This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lithuania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lithuania 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.
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.
Please read 9) Past Royal Consorts are referred to by their pre-marital name or pre-marital title, not by their consort name, as without an ordinal (which they lack) it is difficult to distinguish various consorts; eg, as there have been many queen consorts called Catherine, use Catherine of Aragon not Queen Catherine.Gryffindor 09:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Also, why burden all queens merely to disambiguate the few with over-common names? How many queens are there named "Marie Josepha"? logologist|Talk 15:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
The rules are quite clear for these cases. If you wish to change the rules, may I suggest you propose a new change on the talk page of the naming conventions. Until then I am afraid this article is in violation of current regulations. Also family names are normally not used for royals but their territory (see Cecylia Renata of Austria). In her native tongue she was known as Maria Josepha von Österreich, not Habsburg, regardless what her Polish name became. Gryffindor 17:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Support of course. It is the standard format for all deceased Western monarchical consorts on Wikipedia. She is deceased. She was western. She was a monarch's consort so it is automatic. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 21:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose Misleading.--Molobo 02:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. There are obsolete, pointless or nonsensical laws on the books, in various countries, that are honored in the breach. Wikipedia editors are not compelled to perpetuate nonsense in article titles. logologist|Talk 05:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Support uhm, anyone voting with "oppose", you are aware that you are in direct opposition to a Wikipedia rule and regulation that has stood since the beginning? by doing so you are disrespecting the fundamental workings of Wikipedia, which is to understand and respect the rules. You either find a point in the rules, or this cannot be taken seriously unless valid reason is given. Gryffindor 13:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment: I just want those who voted oppose to know that I will have to move this regardless of the outcome of the vote, due to existing naming conventions. Nothing to be done about that unless you change the naming convention itself, I'm afraid. —Nightstallion(?)Seen this already? 13:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I think valid reasons can be given for exceptions to the naming conventions. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) specifically allows this: If a person is overwhelmingly best known by a cognomen, or by a name that doesn't fit the guidelines above, revert to the base rule: use the most common English name.. I am not sure if that is the case here, though. Kusma(討論) 14:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
As I can't find evidence that any other name is overwhelmingly more common than the one the naming conventions tell us to use, I support. Kusma(討論) 14:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Support because no more common name is apparent, not because I agree that NC on consorts mandates overriding the "Best known name" rule. Lethiere 15:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Support, based on NC. Olessi 16:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Support, this is what the naming conventions say to do, and Marie Josepha (I'd prefer Maria Josepha of Austria, btw) [strikethrough because I now see that this is the name suggested. My point was that "Maria Josepha," rather than "Marie Josepha" is more commonly used in English. john k 05:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)] is not well known enough by her given name to support her remaining here. Let me add that her status as an Austrian archduchess, and daughter of Emperor Joseph I, was one of the more significant facts about her, since it was through this relationship that Augustus III claimed Austrian territories in the early part of the War of the Austrian Succession. john k 16:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Support in the same manner as john k, Gryffindor, etc... This article ought to not contravene existing Wikipedia convention. Charles 16:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Support, such a change conforms to the current naming conventions - which perhaps need some tweaking. Noel S McFerran 04:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Support, though not strongly //Halibutt 06:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment I don’t really care if you add an "Austria" here (Marie Antoinette isn’t furnished with one either), but I am pretty sure that Marie Josepha is most unusual. It should be Maria Josepha or Marie-Josèphe or Maria Józefa. Furthermore, it would be nice if we agreed on a consistent way to refer to the Saxon lot on the Polish throne: AFAIK English encyclopedia entries name them Augustus II the Strong and Augustus III ONLY. Alternatively we could agree on their Polish or German names (e.g. August II. der Starke OR August III Sas), but August III the Saxon doesn’t seem to be standard. Teodorico 11:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
In the French wiki-article of her, it is said that her death was caused by brutal treatment from hostile soldiers during the war; I can not read French well enough to understand it better than that. Was she murdered? Exactly how did she die?--188.8.131.52 (talk) 20:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)