Template talk:Danish Royal Family

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Sorry for editing while logged out. Anyway, until Princess Isabella was named, the article about her was titled Princess NN of Denmark. While Prince Henrik was unnamed, the article about him was titled Prince NN of Denmark. This is how the template looked like while Prince Henrik was unnamed. The names cannot be released because the names have not been given yet. Besides, "HRH Prince (name not released yet)" looks and sounds awkward. Even "HRH a Prince" would be better. Surtsicna (talk) 15:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Alright, you win. But, I did not put "(name not released yet)," which does sound awkward! I had "(name not yet released)." At least you can try to get that right! My original contention was that there is no rule on Wikipedia for leaving a name blank with "NN". The only place that abbreviation is used is in a template which sets up articles for deletion. Check it out yourself at Template:Notability. Thank you for giving me your real name. I did have suspicions when I saw only an IP address. :-) --Skol fir (talk) 15:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
My goal was not to win. This is not a game. We are just trying to figure out what's best for the articles/template. Anyway, God forbid that Surtsicna is my real name :D Surtsicna (talk) 16:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I meant your registered name. I realize that no one wishing to remain anonymous would use his real name here. :-) BTW, when you say you want consensus for any changes here, and you say "We are just trying to figure out what's best," who is WE? Just curious. Is it the "royal " WE? (Which means only one person, that is you?) That would make an interesting form of democracy. All others are shut out because WE are right. --Skol fir (talk) 03:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I assumed that you too wanted to improve the articles and the template so I said "we". I deeply apologize for mistaking you for a well-meaning editor. If that assumption insults you, I must say that I no longer consider you to be one! :) Surtsicna (talk) 09:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
My initial impression was that you had already decided in advance that any objections to "NN" had no merit since the precedence of Henrik and Isabella basically ruled supreme. I don't see there having been any debate about the use of "NN" in those cases. It sounded to me as if you were using that as the only rationale for continuing its use, like a "fait accompli" (An accomplished and presumably irreversible deed or fact.) This was the reason why your statement gave the impression that "we" meant those who had decided previously that the convention would be "NN" for no name. I was not included in that discussion, remember? --Skol fir (talk) 16:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
If you don't mind my saying so, I think that "UNK" is a much better choice here for an unknown item, until it can be properly entered. "UNK" is universally accepted for only one meaning, that is "unknown," except for one other meaning, the airport code for Unalakleet, Alaska USA. I don't think that would be a problem here, to confuse a Prince and Princess with an airport!
I would suggest that "UNK" be put in place of "NN," which in contrast gives 44 results at Abbreviations.com. Just my humble opinion. ...or "name unk." which is very commonly used in English. You can consider it my last suggestion on this topic, unless you are interested in real consensus. --Skol fir (talk) 03:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Except that the Prince and Princess are not unknown. In fact, they are very well known considering that they are only two days old. Is there any other abbreviation that stands for "no name" besides the obvious NN? Surtsicna (talk) 09:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
"Unknown" refers to the name, not the person, although I could say that two twins, not yet 2 days old, would also be relatively unknown to Wikipedia readers. To answer your other question, yes. Another abbreviation would be "anon." which stands for "anonymous," defined by the American Heritage Dictionary as "1. Having an unknown or unacknowledged name: e.g. an anonymous author
-From Late Latin anonymus, from Greek anonumos, nameless : an-, without; see a-1 + onuma, name (influenced by earlier nonumnos, nameless)." --Skol fir (talk) 16:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Third opinion[edit]

While I presume this particular issue won't be an issue for long, I imagine it'll come up again at some point.

I'm not sure any of the options presented above are necessarily the ones to go with. I think spelling out "not yet named" would be the best and clearest option. "Name unknown" or "anonymous" implies a name that won't be known, not just someone who hasn't been named yet, and the meaning of "NN" (especially in a land of titles which are, to those of us who don't really follow royalty, largely letter and jargon soup anyway) would not be immediately clear to many readers. "Not yet named" makes the situation immediately clear and unambiguous. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Seraphimblade. "Not yet named" sounds really good and is unambiguous. The Danish royalty is an unusual entity in itself, not allowing the names of newborns to be released until almost 3 months after the birth. I guess they want to keep the suspense. There might also be a historical reason, in case of succession, to make sure that the newborn is given a head start without cameras and the paparazzi after them. :-) --Skol fir (talk) 05:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Here is a further idea based on this "third" opinion. We could provide the abbreviation nyn in italics followed by a footnote (cite note) which explains this abbrev. and the reason for it. With the correct Wiki code this is the result:
  • HRH Prince (nyn)[1]
  • HRH Princess (nyn)
...then, after a line under HH Princess Elisabeth

    • ^ nyn = not yet named
      (Danish tradition requires that naming the baby first takes place at the christening, which could be up to 3 months following the birth.)
    This would solve any questions a reader might have, on why the newborns are "not yet named." --Skol fir (talk) 23:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
    I think this is a good solution, especially with the footnote explaining the abbreviation. Morhange (talk) 23:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
    I appreciate your input here, Morhange. We'll see what the other editors think, before we proceed any further with the final edit. Of course, this solution would only be necessary for as long as the names are hidden from the public. --Skol fir (talk) 00:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
    Based on the above third opinion, and agreement from two other editors, I am ready to make the required improvement to this template. The main objection to the "NN" abbreviation is that it is too vague, and could be seen as just another title which no one can decipher. It is not an "obvious" replacement for "no name." It has 44 known results at abbreviation.com. The solution of "not yet named" suggested by the "third" editor, and supported by a "fourth" editor, as well as by myself, should make it clear to everybody what is meant. Wikipedia does not appreciate ambiguous terminology. On first appearance, "NN" has no obvious meaning, since most readers will have no clue why two newborns have not been given a name. My suggestion for ease of reading is to make this new suggestion an abbreviation (nyn) and to use a footnote to explain it. These additions will be replaced by the real names when the time comes. --Skol fir (talk) 18:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
    Also, please note that the abbreviation "NN, nn" on Wikipedia is "Found in comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and in edit summaries, indicating that the article's subject is not notable enough for a Wikipedia entry." --Skol fir (talk) 17:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

    RfC notification[edit]

    A request for comments which may impact this template has been started at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies#RfC on style in royal family templates. You are welcome to comment there. Fram (talk) 14:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)