Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Titles of European monarchs

Please consider joining the feedback request service.

An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists:

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

In the absence of a need to disambiguate, how should we title the articles of European imperial and royal monarchs?

Louis XVI^[a]
King Louis XVI^[b]
Louis XVI of France^[c]
King Louis XVI of France^[d]
Louis XVI, King of France^[e]
Louis XVI (king of France)^[f]
Louis XVI (France)^[g]
Louis XVI, king of France^[h]
Use the common name; do not apply a consistent style

If you support multiple options, please rank your preferences to assist the closer in identifying consensus. 22:06, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Clarifications:

Absence of a need to disambiguate includes articles where the monarch is the primary topic for that name.

The context for this discussion includes:

A November 2023 RfC consensus instructing editors to disambiguate only if disambiguation is required.

A May 2023 ArbCom case request that raised concerns about disruption in the topic area. This case lists a number of recent requested moves and move reviews.

A village pump discussion drafting this RfC.

Survey

Option 3 - For consistency & identity, we must restore the previous style. GoodDay (talk) 22:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 Conditional on no other monarchs having the same regnal name (i.e. same name and number). In the case of monarchs with identical regnal styles (i.e. Charles III) then Option 3. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 - because it's pretty much the default for non-European monarchs, with some exceptions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Killuminator (talk • contribs) 22:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 or 9 - if there's no need to disambiguate, just use the regnal name per WP:COMMONNAME. "of [XYZ]" is inherently a disambiguator, which is redundant if there's nothing to do so from. The Kip ^(contribs) 22:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't initially clear that this also covers cases like Charles III, where there's multiple royals with the name but a clear primary topic. In that case, I still support my original vote. The Kip ^(contribs) 23:06, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@The Kip: Did you vote twice? Which of the two is supposed to count? Renerpho (talk) 23:19, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to update comment, basically saying I still support my original vote. The Kip ^(contribs) 23:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest to turn the second vote into a comment then, to avoid confusion. People may count votes without looking at the user names. Renerpho (talk) 23:22, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@The Kip: Alternatively, ~~strike~~ the first one. Renerpho (talk) 23:23, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh jeez, didn't realize there was an actual second vote. Deleted the first one, my bad. The Kip ^(contribs) 23:25, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem :) Renerpho (talk) 23:26, 22 June 2024 (UTC) And yes, I use the word "vote" colloquially here. I am aware that this is a survey, not a ballot. Renerpho (talk) 23:43, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3, or alternatively Option 5, and I'd include a disambiguation page showing all the monarchs with the same regnal name. Thanks for the notification, I really think that "assuming that a king is more important than the others" (as it often happens with option 1) doesn't make any sense and it makes finding "the right king" difficult for people who are not familiar with Wikipedia. Systematizing it in this way will also prevent disputes on what's a "Common Name" exactly. --MaeseLeon (talk) 22:54, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd include a disambiguation page showing all the monarchs with the same regnal name

The RfC posits In the absence of a need to disambiguate, you may want to re-qualify your vote. The Kip ^(contribs) 22:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. There was a kinda bitter dispute precisely in the article about Charles III on what exactly is a WP:COMMONNAME. I think that systematizing all regnal names under an unified format will help prevent this in the future. --MaeseLeon (talk) 23:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@The Kip: The question has been clarified. I don't see how "Absence of a need to disambiguate includes articles where the monarch is the primary topic for that name" is supposed to be enforced. Renerpho (talk) 23:11, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 5 - I have come to realize that Name of Country does not fully define the scope of sovereigns per WP:PRECISE. Furthermore, Name, King/Queen/Emperor/Empress of Country would be consistent on how grand dukes and lesser sovereigns are titled, per #5 of WP:SOVEREIGN. (Since I have said a lot on this matter, I will not comment further unless pinged). AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 22:52, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 Renerpho (talk) 22:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Renerpho please give an explanation of why option 3 would be preferable. Mach61 23:00, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot. Precision is the main reason. I don't think Option 5 is necessary. Renerpho (talk) 23:04, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The question whether this includes cases where one is considered "the most prominent" has been clarified (the answer is yes). I stand by my vote, chiefly per the problem stated by MaeseLeon. Trying to determine which monarch/country is the primary one is a recipe for drama. Even if one may satisfy the requirements at COMMONNAME or other WP:CRITERIA on paper, I think it's unwise to try. Doing it by the rules of WP:Article titles hasn't worked, so it's time to look past that. Trying to find a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC may be the core of the problem. Renerpho (talk) 23:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly oppose option 9, for the reason given by Compassionate727. Renerpho (talk) 16:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 if one is the most prominent (for example, George III or Charles III) per the many discussions we've had on this that people won't give up on trying to overrule.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:58, 22 June 2024 (UTC)I've restated my vote below.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:19, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discussions about prominence are irrelevant here - the RfC inherently notes In the absence of a need to disambiguate. The Kip ^(contribs) 23:00, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does "absence of a need to disambiguate" include cases where one is clearly the most prominent? Renerpho (talk) 23:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes; I will update the question to clarify. BilledMammal (talk) 23:03, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At least to me, it implies only those cases where there's one monarch with the name. The Kip ^(contribs) 23:03, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would understand it like that, too, but given the nature of the debate, I think it doesn't hurt to be absolutely clear about it. Renerpho (talk) 23:05, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 9 was added subsequent to my vote. I would say I would support whichever of Options 1 and 9 upholds the status quo, WP:COMMONNAME, and the outcome of the repeated discussions such as the several RMs on Charles III. Wehwalt (talk) 01:06, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 - Option 1 if there's a clear main topic, otherwise Option 3 or 7 (I imagine there are edge cases where the 'of' in option 3 would cause some issues, like the Kings IN Prussia, which could be avoided by the brackets, also more in line with usual name disambiguations like Will Smith (comedian). All of this granted there is no more well known common name without a regnal number like Alexander the Great instead of Alexander the III. (For clarity, I consider Charles III to be the main topic for his name in common usage by the average person; living or particularly well remembered monarchs should get priority). — jonas (talk) 23:02, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 - Option 1 if there's a main topic. In other cases I would choose 3. History6042 (talk) 23:05, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Use the common name, whichever that is. There is no need to impose consistency if there is none in the real world. Thryduulf (talk) 23:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added that to the RfC as Option 9 BilledMammal (talk) 23:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there are multiple common names and none is more common than the others, use the option that offers the greatest recognisability e.g. if "Louis XVI" and "Louis XVI of France" are tied for the most common name then use the latter as people familiar with both forms will recognise the subject but not everybody familiar with only the "of France" version will recognise the shorter option. (i.e. recognisability and precision are more important than concision). Thryduulf (talk) 09:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3 or 7: Both of these provide enough disambiguation. 1 neutral. No to the rest per MOS:HONORIFICS. We do not need to include honorifics except maybe in the introduction of an article, having honorifics makes the title harder to search. Awesome Aasim 23:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 when there is no other monarch with the same name and suffix, or if there is one who is an obvious WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, such as Charles III. When there are multiple monarchs with the same name and none are a primary topic, then use option 3 to differentiate. Frank Anchor 23:11, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Option 1~~ if there is no need to disambiguate, or there is an obvious primary subject. Option 3 if there isn't. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 9 was added while I was writing, so 9 > 1. I had kind of assume the common name issue was resolved before this question, as this should follow basic policy. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:18, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 clearest and contains all the essential information. --Marbe166 (talk) 23:17, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"In the absence of a need to disambiguate", obviously option 1, since any other option is pre-emptive or over-disambiguation for no reason, and that is something we do not do, for any topic. There is nothing magically special about the category of nobility biographies. In the case that disambiguation is required (e.g. as with "Charles II"), then use option 3, to be consistent with all other such title disambiguations (there's also nothing magically special about Europe). In particular, the versions with the title added and the versions with an injected comma fail WP:CONCISE in adding text that is not necessary. The parenthesis (round brackets) versions fail WP:NATURALDIS, by which principle we automatically prefer a natural-English expression over parenthetic disambiguation. PS: option 5 also arguably fails MOS:BIO; a title is slated to only be capitalized when directly juxtaposed with a person's name, not when separated by any other text (and injected punctuation is not an enumerated exception). There has been recurrent but unresolved debate about whether there should be such an exception. As a technicality, I've added option 8 to reflect this, but it also should be rejected because of the extraneous comma and title. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:18, 22 June 2024 (UTC); revised 23:25, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would support 1. 2 and 4 violate MOS:HON and there doesn’t appear to be any other notable figure named Louis XVI. Therefore WP:PRIMARYTOPIC would apply. SKAG123 (talk) 23:19, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SKAG123: Charles III is also covered by this RfC, per the clarification. Compare Charles III (disambiguation) for other notable figures with that name. Renerpho (talk) 23:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would support 3 that case SKAG123 (talk) 16:40, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2 > 4 > 5 > 3 > 8: The most important thing to note about a European monarch is that they are a monarch. So I'd oppose any styling that doesn't include the title. 6 and 7 look like disambiguation names and shouldn't be used if there's no need to disambiguate, but "King" is just part of the common name of Louis XVI. Most times he's referred to, he's not called just "Louis XVI". Instead he's called "King Louis XVI" because it's very relevant that he's a king. Between styles that include "King" I prefer shorter ones since I think in general in the absence of need to disambiguate there's no particular reason to include domain, but I also don't have strong feelings against it. I just think it's unnecessary. Loki (talk) 23:26, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Option 1 per WP:CONCISE, WP:COMMONNAME and all the other well argued reason at the last RFC. If we don't need to add a disambiguater, we shouldn't. It isn't the job of a title to be a Short description of what's in the article. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 23:27, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also support Option 9 as it seems the most inline with the normal naming policies. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 23:31, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 9 per "there's no reason to make an exception here", but if there needs to be a guideline, then option 1 per conciseness. If there's no need to disambiguate, then there shouldn't be a disambiguator. And, if there is a need to disambiguate, options 3 or 5 make the most sense and fit WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NATURAL better than the others. Strong oppose 2 and 4 per MOS:HON. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:42, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 or 9: As WP:Article titles indicates with the Energy example in the WP:PRECISION section, WP:CONCISE and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC has priority over WP:PRECISION. Even for cases where disambiguation comes up like Charles III, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC should still apply. StellarHalo (talk) 23:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3, always title monarchs as "Name Number of Country" when first mentioned for clarity and consistency. Subsequent mentions can use "Name Number" or just "Name". JIP | Talk 00:04, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 9. WP:COMMONNAME comes first. Wikipedia editors should not invent a style that doesn’t exist and force application everywhere. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:17, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where these is no COMMONNAME for a monarch, notability is probably dubious and the subject should be merged to a table of monarchs for that realm. A Wikipedia style should not be applied anachronistically. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:57, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I vote for Option 1 - I notice that when I look up a regnal name on Wikipedia, I am provided with additional information. For instance looking up Charles III, result: Charles III, King of the United Kingdom since 2022. I vote for Option 5 for the spouse of the monarch. ProfessorKaiFlai (talk) 00:08, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 9 I do not see any reason why monarchs should be exempt from one of the sites most basic rules. COMMONNAME reigns.★Trekker (talk) 00:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 Mentioning the name and the ordinal, and which country he/she ruled. I don't think mentioning the specific title of "emperor", "king", "duke", etc. is important, except in cases where disambiguation is needed. Dimadick (talk) 00:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 9 and 1. WP:COMMONNAME works just as well here as it does anywhere. In the absence of a need to disambiguate, use the shortest article title possible which clearly delineates the subject, and leave off any unnecessary titles, countries, and so on. Of course if necessary for disambiguation, use as needed, but no more than needed to make the article title unambiguous. Option 1 as well since there may be multiple names the individual is commonly known by; in such a case, use the shortest one with the least tacked on. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Options 9 and 1. Really, it's just a question of WP:COMMONNAME. The current King of England isn't referred to as "Charles III of the United Kingdom and a bunch of Commonwealths" or whatever... he's just Charles III, and sources overwhelmingly call him that. I think the UK royalty is the one most people think about, even though there are other royal families, because it's the main such family in the English-speaking world, and thus why COMMONNAME will overwhelmingly favor UK monarchs to have the "just the name and number" title. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 00:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that the current king is most commonly referred to simply as “King Charles” (or perhaps “the King”). In common usage, we only add the ordinal when there is a need to disambiguate… and if we are disambiguating anyway why not do so completely? Blueboar (talk) 13:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
King Charles III of Britain? Hm that doesn't exist... — Iadmc ♫^talk 13:19, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 and 9. I prefer the shortest one. However, WP:COMMONNAME should be used in some cases, especially if a monarch with that name is more well known than the others. MarioJump83 (talk) 00:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Top preference for Options 1 or 3. Option 1 is certainly the most WP:CONCISE option, and is sure to avoid WP:OVERPRECISION; conversely, the appeal of Option 3 is that this is an area where I feel like a bit of overprecision can actually be helpful to readers without sacrificing WP:NATURALness (see WP:USPLACE as a similar case). Another potential benefit for Option 3 is that it makes it easy to be WP:CONSISTENT with monarchs who do need to be disambiguated. Secondary preference for Options 9 or 5. Option 9 is straightforward and I agree with the logic behind it, but I don't think it will adequately resolve the underlying debate unless it's paired with another option that serves as the "baseline" recommendation. As for Option 5: I think including the specific title is generally unnecessary, but if we do choose to include it, I think 5 is the option that best retains its naturalness across different titles (e.g. Grand Dukes and such). Oppose 2, 4, 6, 7, 8. (I'm happy to provide explanations for my opposes if desired, but will hold off for now to avoid making this lengthy !vote any longer.) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 01:41, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
9 as guide, and then if there isn't a common name 1 and the ones without the title seem more in the spirit of MOS:PEOPLETITLES, although obviously these are somewhat very defining titles. If this question evolves into how to disambiguate, then feel free to copy this over and put me down for 3 as concise and clear. CMD (talk) 01:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1. Preemptive disambiguation should be avoided. This option also is supported by WP:CONCISE and even WP:PRECISE. The example the latter gives is apt here: "Usually, titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that. For instance, Saint Teresa of Calcutta is too precise, as Mother Teresa is precise enough to indicate exactly the same topic." Of course, there may be cases where a longer title is COMMONNAME, in which we should defer to that. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 02:18, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 or 9(where applicable) - No need to complicate things. Disambiguation only necessary if multiple Louis XVIs are commonly known, regardless of whether they exist. Stanley Bannerman (talk) 02:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 - For the sake of consistency. Primary topics and/or COMMONNAMEs can be redirects. Tad Lincoln (talk) 03:16, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 If no disambiguation is needed then option one is the best per WP:COMMONNAME, this especailly applies when monarchs 'rule' over several independent countries (eg. Charles III). Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 03:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3. I am mostly anti-9. I think a consistent style should be enforced within a line of succession (with the odd exception). This is equally true of non-European monarchs. I do not necessarily think that every European monarchy needs to be treated the same way. 3 is the most elegant (shortest, naturalest) method that can be applied consistently to all monarchs in a succession. I also note that no matter how famous or singular, e.g., Louis XIV is, you generally cannot introduce him in an article without saying or having said 'France' somewhere. There is nothing ugly or silly about "Louis XIV of France". It is wrong to regard "of France" as operating like a mere natural disambiguator. It makes more sense to see it as integral to making sense of the numeral. It is no more redundant than using full names of famous people (e.g., Einstein, Picasso, Leibniz). Srnec (talk) 03:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 preferably, but would not oppose Option 5. I give the grounds of my opinion more in full in the Discussion section below. But in summary, we need a consistent norm for European sovereigns, applied equitably across countries, that is useful, helpful, improves recognizability and avoids toxic nationalist squabbles. The gain of including "of country" in the article title is great, the cost is negligible or none. Walrasiad (talk) 04:21, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Option 3: Walrasiad’s approach in the previous section is correct. Use that for all, even if it means a title such as “Charles III of the United Kingdom”. This is my final word on the matter. Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 04:37, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 seems to be used for all the monarchs I've looked up. For a dab use Option 3 or 7. No need for King/Queen in article name unlike Prince/Princess/Duke etc— Iadmc ♫^talk 06:40, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Second thoughts there are a lot of "Charles III"s so perhaps Charles III should be Charles III of Britain? — Iadmc ♫^talk 13:16, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Third thoughs: he's king of Northern Ireland too so that won't work... Charles III of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? No.Just no — Iadmc ♫^talk 19:37, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 per points above. Unnecessary disambiguation is unnecessary disambiguation. Sahaib (talk) 07:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
'Option 9 seems the most sensible to me. A one-size-fits-all formula may be neat and tidy but wouldn't be helpful to our readers. Tim riley talk 07:27, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 per WP:NCROY and WP:COMMONNAME. This discussion does not appear to concern a change in the guidelines (correct me if I'm wrong), so referencing them is still in order. In any case, if this was a change of guidelines, I would still support Louis XVI as it is the shortest option. Aintabli (talk) 07:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 9, no need for a particular rule. Desertarun (talk) 08:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 : That was his name and so named were all the others, including queens & princesses consort. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 9 because it's policy. No need to do anything different for monarchs. Richard75 (talk) 09:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 Per points made above; it's pretty much default for European monarchs and rulers and it is concise and precise. — Sadko (words are wind) 09:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Options 9 and 1 if there is no disambiguation with that name, to keep things simple. If there is disambiguation, then Support Option 7. —Mjks28 (talk) 09:59, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 or 9. If there's no need to disambiguate, for whatever reason, then there's no need to include additional information in the article title per WP:PRECISE. Parsecboy (talk) 10:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 or 9 - Shortest is best, where there's no need to disambiguate. Obviously if there's a common name we should prefer that. FOARP (talk) 10:27, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 or 3 The former probably fits our rules better, the latter is actually better for the readers (in mine opinion, obviously). None of the others are really satisfactory at all. Happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 10:43, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If our rules say we should do something that is not the best option for readers then we need to change the rules. Thryduulf (talk) 10:56, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 9 and while you're at it add "European" in the title of WP:NCROY. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
9 > 1. WP:COMMONNAME is the most general guideline. If it's unclear whether Option 1 or Option 3 is the common name, choose Option 1, following WP:CONCISE. Any chosen form should be supported by literature. Previously, this wasn't always the case with the old NCROY system, where the names created by adding a territorial designation could be artificial. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 10:56, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 simply because it is impossible to create a rule that covers all cases satisfactorily. Try all you want, in the end it still needs to be up to the editors of each article. (If this RfC really is about Charles III, the case was pretty definitely settled, and any outcome of this RfC that disqualifies the current king of England as the primary topic for "Charles III" would likely just be ignored or revoked, so let's just not-vote Option 1 and get this over with. CapnZapp (talk) 10:56, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 for unambiguous names or names where one monarch is the primary meaning. Option 3 where there is no primary meaning. Where there is an overwhelmingly common name (e.g., X the Y) Option 9 should apply. Векочел (talk) 11:32, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 then Option 3 if a disabiguator is needed (ie. if different monarchs hold the same name and regal number as each other). That's what we seem to use currently and I think it works fine. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 11:49, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 9 and Option 1 I've only been involved in reviewing contentious move requests of these, so I'm actually disinterested in the topic and am only here since I was pinged. WP:COMMONNAME should hold as policy. That being said, we're here because we have to pick between 1 and 8 when it's not 100% clear what the common name is, and we Option 1 is most consistent with our parameters at COMMONNAME if 1-8 are to be treated as appearing equally. SportingFlyer T·C 11:55, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3, followed by Options 1 and Option 9 for very special case. A point I would also like to highlight is in the use of sources to establish the best known/most used name: sources are usually focused and once clarified the topic will exclude what lies beyond it. A book entitled "The Last Years of the Romanovs" will not specify every time that Nicholas II was Nicholas II of Russia, it will take it for granted regardless of any other kings/ships/cities so called, while a genealogical compendium of the dynasties Europeans will instead give a lot of weight to this, since it will include many names and homonyms. Ditto current news articles and most sources commonly referred to. I think that's something to take into account. Sira Aspera (talk) 12:11, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 9, followed by Option 1, mainly since Option 1 already is used as a common name for many monarchs in Europe, but for examples such as Alexander the Great it would not make sense to use Option 1. That's why I'm in favour primarily of option 9, as the common name makes sense for helping people find a page easily and quickly. It wouldn't make sense for the page Alexander the Great to just say "Alexander III of Macedon". CIN I&II (talk) 12:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 10 - I’m going to suggest another option: articles on Current (living) monarchs should be entitled with no ordinal at all. Ie just: King Charles, or Queen Camilla… That is, after all, almost always the most COMMONNAME while they live, and is likely to be the primary topic for that unadorned article title. Obviously, Should there be two living monarchs with the same name, we would need to disambiguate (by adding the country). The need for disambiguation really only becomes pertinent AFTER death (or abdication). At which point - if we are going to disambiguate by adding an ordinal, we should disambiguate completely (by including the country). Blueboar (talk) 13:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Option 4 is the most reasonable one as it's closest to common speech and makes it instantly clear that the individual is a monarch and which country they're from. In instances where the country disambiguation may be controversial (e.g. UK monarchs also serving as Commonwealth state monarchs) then Option 2 is an acceptable backup option. Option 9 should be used in cases of common names being used heavily, usually names of "X the Y" format such as William the Conquerer. Aside from cases like William the Conquerer I strongly oppose any format which does not include the title (King/Queen/Emperor/Duke/etc). Being a monarch is what these individuals are known for, are commonly referred to by their title, so not including the title would be about as absurd as renaming Pope John Paul II to John Paul II and leaving it as an exercise to the reader to have to scroll down to discover he was a pope! Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 13:43, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 or 3. 2 is unnecessary, 4 is too much, and 5-8 have non-alphanumeric characters - we're not doing passwords. 9 can go wrong - we'd end up calling monarchs "Chuck" or something. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 14:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3 InedibleHulk (talk) 14:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@InedibleHulk: Please give an explanation why you prefer option 3. Renerpho (talk) 18:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Peer pressure, mainly. Seems the most consensual here. They mostly made good points, too, don't get me wrong. If there's ever a need to use a different but more common name, go with 9. When usually not, this way's fine. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 9 per WP:COMMONNAME 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 15:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Option 9. Monarchs should not have an exception form WP:COMMONNAME. Titles are meant to be recognisable, not confer information in themselves. Andejons (talk) 16:43, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Option 3 This is already the standard where disambiguation is needed, I would go for consistency. IMHO the problem with abandoning pre-emptive disambiguation is that the titles of monarchs of a country become decided by developments in other countries. For example, we have James IV of Scotland, but his son is James V, not because of events in Scotland, but because there were only 4 Jameses of Majorca. We have Louis X of France, but then we have Louis XI, because there were only 10 Louiss of Bavaria. We do not always go for the shortest titles, sometimes consistency is relevant e.g. all UK Parliament constituencies have this qualifier, even if the name is unambiguous e.g. Islington South and Finsbury (UK Parliament constituency). Option 9 is not workable, we have naming conventions to establish consistency in various contexts, in this case we have hundreds of articles on monarchs, some rather obscure, to avoid an inordinate number of naming disputes we need some default standard even if we decide to depart from it in a significant number of cases. PatGallacher (talk) 17:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Option 9 - always a merry-go-round with many proposed moves, but WP:COMMONNAME is by far the most reasonable as there is no size fits all, as it depends on the individual on question

Option 3. Consistency is key. A reader should be able to tell they're reading an article about a monarch from the title of the article. It also prevents unnecessary conversations wasting Wikipedia's most valuable resource, the time of Wikipedia's editors, who are all volunteering their time, after all. Conversations about the titles of the article of monarchs where the claim that one of them is the primary topic and should just be Name III tend to attract discussion of the sort all too frequent at requested moves that tends have the underlying assumption that country X's things are more important that country Y's things, so naturally they should be the primary topic. Conversations based on the monarch being the only one with that name just encourage the former. Setting a consistent process for the names of a class of article prevents all that and saves so much time and the possibility of rancor. We have too much petty nationalism on Wikipedia already, we can at least close off this one avenue for it.

Additionally, Option 9 is the least suitable of all, as Common name simply doesn't work for this, as it's irrelevant because it's unusable. To use the example of the king at the top of the RFC, last king of the ancien régime, his common name isn't "Louis XVI" or "Louis XVI of France", it's "Louis". Just "Louis". A writer will only specify anything beyond their name when there's the possibility of confusion. We're certainly not going to call his article "Louis". The ordinals themselves are a disambiguation, but in the context of any international situation - such as an international reference work like Wikipedia - they're an incomplete one. That this comes up at all is a misunderstanding of COMMONNAME, which is only useful for monarchs in extremely rare circumstances, such as someone suggesting "Charlemagne" should be "Charles I" or any disambiguated form of that. Otherwise it just leads to a great many conversations which do nothing but waste valuable editor time.

To sum up, I'd rank the options: 3 > 4 through 8 (no preference) >>>>> 2 > 1 >> 9 Egsan Bacon (talk) 19:02, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Option 9, or the status quo. I see no reason to dig this topic back up, but as I have expressed in the past, and at the beginning of this WP:NCROY fiasco, the current system manages naming conventions quite well. The purpose of Wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia, and WP:COMMONNAME is instrumental to that. If there isn't a need to disambiguate, don't. These pages should already have redirects from all the other options anyways, making this entire discussion a moot point. We have WP:NCROY, it does its job quite well, and we should stick to WP:NCROY. --Theologus (talk) 20:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 9 per King Arthur, Napoleon, Queen Victoria, &c. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:41, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Option 1. In the absence of a need to disambiguate, including primary topic as stated in the small print, the country is superfluous; it's a disambiguator. "King" or "Queen" before the name (2 and also 4), or capitalised in any placement, is an honorific; we don't use those in titles. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:54, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Which one covers "Name # of country"? GoodDay (talk) 22:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3; I've updated the question to try to make it clearer. BilledMammal (talk) 22:21, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, the pings... why? If roads editors did the same thing, they'd be blocked for canvassing even if they followed the same logic of people who previously were in a related discussion. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, they wouldn't, since the pings are to everyone involved in prior discussion regardless of the opinions they expressed, not pings of a specific subset based on their opinion. Please actually read WP:CANVASS before citing it. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:23, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that it's canvassing - virtually all editors from prior discussions were notified, without regard for how they voted. It'd be canvassing if only those who voted in a certain way were. The Kip ^(contribs) 23:23, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it isn't canvassing, then why is {{NOTAVOTE}} in the editnotice? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's a survey, not a !vote? Renerpho (talk) 23:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because this RfC is being held on a subpage of Wikipedia:Requests for comment, and that edit notice is added to all subpages of Wikipedia:Requests for comment. BilledMammal (talk) 23:44, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. Carry on, then. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 00:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This many pings is pretty clearly not WP:CANVASSING. It'd be impossible to make this many partisan notifications. (And if you somehow managed to, that would suggest to me that the position you're notifying for is so popular that not notifying people would be a sort of reverse canvassing.) Loki (talk) 23:28, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) In addition to what SmcCandlish and The Kip said, a major part of this dispute is editors arguing that the consensus to switch from #3 to #1 doesn't reflect the consensus of the broader community, pointing to the numerical majorities at various requested moves. I proposed we address this concern by holding a broadly advertised RfC, notifying every editor involved in this dispute; the proposal was not objected to.

It also helps that I don't really have an opinion on this dispute; it's hard to canvass without knowing which side of the dispute you want to bolster. BilledMammal (talk) 23:31, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics) I'm confused why this is a question. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how "Absence of a need to disambiguate includes articles where the monarch is the primary topic for that name" is supposed to be enforced. I think arguing whether one monarch/country is the primary one is a recipe for drama, and it clearly hasn't worked in the past. The Nov.'23 RfC mainly looked at WP:CRITERIA, and I wonder if that's wise. While those usually help to guide consensus, that doesn't seem to be the case here, so maybe we shouldn't try. Renerpho (talk) 23:37, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sympathetic to people who are just voting option 9, but I don't want that to result in every RM featuring an argument over whether the format proposed in option 1 or option 3 is more common, as my experience is that in many cases, they are equally common with many sources using both. A result of option 9 only will probably perpetuate the chaos rather than clarify anything. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 02:04, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this is too long for "Survey". But since it expresses the grounds of my opinion, let me lay it out here in full.

The norm of Monarch # of country (Option 3 above) was the norm on Wikipedia for the past two decades. Country name needs to be restored in article titles. It worked well on many grounds, e.g.

(1) immediately recognizable, informative and helpful to readers,
(2) immediately identifies the topic as a monarch rather than numerous other uses of names & numerals, e.g. nobles generally (duke/count/earls are also known by numerals e.g. "Henry II"), or a pope ("Nicholas II") or bishop ("Bruno I"), or a cryptic surname ("Malcolm X") or a movie sequel ("Rocky III"), or a ship ("Mary II") or any other myriad of common uses for combinations of name & ordinal (e.g. in genealogical numbering, etc.) The term "of country" immediately clarifies that the article refers to a monarch.
(3) ensures consistency of names both vertically (across time) and horizontally (across countries)
(4) it does not prejudice one country over another, avoiding presumptions of national superiority (e.g. "George III of Great Britain" does not trump "George III of Georgia"). Puts all countries on a fair and equal footing, avoiding POV that this country is "more important" than that country.
(5) it overcome the problem of nativist spelling. In some RSs monarch names are translated into English (e.g. Amadeus, Nicholas, John, Ladislaus, Elizabeth), in other RSs they are kept in native form (e.g. Amadeo, Nikolai, Juan, Wladyslaw, Isabel) and many readers come from non-English RSs which may use another name entirely (e.g. Niccolo, Giovanni, Ulaszlo). Which spelling Wikipedia article chooses tends to be a random crapshoot, and readers shouldn't have to guess editors' preferences. They shouldn't be forced to guess that "Ladislaus I" is the same person they read in a book as "Ulaszlo I". Adding the country "Ladislaus I of Hungary" clarifies and helps them find who they're looking for.
(6) lets Wikipedia maintain its policy of avoiding honorifics in the article titles. In common usage, almost nobody uses "George III" or "Nicholas II" alone. When they want to refer to them, they almost always prefix the title to it, "King George III", or "Tsar Nicholas II" or "Queen Isabella I". Just like we refer to "Pope John Paul II" rather than "John Paul II", it should be "King George III", not merely "George III". The usage "...of country" avoids us having to include the honorific "King" (or "Tsar", "Duke" or "Prince" or whatever) in the title, by having the title implied already in the name of the kingdom/duchy/principality. The original norm "George III of Great Britain" functioned already as a concise version of what should be the proper article title "George III, King of Great Britain",
(7) It serves a de facto surname. First names are extremely common, and ordinals are not particularly memorable. People might know a Tsar Nicholas of Russia was overthrown in a revolution, but not remember whether he is Nicholas I, II, III or IV. The country "of Russia" serves the effective function of surname, helping identify the person without relying completely on numeral memorization.
(8) It remembers that the audience of Wikipedia is WP:GLOBAL, and does not assume all our readers are deeply versed in European royal kitsch, and would instantly remember the country by name & number alone.

We need a consistent norm for sovereigns, applied equitably across countries, that is useful, helpful, improves recognizability and avoids toxic nationalist squabbles. The gain of including "of country" is great, the cost is negligible or none.

By contrast, the current post-RFC guidelines six months ago or so (which drop "of country", that is option 1 above) fails on all the counts above and is very costly to Wikipedia readers.

(1) reduces recognizability and imposes hurdles on readers,
(2) doesn't indicate that it refers to a monarch - is Nicholas II a pope or a king or a rocket?
(3) introduces inconsistency in article titles, both within a country, and across countries.
(4) introduces large country bias and POV nationalist/imperialist prejudices (Britain is more important than Georgia, France more important than Sweden, Russia is more important than Ukraine, etc.) and encourages distasteful nationalist squabbles
(5) it assumes Wikipedia readers have multi-lingual capabilities, and can recognize different spellings from different languages,
(6) it violates commonname where the shortened form almost always uses honorifics.
(7) names & ordinals are not memorable on their own, making it a huge hurdle to non-Europeans or simply anybody not interested in royalist kitsch, who have not committed names & ordinals to memory.
(8) Moreover, it imposes the additional huge information requirement that Wikipedia readers must be familiar not only with this monarch, but also with ALL other European royal lines, e.g. readers not only need to know Nicholas II is from Russia, they also need to know there isn't another Nicholas II existing out there in another country (i.e. readers must also know the dynastic lines of France, Sweden, Poland, Pomerania, etc.) A huge burden that far exceeds the normal familiarity requirements.

For these reasons, and more, I support Option 3 ("Oliver X of Montenegro") as sufficiently concise, although wouldn't oppose Option 5 ("Oliver X, King of Montenegro") or Option 4 ("King Oliver X of Montenegro"). But I would strongly oppose Option 1 ("Oliver X"). Naturally, there should always be reservations for exceptions which can be argued on a case-by-case basis (per WP:COMMMONNAME etc.) But guidelines need to suggest a norm, and as far as norms are concerned, Option 3 is best.

Including "of country" has worked well for 20+ years, has a longer and wider consensus and more support in nearly all recent RMs that have tried to eliminate it since last November. Walrasiad (talk) 04:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Walrasiad this is in the wrong section, and you may want to shorten what’s effectively a wall of text as well. The Kip ^(contribs) 04:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where should it go? It feels too long to go into survey. But these are points I wish to present systematically for consideration in this discussion. Walrasiad (talk) 04:35, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, your statement clocks in at over 900 words - not a lot of folks are willing to consider that in full. The Kip ^(contribs) 04:40, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a summary of repeated RM discussions which clock in several thousands of words, with multiple paragraphs for each point. I have slimmed it to comprehensible minimum, broken it down into bulletpoints & boldface keywords to simplify reading. I was under the impression this is the place where people would be considering revising the norm. If not here, then where? Walrasiad (talk) 04:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This boils down the discussions to something like 1/50th of the original word count. I appreciate that, even though I agree it's still long. Renerpho (talk) 18:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notifications

Jump to:

Top

Survey

Discussion

Notifying all editors who took part in discussions within the past year on this topic. For this, I used the list of discussions provided at the ARBCOM request. BilledMammal (talk) 22:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@123957a, 162 etc., A.D.Hope, AKTC3, ARandomName123, Aaron Liu, ActivelyDisinterested, Ad Orientem, Adam Cuerden, Adumbrativus, Aintabli, AirshipJungleman29, AjaxSmack, Alanscottwalker, AlbusWulfricDumbledore, Alpha3031, Amakuru, Anameofmyveryown, Andejons, Andrew Davidson, AndrewPeterT, Aoi, Aoidh, AusLondonder, Awesome Aasim, Azarctic, BB-PB, BD2412, Bakir123, Baqotun0023, Barkeep49, Bazonka, Bcorr, Bensci54, Bermicourt, BillClinternet, Billreid, Bilorv, Born2cycle, Bradv, Brightgalrs, C.Fred, CIN I&II, Cabayi, Cakelot1, CapnZapp, Carolina2k22, Celia Homeford, Certes, and Chaotic Enby: BilledMammal (talk) 22:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if I pinged this group twice; there were server issues when I was making these edits and it was unclear whether the notifications went through. BilledMammal (talk) 22:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will note, as this might very well end up at ArbCom again and I can just hear the howls about INVOLVED, that I only partook in the case request and am surprised that BilledMammal decided to ping all the arbs from that discussion. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:53, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To hopefully help address any howls about INVOLVED, I did not limit my notifications to editors I consider INVOLVED and many are not.

I did consider removing the arbitrators, along with anyone else who only participated in the dispute in an administrative capacity (closers etc), but I decided it was better to ping everyone and let the editors decide for themselves whether to participate. BilledMammal (talk) 00:04, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]