Jump to content

Talk:Diamond Jubilee of Elizabeth II

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

Requested move 9 June 2018

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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.

Moved as proposed. There is consensus to move, and a well-supported policy basis in title consistency between a supertopic and its own subtopics, and in consiceness. bd2412 T 13:42, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

– Some titles were moved to their proposed titles but got moved back. I think it would be appropriate to discuss these moves. My reason for moving these pages is because the titles are more concise. 2601:183:101:58D0:21FA:6823:6996:3DB1 (talk) 12:57, 9 June 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Bradv 03:03, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the more precise,more flexible,more respectful inclusion of the title.12.144.5.2 (talk) 17:55, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NPOV; being deferent cannot be a rationale at Wikipedia. See also WP:PRECISE: our precision rule is to be only precise enough to identify the subject/referent, no more precise than that, so "Elizabeth II" fits the bill. "More flexible" has no clear meaning in this context.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:20, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You demand deference to Wikipedia policy,which is not rational sometimes.There there is currently no other "Elizabeth II" people are likely to think is intended does not dent the superiority of being flexible enough to make allowance for there being another at some point by being precise enough to rule others out.12.144.5.2 (talk) 13:48, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with using her most common name in media Queen Elizabeth II? What media outlets called her solely "Elizabeth II"/Elizabeth 2/? Many musicians on Wikipedia go by simple sobriquet rather than their full names as article names. I.e. "Cher instead of "Cherilyn Sarkisian", Queen Latifah rather than "Dana Owen", Ricky Martin rather than "Enrique José Martín Morales", or Pink (singer) rather than "Alecia Moore". CaribDigita (talk) 20:26, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Stage names and long names versus short ones aren't relevant here, other than that you're actually arguing against yourself, since "Elizabeth II" is more WP:CONCISE than "Queen Elizabeth II".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:17, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
--LukeSurl t c 14:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I already created a move request for all of those titles, however I oppose moving List of prime ministers of Queen Victoria to the new title. It would create inconsistency between the article Queen Victoria and List of prime ministers of Queen Victoria. If it were going to be moved, I suggest moving Queen Victoria to Victoria (queen). --2601:183:101:58D0:1D8C:72FD:CC7A:135 (talk) 21:49, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would be against moving the Queen Victoria articles, since her main article is at Queen Victoria due to her not having a numeral after her name. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:35, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NCDAB, "Natural disambiguation that is unambiguous, commonly used, and clear is generally preferable to parenthetical disambiguation". Firebrace (talk) 12:17, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That all sounds reasonable. However, moving the Victoria list now is actually viable, because it would be more WP:CONSISTENT with more articles.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:47, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:CONSISTENCY. If we're not using "Queen" at Elizabeth II, then don't inject it into titles of split-off articles.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:46, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Another reason to use "Queen" at "Elizabeth II" then (as is done at Queen Victoria).LE (talk) 14:57, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason we use "Queen" for Queen Victoria is because she doesn't have a numeral after her name. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:33, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Flimsy nonetheless,and "of [country name]" is more appropriate to insist upon for Victoria than for Elizabeth (being used for virtually every monarch anyway).Plain "Elizabeth II" is something to avoid,just like plain "Prince Harry" is a mistake that needs rectifying.Specificity even when not required is respect for other countries or potential namesakes.12.144.5.2 (talk) 00:37, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, no. Flimsy would describe noting a single exception in an otherwise consistent naming convention and trying to reverse the convention to fit the single outlier. An outlier that is itself likely to be renamed to Victoria (queen) for better consistency with the convention.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:17, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:NCDAB, common disambiguation is preferred over parenthetical disambiguation; we are not moving Queen Victoria to Victoria (queen). Firebrace (talk) 12:29, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want the "consistent naming convention",that requires "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom",which she is dispensed from because of the Commonwealth realms using that name for her as well though only in trivial instances is it at all accurate for any of them as Elizabeth I of England never reigned there...to name an article for a monarch without specifying country is distinctly oddball and generically inappropriate.13:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.144.5.2 (talk)
    It actually makes perfect sense for the monarchs of the English-speaking world, as those are the ones English speakers are commonly referring to, thus making the "of X" unnecessary. Just out of curiosity, I took a look at the Swedish Wikipedia, and they don't use "of Sweden" in the title of Sweden's current king [1], nor does the Danish Wikipedia for Denmark's current queen [2] Rreagan007e (talk) 14:15, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Although I didn't make my feelings known an any of the moves I did object on the basis of "Well Elizabeth could be anyone!" (and I assumed her main article was "QUeen Elizabeth" .... but as per the above if her main article isn't "Queen Elizabeth" then I don't see the point with the rest having Queen in either.... –Davey2010Talk 13:37, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - There's nothing wrong with having Queen in the article titles. Not all monarchs are King/Queen. Some are Sovereign Prince/Princess or Grand Duke/Grand Duchess etc etc. Also, am I paranoid or has there been a lot of RMs being proposed by IPs, lately? GoodDay (talk) 15:39, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Goodday and others. Johnbod (talk) 13:44, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE A further bunch of these have been successfully smuggled through as "uncontroversial technic. ~~al moves" at WP:RM. I am trying to get these reversed. That section is a ridiculously weak link in our procedures, with no scrutiny of the proposals. Johnbod (talk) 16:04, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod, Ammarpad, AlexTheWhovian, and Amakuru: Those page moves were:-
These 7 move requests were all sent in by User:192.107.120.90 at around 16:48, 8 June 2018 (UTC). All these move requests were obeyed, by various administrators. They have all now been reverted. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Technical_requests&oldid=846211810 for the other discussion; please do not try to edit it, but reply here. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:57, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh really? See Elizabeth II (disambiguation). Johnbod (talk) 12:57, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod... are you really suggesting that people may confuse "Elizabeth II" with Elisabeth II, Abbess of Quedlinburg? I'm at a loss to see how dropping "Queen" from this title would create ambiguity. Abbesses don't even have jubilees, do they? And her name is spelt with an S not a Z... Firebrace (talk) 19:29, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, she is not the only one (EII). If you are really proposing below that "King" and "Queen" should be removed from sub-articles for all monarchs with a regnal number, that would certainly cause masses of ambiguity all over the place. But in those cases you should start with the main articles, which nearly all have "King" and "Queen", whether numbered or not. I must say I don't think you've really thought this one through. Johnbod (talk) 21:11, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have checked, and Queen Victoria; Anne, Queen of Great Britain; John, King of England; and Stephen, King of England are the only British or English monarchs to have "King" or "Queen" in the title – because they are the only monarchs in Britain's or England's history with those names. Note Elisabeth II of Spain redirects to Isabella II of Spain. Quite why, I am not sure; it appears that she never was known as Elisabeth... Firebrace (talk) 22:55, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keivan.fTalk 00:29, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:22, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:06, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Diamond_Jubilee_of_Elizabeth_II&oldid=1198423064"