading of an article contain as many as two titles. Even one is a stretch, but could be needed for disambiguation. Two should never be needed for anything useful. Putting two titles into one heading in an objective encyclopedia is more like having heralds repeat more or less empty titles in a case where the person does not deserve any attention nor respect. How could there be any objective reasons to have "Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester" in an encyclopedia??? Arrigo 08:22, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Princess Alexandra of Denmark

We have recently encountered a problem with the naming of Princess Alexandra, Countess of Frederiksborg. Someone who was not very knowledgeable moved the article from its correct location at Princess Alexandra, Countess of Frederiksborg to the very incorrect and not correct in one way, Countess Alexandra of Frederiksborg, whoever did this also created a mess of disambiguations. Please me and User:Prsgoddess187, would like to fix this and would also like to change the way many of the British Royals are titled. For more information visit my talk page or that of Princess Alexandra, Countess of Frederiksborg, With your help we can fix this problem. I would also like the help of an administrator to help lock Pss. Alexandra's page to avoid a messy edit war. Thanks so much. Mac Domhnaill 00:09, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Not surprisingly, the questionable move, leaving a host of double and triple redirects, was done by Arrigo diff --Francis Schonken 00:25, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Glad to see I am not the only one with a problem with him. Prsgoddess187 00:38, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
That user Arrigo is notorious for renaming any royal article he can get his hands on, removing titles wherever it is possible and then going off into tantrums when someone challenges those moves. I would support the creation of an RfC because this is silly... Gryffindor 20:43, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Hilda Toledano / Maria Pia, Saxe Coburg Gotha pretender

One of Hilda Toledano's persistent "supporters" has recently requested a page move to Maria Pia de Saxe Coburg Braganza . Input of those interested would be appreciated at Talk:Hilda Toledano. - Nunh-huh 21:07, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Maria Pia de Saxe Coburg Braganza (82.54.247.122|Manuel's argumentation, moved here from above)

  • (Talk:Hilda Toledano — Hilda Toledano → Maria Pia de Saxe Coburg Braganza –There are people in this page that change the authentic and original baptism name of the duchess Maria Pia of Braganza and insert as title of this page the name Hilda Toledano. Hilda Toledano was only a pseudonym name that she used when she wrote some of her novels and also a pseudonym that she used in particular in salazarist period for political problems (You can see also in this web page : http://www.projectedletters.com/vault/maria-pia/maria-pia-3/ ). Don' t exist other documents where we can see the name Hilda Toledano. She was knowledge as Maria Pia Saxe Coburg Braganza and in all the official documents of this woman the only used name was Maria Pia Saxe Coburg Braganza.(see http://www.theroyalhouseofportugal.org/html/pater.html ). So the attempt to change her name is only a fool the portoguese historical truth ! And this is also illegal .

I ask to reintegrate the name Maria Pia Saxe Coburg Braganza as title of this article and instead Hilda Toledano redirect to Maria Pia Saxe Coburg Braganza.I have read the affermations of Nunh-huh (a declared supporter of Duarte Pio of Braganza) that he want hide the historical truth and in particular change the baptismal name of Maria Pia of Braganza in Hilda Toledano. Here is not rilevant about the rights of Maria Pia of Braganza to Portuguese dinastic succession but now is important make clear(if wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia) that the name of this woman was in all her official documents and always she was know as Maria Pia de Saxe Coburg Braganza and not Hilda Toledano(a pseudonym in her novels). If this in not true, dear nunh-huh I ask another time(but you don't reply to me -because there is no answer ) where can I see an official document where this woman was named Hilda Toledano? At the contrary the name of Maria Pia de Saxon Coburg Bragança is reported: 1) in her baptismal document ( http://www.theroyalhouseofportugal.org/html/pater.html )

2)in the definitive sentence of Sacra Romana Rota( http://www.theroyalhouseofportugal.org/portugues/srr1.htm ):The Apostolic Tribunal SACRA ROMANA ROTA declared the Dom Duarte Nuno request to cancel the name of HM the King Dom Carlos I, Maria Pia rightful father, from the certificate of Baptism of the Princess illegitimate and confirmed the complete validity of the act of Baptism and the paternity of Donna Maria Pia.

3)This woman was ALWAYS called as HRH Dona Maria Pia de Saxon Coburg Bragança from Important istitutional Person as for example HM the King Alfonso XIII,king of Spain and and the Prince Alfonso Jaime de Borbon( http://www.theroyalhouseofportugal.org/html/alfonso.html ),by general Humberto Delgado( http://www.theroyalhouseofportugal.org/html/delgado.html ),Mario Soares ( http://www.theroyalhouseofportugal.org/html/letters.htm ),by gen. Francisco Franco and later by Felipe Polo Martinez-Valdes ( http://www.theroyalhouseofportugal.org/html/franco.html )and very other authorities...

4)See these scanned images of parts of some books undaubtably confirming the identity of Donna Maria Pia as Royal Princess of Saxon Coburgo Gotha de Bragança, and her title of XXI Duchess of Bragançam and her role in the history of Portugal( http://www.theroyalhouseofportugal.org/html/testim.html )

5)Dona Maria Pia died in Verona in 1995 as Maria Pia of Saxony Coburgo Gotha and Bragança and this is reported in the document demographic services in the city of Verona(Italy):( http://www.theroyalhouseofportugal.org/media/docs/batesimi_2526certificati/cert-morte.jpg )

6)The portuguese Genealogy ( http://genealogia.netopia.pt/pessoas/pes_show.php?id=206382 ) The attempt to change the name of Maria Pia of Braganza is only a tentative of mystification of the portuguese historical truth and the miguelist supporter (that are against Maria Pia claims) are doing this. If this is a serious encyclopedia(and I believe this) , here are valid only reality present in official documents(as my example above)and not talks of people without proof. -Manuel 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Follow-up (7 days after start of vote)

  1. I implemented the "No Move" result of the vote, and removed the topic from WP:RM --Francis Schonken 09:59, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  2. 82.54.247.122|Manuel's new proposal is to split the article on this person over two pages, I expressed my opinion against such split at Talk:Hilda_Toledano#Split_the_page_on_this_person_in_two_separate_pages --Francis Schonken 09:59, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Queens Consort

I suspected that existing standards were inadequate for disambiguating queens consort, I have hit on an example of this. See Maria Anna of Bavaria and Maria Anna of Bavaria (1551-1608). Strictly speaking the former was a Dauphiness (see Dauphin) and the latter an Empress, but this is not the crucial issue. Just to compliate matters, there is a 3rd Maria Anna of Bavaria who came between them, she does not yet have an entry but could be encyclopedic. The present system is a stop gap, I am not very happy with it. We could use numbers, but what if we later find an earlier one? I am inclined to use their later titles to disambiguate e.g. Maria Anna of Bavaria, Dauphiness of France, and Maria Anna of Bavaria, Empress of Austria. Even that might still be ambiguous in a handful of cases. Any comments?

We see similar ambiguity problems with Earl of Moray, compare the one from the 1501 creation and his successor. We may as well let this one stand, but it could get complicated with some other titles. PatGallacher 15:24, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

It's true, the naming system can never be foolproof. But it's pretty good. However, neither of the examples you quoted above is a queen regnant. Deb 17:52, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
In fact, one was a dauphiness, one an archduchess; but while Pat Gallacher has misstated the problem (it's a problem with queens consort ; we handle the few queens regnant reasonably well) it is a real one; and this is a worse example than the ones we've already had. Her solution is worth discussing, rather than dismissing out of hand. My reservation about it is that it would lead to styles, like Victoria of the United Kingdom, German Empress, which are never used by anybody; then again, the same can be said of the present system. Septentrionalis 21:21, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it was my mistake, I meant queens consort. The trouble is the present naming system doesn't disambiguate in cases like these. I think we should be pragmatic, leave the current title of Vicky alone, but use this for the Maria Annas. PatGallacher 23:38, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

That's good, I thought I was missing something. And of course I wasn't dismissing your suggestion. It's just that there are zillions of examples (well, hundreds, anyway) within wikipedia where disambiguation is needed, and in my view it doesn't have much to do with the naming conventions. These are people's names, after all, and names aren't often unique. Deb 18:06, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Kings of Ireland and Scotland

The examples in the proposed policy shows an Anglocentric POV. Kings (and Queens) of England after 1536 (including Henry VIII) were legally Kings of Ireland as well while Kings of England after 1603 were also Kings of Scotland. After 1707 until 1801, Kings of Great Britain remained Kings of Ireland. The full title of the UK was of "Great Britain and Ireland". Therefore the correct style (in terms of historical reference books) would be "Elizabeth I of England and Ireland", "Anne of England, Ireland and Scotland", "George I of Great Britain and Ireland", etc.--Andrew L 22:24, 8 October 2005 (UTC)--Andrew L 22:24, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(royalty_and_nobility)/Archive_15&oldid=1080738244"