Jump to content

Talk:Queen Victoria

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 87.250.113.209 (talk) at 16:24, 3 December 2007 (→Victoria's name?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former featured articleQueen Victoria 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.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 12, 2004.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 16, 2004Featured article candidatePromoted
September 6, 2006Featured article reviewDemoted
Current status: Former featured article

Template:FAOL Template:WP1.0

Archive
Archives
  1. 25th August 2004 - 19th May 2007

John Francis?

"John Francis (most likely seeking to gain notoriety) fired a pistol at the Queen (then in a carriage), but was immediately seized by Police Constable William Trounce. Francis was convicted of high treason, but his death sentence was commuted to transportation for life. (It is not known whether he was later elected Prime Minister of Australia, but this seems unlikely)." Is this comment about Australia genuine and appropriate? Mr. Francis doesn't seem to have a bio on Wikipedia. If there is real debate about whether an attempted assassin became PM of Australia, wouldn't he be notable enough to deserve one? Canuckle 20:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, that comment is just a bit of mischief (now removed). Cheers, Ian Rose 02:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of this stuff seems pretty trivial for a biographical article. Surely we don't need all this detail? How important is it that we include a park or a street or a building named after her? Every city in the Empire had something like that. And she features as a character in thousands of books and movies. --Pete 07:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who is using ibid?

Whoever is doing this needs to take a good look at this.--Rmky87 18:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We Are Not Amused

From the archive:

This line is well-associated with Queen Victoria, to the point of being known by foreigners who wouldn't connect her lifetime with the term "Victorian era." It's mentioned twice in the popcult references section, but not covered elsewhere. Its origins should be added to the article. What say you? --Kizor 18:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I very much agree. It also redirects here. It is really so well known it's poor that it is not covered, and then referenced in the general wikipedian vapid pop culture section. All I know is that it's source is from around 1920 and the actual context it was allegedly said in is obscure.--86.130.143.58 18:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

name of article

I think that the name of the article as "Victoria of the United Kingdom" should be changed. Wikipedia should use the correct written from of a person's name or title. Anything less is simply perpetuating inaccurate information. Brandy Kelley 09:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the correct written form? What is inaccurate about this title? Was she not named Victoria and was she not of the United Kingdom? Charles 11:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not use the "correct written form of a person's name or title" - since different people can have different opinions on what that correct form is. Wikipedia follows published scholarship. It summarizes the consensus form of that scholarship, and notes any significant minority opinions. Noel S McFerran 14:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was No consensus to move.--Húsönd 17:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I formally propose the move from this (rather unlikely) title to Queen Victoria. Say "Queen Victoria" to 10,000 people and nearly all of them will know who you mean. Somebody even suggested to me that an appreciable proportion of them will actually have a statue of that queen in their home town. I think he was on crack, but the point stands: there have been one or two other Victorias, but this is the one. This is a classic case, if ever there was one, for disambiguation by primary topic. That's where we take the reader to the most obvious place and then (in a hatnote) invite him to chose from other subjects if he's come to the wrong place. But really: Queen Victoria! --Tony Sidaway 22:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Comment. Please don't compare Queen Victoria with Kaiser Wilhem (1st - that name is in German and this the English Wiki, 2nd - which one of the two?). Its like comparing the single sun with a common star out of many - this comment is not about the worth of these persons, but only about their fame. Marie Antoinette, Maria Theresa of Austria there are a couple historical persons which are so widely known that other persons with the same name are widely ignored. Therefore the title of article should use "the name in question" and be about the person (almost) everybody expects it to be. (I hope you can follow my argument - English isn't my mothertongue). "Either we stick to standards, or we open this can of worms and discuss each name." No, we stick to standarts but at the same time we keep a couple of reasonable exceptions - like every law and rule of this world. Flamarande 00:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't compare Victoria to her oldest grandson Wilhelm, who as "Kaiser Wilhelm" is known in English, too. Only one of the Kaiser Wilhelms were involved in a World War (and lived into the second), making him "so widely known that other persons with the same name are widely ignored" and "one of the most hated men of the 20th century". Quickly: how many German Emperors were there? Chances are high you pick the wrong number without looking it up first. All hits [1] outnumber "William II, German emperor" anyway. I'm not going to discuss more names - as said before, either standards, or a wide open can of "a couple of reasonable exceptions". -- Matthead discuß!     O       02:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We should stick to standards; those specified at Wikipedia:Naming conventions. The "pre-emptive disambiguation" outlined at WP:NCNT breaks them.--Father Goose 21:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think though that those people fall under disambiguation. Remember, there are primary and secondary uses of titles and Queen Victoria primarily and overwhelmingly refers to Alexandrina Victoria of Hanover. Charles 01:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what we should do. The idea of "pre-emptive disambiguation" for royals is unnecesary in most cases and contrary to the basic naming convention, which is based on common sense and works far better -- even for royals.--Father Goose 04:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose. No one has given any good reason to change the article's title other than aesthetics. I see the aesthetic point, but it is far outweighed by the practicalities. No confusion exists, as Queen Victoria redirects here. Per WP:NCP, article titles should focus on the subject's personal name ("Victoria"), not the title of her office ("Queen"). As monarchs do not commonly use surnames, "of <nation>" is the most precise way to identify her, and is a format generally applicable to all monarchs. --BlueMoonlet 07:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move She is known as Queen Victoria; "Victoria of the United Kingdom" is a nonsense title, one that she is only known by on Wikipedia. This might go against the current naming style guide, but it goes with the overall Wikipedia article naming guidelines which state: "Generally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." (my emphasis). If you must allow disambiguation of monarchs, then at least use her proper title (which, since hereditary, serves the same purpose as the surnames of commoners). You could have "Queen Victoria (United Kingdom)" or, if you have to, "Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom". Since this clashes with WP:NCNT, then I move that the guideline is discussed and brought in line with commonsense, general Wikipedia guidelines. See discussion at NCNT talk and the village pump. Gwinva 21:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose move - we need to have standards and keep to them. I don't oppose the making of exceptions where the "most common name" is something very different from the standard, eg. "Bonnie Prince Charlie" - but this isn't. "Common sense" means something different to every individual. Deb 22:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a second -- you're saying the most common name for this person is not Queen Victoria? I agree that we should keep to standards; the problem here is that WP:NCNT unnecssarily abandons the standards laid out in its parent policy, WP:NC.--Father Goose 22:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He's saying that QV is not very different from VOUK and that is a reason why we should keep the standards. I ask why are the standards not kept if necessary through a VOUK redirect to QV. I ask why "the standards" are more important than "common name" when both can be kept, but only one has the "honor" of being the article's title. NikoSilver 22:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the titles are generally unnecessary. Ivan IV is thus better than both Tsar Ivan IV or Ivan IV of Russia. But in the case of Victoria, just "Victoria" is highly ambiguous, which is why everyone in the real world generally calls her Queen Victoria -- and we should too.--Father Goose 23:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The ship is named after the person; she should be the main article; those that only know the ship would discover the real person on the way to finding the ship. Gwinva 01:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All of the names I just mentioned are ships named after the person. Each name links to a disambiguation page. One seaching for the vessel Queen Victoria would not find it if the page were moved (unless you want to add a template linking to other uses on top of the page). (And who would ever search for MS Queen Victoria?) There are benefits to consistency. There is a practice have DAB pages for names of monarchs whose names are used by other persons or things. There is a convention on the naming of English/British monarchs. No one would suggest changing King Stephen to be the article on the English king. Let's have one rule for all. Kablammo 02:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Re: And who would ever search for MS Queen Victoria? Someone actually interested in it would... Also, WP:NC(CN) holds more weight than WP:NC(NT). Charles 05:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that someone searching for the ship is more likely to search for its name without the MS prefix. How many people really know the difference between MS, MV, SS, or (for that matter) RMS? As for the relative weight to be given to the two policies mentioned, the specific should prevail over the general. Kablammo 08:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If someone is searching for the ship, he can very well click the {{otheruses}} link and find it instantly. The fact that there's a ship, an era, etc, named after Queen Elizabeth only demonstrates how undoubtedly common that name is to describe her. NikoSilver 10:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Surely the issue here is not when MS Queen Victoria enters service, but the fact that we already have an article on this ship. A disambiguation page has been required ever since the MS Queen Victoria article was created on 15 January 2006. -- JackofOz 01:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There have been many Queen Elizabeths, Queen Marys, King George Vs, and Black Princes, which is why they go to disambiguation pages by default. But Queen Victoria gets the lion's share of attention associated with her name, which is why her article gets the default landing spot, with a disambig to the other QVs a the top. I don't think the arrival of the latest cruise liner bearing her name will change this situation.--Father Goose 10:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't necessarily, but I think WP:NC(NT) is a sound convention that should be upheld. Victoria was not Queen of America or Germany or a whole host of places for example, and thus assuming she would be entered with her title on Wikipedia, that could be a strong point of contention for those peoples who do not regard her as a monarch. There are also lesser issues of republican sentiments towards the divine rights of the British monarchy. I think that breaking convention here could set a precident in which other articles are renamed according to local titles, in which debate will point to this article. I understand the thinking behind the proposal, but still vote to maintain the current position. -- Jza84 · (talk) 12:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point taken. However, may I note that those in America, or those in Germany, or even those with republican sentiments, all acknowledge she was a Queen, and all refer to her as (THE) "Queen Victoria". Regarding your concern about precedent, I am all for solving this issue by applying the simple name only to those for which there is no ambiguity whatsoever. Victoria is one of those cases in my view (so is Ivan the Terrible etc). I understand your concern, but I'm sure we can deal with it in most cases. NikoSilver 13:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That's a very bold statement. How so? Charles 05:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a policy/guideline conflict if you haven't noticed: parent policy WP:NC and guidelines WP:NC(CN) and WP:NCP against their child guideline WP:NC(NT). NikoSilver 09:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The parent policy, Wikipedia:Naming conventions, is an official policy and states, "Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists." Most readers will look for Queen Victoria. Also, "Generally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." The title Queen Victoria is reasonably unambiguous in that it overwhelmingly refers to Alexandrina Victoria of Hanover in her position as Queen of the United Kingdom. It is also the most recognizable name. Charles 10:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move per WP:NC Generally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. The current name makes linking to this article harder than it should be. Following rules for the sake of following rules is pointless, we should do whatever makes Wikipedia easier to read and edit. Lurker (said · done) 11:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move. When I google for Victoria of the United Kingdom -wiki (=just imagine wikipedia did not exist and do as people would normally do: use no quotation marks) the first lady google gives me, is Victoria Wood. Basically, we must give priority to the real world out there, and forget the rules (nice to know that they contradict each other, by the way).--Pan Gerwazy 11:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, nor we should not move Maria Theresa of Austria to Maria Theresa, even though the Empress is the most famous of that name. As for the rules, a lot of discussion and work must have gone into Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) which I would like to respect. Both sides have good points but the existing convention should not be abrogated without compelling reasons to do so. Kablammo 15:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Feel the breeze of change! There were relevant discussions over at WT:NC(NT) and WP:VPP, both centralized here. NikoSilver 15:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If we are going to abandon common sense completely the correct title would actually be Victoria of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland - the UK entity was not the same then as today. -- Kleinzach 00:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The last point by Kleinzach is an extremely good and important point: The article as it stands is simply incorrect. It should be moved. The only question seems to me to be what it should be moved to. Keeping it as it is is not accurate and should not be an option.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's a sort of logic there. On coinage, Victoria and her successors carried the title Ind. Imp. (Emperor or Empress of India) until after the Second World War. I'm not citing coinage as an arbiter here (if so we'd have to include "Defender of the Faith", a title granted to Henry VIII by Pope Leo in 1521, and still proudly displayed on the coins of our protestant country). However it's a reminder that Victoria was queen of a lot more than just a few soggy, windy islands. The title "Victoria of the United Kingdom" is perhaps a little misleading. --Tony Sidaway 11:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The borders and the name of the Polish state when Boleslaw I of Poland was on the throne are not same as that of Poland when John II Casimir of Poland was the monarch. I don't suspect that anyone would claim that this is misleading. In this case United Kingdom was used informally for the state both before and after Irish partition. Jooler 16:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but Poland is a proper noun, the United Kingdom is not. In any case we are not just talking about shifting borders. -- Kleinzach 01:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? Of course 'United Kingdom' is a proper noun. That's why it's in caps! The same with 'Queen Victoria' for that matter. Shifted borders and shifted political structure and shifted name. Jooler 14:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support. WP:NC is a policy and while more detailed conventions even if only guidelines often take precedence over its general principles, this is a case of a very commonly understood term and the underlying principle should prevail. Andrewa 16:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: There is a redirect, and it works perfectly fine for all those people looking for "Queen Victoria". As always, this is a matter of internal content organisation, and I strongly support the current naming conventions; I have even learnt them well enough (not a hard thing to do) to be looking for all monarchs' articles by writing these titles in the search box (unless in a hurry). In addition, there has been another queen called Victoria, and "ignoring" her in this fashion would not be good, not good at all, I say. Waltham, The Duke of 12:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment' Wikipedia isn't about what is "fair" to dead queens. There are exceptions to every rule and also the other Victoria is titled Victoria of Baden here on Wikipedia. Charles 13:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Post-poll comments

Whenever in the past, Wikipedia conventions have been ignored and it has been decided to move monarchs to the "most common" name or the "correct" name, it has led to confusion. This has happened with the Japanese emperors and with the Polish monarchs. In both cases the results were worse than using the WP convention; in the case of the Japanese emperors, even the proponents of the moves eventually admitted so. I am glad that commonsense has prevailed in this case -- Derek Ross | Talk 18:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy this proposal failed. Had King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden died and his daughter ascended their throne as Queen Victoria of Sweden? We'd had to put this article back to Victoria of the United Kingdom. GoodDay 23:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, we would not have had to. There is primary usage to take into account. Crown Princess Victoria would be at Victoria of Sweden. Charles 01:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we would have: Victoria would have remained an ambigous page. The British monarch Victoria has 'no right' to the name, over others. We would've had two monarch articles correctly titled - Victoria of the United Kingdom and Victoria of Sweden. GoodDay 15:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Correctly titled? According to...? Last time I checked, we had guidelines and conventions which were conflicting. The British Victoria is most known as Queen Victoria. Until Victoria of Sweden ascends the throne and then becomes known better by that name (she probably will not be as I don't see an Swedish empire or era being named for her), the name "belongs" to Victoria (of the UK). Wikipedia is not an arbiter of what is fair between monarchs who are dead and crown princesses who are not monarchs. Charles 15:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Howabout this, let's wait until Carl XVI Gustaf dies (which due to his family's history of longevity, may be another 30+ years) or abdicates & his daughter succeeds the Swedish throne (assuming she uses Victoria as her regnal name). Then, we'll see how things turn out, OK? GoodDay 18:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is a ridiculous response. Where else has that been done on Wikipedia? Unreasonable at the least. Charles 19:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, we won't wait -- See Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom for an example. She's alot more known then Elisabeth II of Bohemia (yes a slight different spelling). Yet, her article isn't Elizabeth II. GoodDay 21:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But there's no reason why it couldn't be: Elizabeth II redirects to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom without any controversy.--Father Goose 08:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I must take issue with Derek Ross's claim that Wikipedia conventions have been ignored and it has been decided to move monarchs to the "most common" name or the "correct" name. Placing articles at the most common name is the Wikipedia convention. Nevertheless this discussion is over and I accept that there is no consensus for what turned out to be a disconcertingly controversial, if obvious, move. --Tony Sidaway 12:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria's name?

Although christened Alexandrina Victoria - and from birth formally styled Her Royal Highness Princess Victoria of Kent - Victoria was called Drina within the family.

'Her name, though finally agreed upon as Victoria Carolina, was disputed over by her mother and uncles.

Alexandrina or Caroline? 87.250.113.209 16:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Queen_Victoria&oldid=175507102"