This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mary I of England article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Mary I of England is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kingdom of Naples, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Kingdom of NaplesWikipedia:WikiProject Kingdom of NaplesTemplate:WikiProject Kingdom of NaplesKingdom of Naples
This article is within the scope of WikiProject English Royalty. For more information, visit the project page.English RoyaltyWikipedia:WikiProject English RoyaltyTemplate:WikiProject English RoyaltyEnglish royalty
This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belgium, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Belgium on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BelgiumWikipedia:WikiProject BelgiumTemplate:WikiProject BelgiumBelgium-related
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.NetherlandsWikipedia:WikiProject NetherlandsTemplate:WikiProject NetherlandsNetherlands
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: not moved. After much-extended time for discussion, there is a clear absence of consensus for the proposed move, and closer to a consensus against the move in light of other royal figures named Mary which may be confusing to the casual international Wikipedia reader. BD2412T21:12, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose or maybe mild oppose. I think some readers can can reasonably looking for Mary, Queen of Scots, and maybe (though less likely) Mary of Hungary.Seltaeb Eht (talk) 21:14, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Too ambiguous. I also wish that people would stop introducing frivolous move requests into monarchy related articles. There's no need to change the status quo right now. 92.40.212.153 (talk) 18:35, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the above. The country is important in the interests of our readers and necessary to make the subject of such articles sufficiently clear. Removing it isn’t an improvement for our readers (which policy instructs is our priority) and doesn’t seem to serve any good purpose beyond just following the recent change to NCROY -- and given the contentiousness of all the RMs that's prompted, it almost certainly needs to be revised. ╠╣uw[talk]18:03, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As an addendum to my !vote, here's a bit more detail on some of the salient policies:
Our WP:CRITERIA policy instructs that we make user interests’ our priority, and that we ensure titles are recognizable to those who are familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area. As I’ve noted elsewhere, the problem is that many regnal names — and especially common and repeated names like Mary — may not be sufficiently recognizable even to those who are familiar with royalty. I myself am one (familiar but no expert) and until these recent RMs I would not have been able to tell you that Charles X and Charles XI were kings of entirely different countries, of that Mary I must necessarily be Mary I of England
WP:COMMONNAME policy encourages us to look to other reputable encyclopedias for comparison. That Britannica considers it important to include with the title a clarifier that she is queen of England seems pertinent.
Primary topic policy does not dictate that the most concise unambiguous title is the one we must use. If it did, we'd have US, UK, Obama, 103rd Congress, Cezanne, Bothell, Rockies, Pacific, DTs, AI, etc., all of which redirect to less concise titles. Policy recognizes that other factors beyond conciseness and ambiguity are important for us to consider, and I would say they favor retaining the country.
By your absurd interpretation of CRITERIA, title preferences would be in this ascending order:
Mary I
Mary I of England
Mary I of England (1516-1558)
Mary I (1516-1558), Queen of England (1553-1558), Queen consort of Spain
Mary I (1516-1558), Queen of England (1553-1558), Queen consort of Spain (1556-1558)
etc.
I mean, by your interpretation, 2 is preferable to 1. By the same reasoning, 3 is preferable to 2, 4 preferable to 3, etc. There’s no end to this. For. Every. Article. On. Wikipedia. That’s why it’s absurd. —В²C☎23:07, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Huwmanbeing. I had a group of reasons but clean forgot to come here. Huwmanbeing lays out the most important: We exist to serve our readers and making/keeping things clear and easy for them is important. Happy days, ~ LindsayHello18:23, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support move of this article to Mary I per nom and because Opposers have no policy basis. None. Zip. Nada. Huwmanbeing’s claim that “of England” is necessary to make the subject “sufficiently clear” ignores ALL relevant guidelines. Primary topic here is undisputed; Mary I has been a PRIMARYREDIRECT to this article for years. Nobody has even attempted to argue we don’t have PT here. Recognizability is from the perspective of someone familiar with the topic. Anyone familiar with this Mary I will recognize an article titled Mary I is about this Mary I. Interpreting CRITERIA guidance to prioritize reader interests to mean unnecessary disambiguation like ”of England” should be included in our titles would mean a radical change to policy and changing almost all of our titles to meet some limitless unspecified standard. After all, any title can be “improved” by adding more clarity to the title so the subject is recognizable to more readers. That’s an impractical and frankly fantastic interpretation of that guidance. As such it doesn’t count as policy basis at all. Which leaves opposition with no policy basis whatsoever. —В²C☎22:16, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By your crass and rather obnoxious reply, you demonstrate precisely why i ~ and i suspect a very good number of other editors ~ tend to stay away from discussions (not arguments) like this. The very first section of TITLE says that [t}he title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize. I find it hard to argue that "Mary I of England" is not clear enough for just about every non-expert, whereas, as Huwmanbeing pointed out simply the name and number may well not be. I recognise Mary I, or Edward III, but British history is a delight of mine; i wouldn't have a clue about the Charles X and Charles XI he mentioned without clarification, and there are bound to be people in the same position for Mary I. To repeat and clarify: We exist to serve our readers, and easy titles which keep things clear are good for them and therefore for us. Happy days, ~ LindsayHello18:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for all the reasons that have been discussed ad-nauseum. Wikipedia is for readers and readers will find the existing title far more clear. Same reasons as the Maria I move, too - "Mary" is an exceptionally, exceptionally common name, even strictly among the nobility. The proposed title is ambiguous. There isn't some shortage of characters, we can spend some. SnowFire (talk) 22:28, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosbif73: That is false. It was a dab page from 2001 until 2017, when it was changed without discussion by the same user who proposed the recent change to NCROY. Here is the page in June 2017. Similar story at Mary II. Srnec (talk) 18:31, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I must have gotten this page confused with another of the royalty RMs. Nevertheless, and regardless of who made the change, that still makes over six years that it hasn't been disputed as primary redirect, so my argument stands only marginally diminished. Indeed, as pointed out in the nominating statement, two RMs on the dab page in 2020 and 2022 found consensus that the English queen is the clear primary topic. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's rather simple because neither Mary of Guise nor Mary of Teck would ever be referred to as "Mary I" because they weren't queens regnant. As for Mary, Queen of Scots, she's just hardly ever referred to as Mary I of Scotland, see ngrams[1]. Supporting that, redirects to Mary, Queen of Scots including some form of "Mary I" get less than 1000 views combined [2]. The fact of the matter is that Mary I, refers to the English queen almost exclusively. To that point, very few readers go from Mary I of England to the disambiguation page Mary I (disambiguation), to the point where it doesn't even register in WikiNav [3]. estar8806 (talk) ★18:13, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When a number of historic figures with a similar name are floating around the same topic, some clarification helps. The article has worked up till now with its current title, as it has for Henry I of England. I have no further insights to offer. Indefatigable2 talk18:27, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This article is a biography of Mary Tudor. It should not include unsourced tangential digressions of little to no relevance to Mary's life story. The Spanish guarded their trade routes, that is all that needs to be said at this article for readers to understand the point. Material that is not found in biographies of Mary should not be included in this biography of Mary per the principle of due weight. It is disruptive to continue to edit war against established consensus. DrKay (talk) 20:13, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ecrm87, I have very little idea where you acquired the idea that "footnotes do not need to be sourced", but it was not from our content policies and guidelines. Remsense ‥ 论21:22, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly the footnote is not tangential if it is related to a point being made in the text. Spanish mercantilism did not exist in this time period because Spain itself did not have a unified trade policy. If you were referring to military policy, I would agree that Spain could be used without issue, but the trade policies of Castile and Aragon were too different at this time to just lump them together so casually. I agree that the difference does not belong in the main text, but a footnote should be included to note that there was a difference.
Secondly, if the footnote points to an article whose whole purpose explains Castilian mercantilism then providing a citation is redundant. Ecrm87 (talk) 21:32, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I really do not want to be a pedant, but that's precisely what tangential means, and how it is usually intended in editorial critique: the tangential passage is clearly related to the main text for a brief moment, but it then goes off in its own direction.
Linking another Wikipedia article is never sufficient citation for any claim: that this would potentially be circular is a very basic fact about editing Wikipedia.
The fact remains that the Spanish Empire is lumped together casually like the "will" and "interests" of literally any political entity: if it were central to the biography in question, more nuance would be due. This, however, is a biography about Mary Tudor, and such details are not in focus, nor should they be.
Who can say what she did and didn't know, but Castile and Aragon charged different tariffs at their ports for example and had different rules, so I would expect her merchants certainly did know.
It's a footnote! Provided it is related to what's being discussed in the main text then that is sufficient.
Given the article is sourced I don't really follow that logic, but I have a source in any case which can be added.
I'm not putting it in focus, again, it's a footnote!
Yet the sentence is discussing Spanish merchants. If you don't think that is relevant to Queen Mary, by that same logic it should be removed too. Ecrm87 (talk) 23:42, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An entire sentence! Don't spend it all in one place. Our point if we have to boil it down is you do not need this footnote in this biography. The thrust is as nuanced as any brief summary of tertiary political actors in a given narrative would be. If this is your footnote, someone else would have their own elsewhere. If you cannot be convinced that neither are really needed here, then I would not really know how to better explain that to you. Remsense ‥ 论23:43, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is your opinion, it is not mine. I can't find any guidance in Wikipedia stating that tangential information cannot be provided in footnotes. In fact the second sentence of Help:Footnotes states: 'In this context, the word "Footnotes" refers to the Wikipedia-specific manner of documenting an article's sources and providing tangential information'. If I were trying to include this in the main text I would entirely take your point that it shouldn't be there, but to remove a footnote because you think it irrelevant to the main text seems to me that you don't understand one of the main reasons for footnotes. Ecrm87 (talk) 23:58, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still do not accept the reasons given above for removing a footnote. There have not been any concrete Wikipedia policies mentioned that make any reference to removing footnotes because they don't fit with the main thrust of an article. The wikipedia policy in its opening sentence makes it clear that footnotes can be used for imparting tangential information and it seems to me that the whole discussion above relates to what should be in the main text and not on footnotes. I will also reiterate that the text on the page as it now reads requires clarification outside the main text, as saying 'mercantilist Spanish' in an article relating to the 16th century is as erroneous as saying 'mercantilist British' in an article relating to the 17th century. Ecrm87 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecrm87 (talk • contribs) 13:48, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just because it's a footnote. Everyone else thinks it's unnecessary detail. Do you think that a consensus may have been established here? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:21, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see a lot of comments by a group of editors who edit the page regularly to the point of policing it. I see a consensus yes, but not a particularly healthy one. Ecrm87 (talk) 17:39, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't referring to you, but rather generally. The page's history features a lot of reversions by only two editors. I don't think a consensus based on suppressing edits is helpful or indeed in accordance with what wikipedia is here for. Ecrm87 (talk) 18:24, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-4 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg)
The redirect Philip and Mary of England has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 17 § Philip and Mary of England until a consensus is reached. estar8806 (talk) ★ 12:03, 17 July 2023 (UTC)