Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)/Archive 19

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21→Archive 24

Simplifying titles: Removing "prince" from royals with substantive titles

I have removed the inaccurate "end of poll" comment. If it reappears for a third time, the dispute will be escalated. <--- This comment is by Deb, who disagreed with the outcome too late. Charles 23:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Initial poll beginning

I think it is about time that we remove all of the superfluous titles of "prince" or "princess" from royals who have substantive titles and their spouses. In such a case, someone like Prince Andrew, Duke of York will have his article located at Andrew, Duke of York. But what about his princely status, you say? Well, that can be shown in his article. No one is complaining that Sophie, Countess of Wessex isn't a princess on the basis that her article title doesn't have "Princess" in it. We are not here to give full styles and titles, we should only have the simplest and highest titles in article titles. This will also effectively remove the issue of having Princes Edward, Andrew, etc, followed by their titles, while having Charles, Prince of Wales with no "Prince" before his name.

This, of course, isn't solely an issue of British princes, there are Swedish princesses, Bourbon princesses (such as Princess Margarita, Countess of Colorno) and so on. Either the titles should be Prince(ss) NN of X or NN, <Title> of Y but not a half mixture of both. Either someone is known by one title or another (in this case, Princess Margarita mentioned earlier should be at Princess Margarita of Bourbon-Parma, she is known better as that). Charles 22:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I thoroughly support the current form, i.e. Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh — he's a Prince of the Realm(s), considerably higher than a mere Duke! And as for Sophie, you can full well Charles that she can't be at Princess Sophie, Countess of Wessex because she isn't "Princess Sophie". I will heartily oppose moves to change to Andrew, Duke of York. DBD 00:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I think a duke is actually a higher rank than a prince. DuncanHill (talk) 11:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid not. Royalty outranks peerage. PrinceOfCanada (talk) 12:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
In some places like Germany for instance, I believe a Duke out ranks a Prince. - dwc lr (talk) 12:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
All three of you are incorrect. It all depends upon what type of prince and what type of duke. dwc lr is correct that there are often national differences, but even within a country there can be different types of dukes and princes who outrank each other. E.g. in Germany, Andreas, Prince of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha outranks the Duke of Croÿ, who outranks the Prince of Waldburg-Zeil, who outranks the Duke of Trachenberg, who outranked (until he died) the Prince of Weikersheim. It's complicated. Noel S McFerran (talk) 12:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I stand corrected. Many thanks. I'll amend my statement to "in the British system, Royalty outranks Peerage". PrinceOfCanada (talk) 14:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Also, if we go with "best known" then we have Prince Philip, Prince Charles, Princess Anne etc., or, second to those, The Duke of Edinburgh, The Prince of Wales, The Princess Royal etc. Hmm... DBD 00:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
On the basis of prince(ss) being "higher" (I don't know why they would chose to be known by their "insultingly low" ducal titles), why don't we move Sophie to Princess Edward, Countess of Wessex. See how that logic works? I said best known of either form I posted... Prince(ss) NN of X or NN, <Title> of Y, since we never use either form in partial form for any royal here on Wikipedia. We don't need both a princely title and the ducal/comital titles. What have to you to say about Princess Margarita of Bourbon-Parma? See what the current "rule" does? Let's also not be so anglocentric here. Charles 00:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm with Charles here. Regarding the current form, I do like what it tells me, but article titles aren't supposed to convey information about the subject (that's what the article is for), so that's not really relevant. If we can choose between James VI of Scotland and James I of England, we should be able to choose between Prince Philip of the United Kingdom and Philip, Duke of Edinburgh or between Prince Carl Philip of Sweden and Carl Philip, Duke of Värmland too – based on common usage (which will most probably mean opposite decisions in these cases). Can't imagine that Prince would be needed for disambiguation for the British royal peers, as non-princely peers tend to have surnames. -- Jao (talk) 01:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Precisely. Charles 01:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree too. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I concur; best known of either form whether Prince(ss) N of X or N, <Title> of Y. The current form Prince N, <Title> of Y is not used in other sources. Noel S McFerran (talk) 16:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
4 for, 1 dissenting. I'm going to amend the convention to reflect this. Later on I will start with some page moves. Charles 18:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
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.

Initial poll end

Post-poll discussion and attempt at consensus

Firstly, apologies for getting into this late. However, I would strongly disagree with the proposal. Prince Philip for example is widely known as that, so it seems illogical to remove the "Prince" from his title, or indeed from Princes Andrew or Edward. When is Andrew known as "Andrew, Duke of York"? I see no need to change the guidelines, these people are Prince/ss and are known as such as well as by their peerage titles, to remove one in favour of the other when they are known by both seems misleading.--UpDown (talk) 19:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Andrew isn't known as Prince Andrew, Duke of York. It's just the "Duke of York", therefore Andrew, Duke of York. Clean, concise, simple. If he wasn't known by his ducal title it would simply be Prince Andrew of the United Kingdom. The point is they are known as either/or. It is not misleading at all to simply not use a title. Prince Philip is known primarily as either that or as the Duke of Edinburgh. We don't have to use a construction in between that really only seems to be pushed in the British cases, based on full and rarely used styles. It creates problems when that style is applied to members of other royal families. We had Princess Margarita, Countess of Colorno, who is never referred to by that name. She is rightly Princess Margarita of Bourbon-Parma. And what about Prince Carl Philip of Sweden? He is known by that title but his article uses a rarely used ducal title. Charles 19:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
He may not be often known as Prince Andrew, Duke of York, but its seems to me more sensible to include both Prince Andrew, Duke of York (as he's known as both), rather than pick one. Prince Andrew, Duke of York is a sensible solution. For the two non-UK examples you list, fine, but I am mainly against removely the Princely title when they are known by it. --UpDown (talk) 19:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with UpDown and also oppose a change. I personally don't see an issue with including a princely title as UpDown has noted Prince Andrew, Duke of York is known as both "Prince Andrew" or "The Duke of York". Sometimes he is even referred to as "Prince Andrew, Duke of York". Some of the examples Charles noted such as Prince Carl Philip should perhaps be looked at on an individual basis, but I'm not overly familiar with Swedish royalty and don't know whether he is known by the Ducal title or not. Looking at UK one's for example Prince Philip's profile on the UK Monarchy website lists him as Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. - dwc lr (talk) 21:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I also strongly disagree with this proposal, and I was not aware that the same discussion poped up here again. The same discussion was already made in a slight different form on the talkpage of Prince Philippe, Duke of Brabant, see Talk:Prince Philippe, Duke of Brabant#Requested move. Althought Charles did his very best to convince the other Wikipedia editors to change the guidelines, a very vast majority opposed the proposal. I strongly suggest all of you to read the discussion on that talk page to get a better understanding into the logics why the proposal was rejected. Demophon (talk) 19:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I recognise the concerns expressed by UpDown - even though I personally don't share them. The convention allows for exceptions - and they should be made where appropriate. But those exceptions should not be the basis of the rule as they were until Charles made the change to the convention.
In respect to Andrew, the results from Google Books are enlightening:
78 "prince andrew duke of york"
100 "andrew duke of york" (excluding "prince andrew duke of york")
With historical individuals the results are even more telling:
37 "prince adolphus duke of cambridge"
396 "adolphus duke of cambridge" (excluding "prince adolphus duke of cambridge)
The examples with European royalty are even more ridiculous; nobody says Prince Carlo, Duke of Castro. Noel S McFerran (talk) 20:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Personally not a fan of the google test, but regardless my point is he is never known as Andrew, Duke of York, he is known as Prince Andrew or Duke of York. I see no reason to remove the "Prince" from him when he is so often know by it.--UpDown (talk) 20:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
This is not a "google test"; it is Google Books which indexes the full-text of BOOKS. Please re-read my message above. I do not know why you continue to maintain that "he is never known as Andrew, Duke of York" when I have shown that there are 100 BOOKS which use the phrase "Andrew, Duke of York" (i.e. more books than use the phrase "Prince Andrew, Duke of York"). The onus is on you to provide evidence (not just statements of your own personal opinions) for why Wikipedia should use a minority term. Noel S McFerran (talk) 20:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
You keep missing my point. He is known widely as either Prince Andrew or the Duke of York, so it is logical to combine the two. He is widely known as a Prince, so why ignore this fact in the title? To say that it is a "minority term" based on a search of books via google frankly I don't believe stands up. He is widely known as a Prince and his article title should reflect that. Are you seriously telling me you think he is not widely known as a Prince?--UpDown (talk) 20:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is based on published sources. I have shown clearly that published sources favour the term "Andrew, Duke of York" over "Prince Andrew, Duke of York". So far you have not cited any sources whatsoever. Elvis Presley is "widely known" as "the King". Noel S McFerran (talk) 21:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
A Google news search for "Prince Andrew, Duke of York" gets 204 hits, "Andrew, Duke of York" gets 44 for example. - dwc lr (talk) 22:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
In addition "Andrew the Duke of York" gets 58, "Prince Andrew the Duke of York" gets 485. - dwc lr (talk) 22:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Almost every single argument at that page was either "the conventions say this..." (yes, but that can be changed), "articles don't explain they someone holds a noble title" (well, including "prince" doesn't explain why either!), "more commonly referred to as 'Prince Philippe'" (well, then rename the article that!), "other heirs have this" (well, refer to the first about the conventions, they have it because it is our construction), "Duke of Brabant isn't known as the heir's title" (it is NOT the job of the article's title to explain that, if it was, the article would be called Prince Philippe, Duke of Brabant (this is the title of a Belgian heir apparent)). All very weak arguments and very few of which were directed toward the convention but rather toward the article. Charles 20:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with this proposal as well, for essentially the same reasons as UpDown. Proteus (Talk) 20:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

So far these users are concerned only about British princes. We don't, however, follow an exact Buckingham Palace style guide. Charles 21:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I oppose the proposed change as well. A royal duke is not the same as an "ordinary" duke, and this should be clear in the title of the article, not just in the text. Deb (talk) 21:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
The article titles are not responsible for that distinction. At any rate, the absence of a surname makes it very clear. Also, reading the article helps. Why not pander to the people who only know of Prince Andrew but not of the Duke of York? Charles 21:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Can those who support "Prince Name, Duke of Place" for princes with a ducal title cite any major reference work which uses this construct? Noel S McFerran (talk) 22:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I checked a couple of pages of the 1910 and 1998 Almanach de Gotha's and it uses Prince (names), Title of Place. - dwc lr (talk) 22:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't even leave the 1998 Almanach in my washroom even in the absence of sanitary paper. Charles 22:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I think it would be of great help to you. - dwc lr (talk) 23:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
The 1910 Almanach gives the titles preceding the forenames of all junior members of a house or family without the territorial designation, which is given as the heading for the family, whether or not they hold another (substantive) title. It is not indicative of any type of support for the form Prince X, <title> of Y on that basis. Charles 23:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
One presumes, contrary to your final statement in the "closed" discussion, you will not be undertaking any moves until there is an actual and fully-discussed solution to the proposal? DBD 23:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I see no reason why moves should not commence. Arguments presented have little to no basis or proof to back them up and it all seems to be on the basis of what people "like". The convention was broken, it is now fixed. People who are best known as the Duke of York, etc, don't need the title "prince" in their names for people to know that they are royal. That's what reading the article is for. I could argue we have no idea if he is a noble prince or a royal prince. Or what is he a prince of? Does he even have a territorial designation? Why aren't we using it? Again, a broken construction has been removed. Where a person has a princely cadet title and a substantive title they can be known by one or the other. Charles 23:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes they feel it necessary to use the Princely title preceding the name and the other title succeeding it, hence Prince Name, Title of Place. Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels uses the construct Prince Name, Title of Place also from the one page I've seen even The Descendants of Louis XIII uses Prince Name, Title of Place also. - dwc lr (talk) 09:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Do either of those works append a territorial designation to the end of the names of those without substantive titles? If not, it is not indicative at all of how we should style anyone. If so, it's still probably a minority view. Charles 20:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
As a republican? I'd prefer Andrew Mountbatten (or Andrew Windsor), Charles Phlip Bernadotte etc. But seriously, whatever you guys decide? I'll go along with it. GoodDay (talk) 23:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Why step in to say something yet add nothing? The discussion is about the use of titles, not the use of family names. Charles 23:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I should remind people that there was more than enough time for voices to be heard so do not revert the naming conventions until a new consensus is reached. Charles 23:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The reason for reverting to established conventions is to prevent actions being made against or prior to the consensus of this ongoing discussion. I have registered my vehement opposition, and my reasons therefor. For such an important issue, now plenty of others should be allowed their say. DBD 00:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me, but you did voice your opinion when you had the chance and therefore you are in no position to simply revert. Your reverts constitute abusive and disruptive editing only until you actually have consensus to change the convention again. A black mark for an otherwise good editor and disappointing at that. Charles 00:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Um yes, when I and others contributed the discussion was open why not include our opinions when you "closed" it. - dwc lr (talk) 00:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I've mostly seen the Prince/Princess titles usage in publications; if that help? GoodDay (talk) 00:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I have edited the convention to reflect the fact that there is presently no consensus either for the wording of User:Charles or for the former wording. This is an attempt to stop the edit-warring and reverting by several editors. When a consensus (or something close to it) is reached, then the convention can be edited to reflect that glorious achievement. Noel S McFerran (talk) 00:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It should be put back as there is no consensus the discussion is still ongoing regarding the current proposal put forward by Charles. I believe most people in this "new" discussion oppose Charles' proposal should I just close this "new" discussion like some Fascist dictator and claim consensus. Closing half an ongoing discussion is a pathetic act and shows no respect for other Wikipedians opinions. - dwc lr (talk) 00:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Respect is a two way street. Why should I show you something you have rarely, if ever, shown me? Don't answer that question, it was rhetorical. Charles 00:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd like answer why would I want to show respect to someone who has effectively attacked my intelligence and accused me of possible substance abuse. You've never shown me one once of respect. Why not show other editors respect, its not only me though. - dwc lr (talk) 01:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Really, you've started many, many fights. I approach most other people with respect. You should take a long, hard look at yourself and wonder why. End of discussion. Charles 01:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd show people like Mcferran respect for instance. You never discuss anything its just revert, revert, revert. I try to discuss changes like the Hereditary Princess of Anhalt your not interested. I'll have the last word. - dwc lr (talk) 01:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
1) as I stated in Talk:Prince_Philippe,_Duke_of_Brabant#Requested_move: This discussion was already made a time ago. The form "Prince X, <Title> of Y" is much more logical and correct. First, Prince Philippe is "Prince of Belgium", secondly with a honouring and substantive title named "Duke of Brabant". He's not the reigning duke of the Duchy of Brabant.
2) I don't know how others think about this, but I was not aware that a relatively small discussion as above suddenly changed into a vote to change really the guidelines. Normally you do this first with a discussion and then with a clear distinct voting survey. Demophon (talk) 00:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if he's reigning or not, you are referring back to our convention which can change. It is only because of the "old" convention that it would seem that Philippe is a reigning duke of Brabant under that title. Artifical. Is Charles the reigning prince of a Principality of Wales? Secondly, if Philippe is firstly a prince of Belgium, let's name him Prince Philippe of Belgium. If not, let's name him Philippe, Duke of Brabant. What does the title Prince Philippe, Duke of Brabant, imply he is a prince of anyway? See the problem? Charles 00:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, the arguments at that page have already been dissected. I will repost: Almost every single argument at that page was either "the conventions say this..." (yes, but that can be changed), "articles don't explain they someone holds a noble title" (well, including "prince" doesn't explain why either!), "more commonly referred to as 'Prince Philippe'" (well, then rename the article that!), "other heirs have this" (well, refer to the first about the conventions, they have it because it is our construction), "Duke of Brabant isn't known as the heir's title" (it is NOT the job of the article's title to explain that, if it was, the article would be called Prince Philippe, Duke of Brabant (this is the title of a Belgian heir apparent)). All very weak arguments and very few of which were directed toward the convention but rather toward the article. Charles 00:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I was engaged in the Prince Philippe discussion and I was not aware that a proposal was being put forward to change the NC. When I expressed my opposition to Charles' current proposal the discussion was very much open and ongoing. - dwc lr (talk) 00:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Bull. The convention had already changed. Basically a new discussion. Charles 00:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
The discussion was "shut" at 23:16 on 30 May 2008 why is the rest of the discussion not included why other opinions not included. - dwc lr (talk) 01:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I had forgotten to do what I intended to do initially. I fixed that though. Charles 01:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
You conveniently missed part of the discussion would you like me to fix it for you? That's no consensus, you see you have to take every bodies opinion into account.- dwc lr (talk) 01:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
It's not artifical, he's a prince, with a substantive title. If you had read the previous discussion than you would know it's quite normal to name the prince "Prince Philippe, Duke of Brabant". Demophon (talk) 01:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I know he is all of those things, we do not need to use them. Normal as it may be it is not absolute and it is not definitive and it may not even be the most common usage. Charles 01:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh good lord. I absolutely, categorically, and vehemently oppose this change. Using Andrew as the example, he is commonly known as Prince Andrew, much less commonly as the Duke of York. Also, all the reasons above, especially Demophon and DBD (who is, quite frankly, apparently something of an expert on these things). PrinceOfCanada (talk) 04:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Let's name it Prince Andrew of the United Kingdom if that's the case. Charles 06:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Because that is not his title. His title is: Prince Andrew, Duke of York. What part of that is unclear to you? PrinceOfCanada (talk) 16:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Hahahaha! Pardon? His titles are Prince of the United Kingdom and Duke of York. That is his title. Dropping the territorial designation produces a style. Much is clear to me. Hold your hand out in front of your face. Are you sure you can see it? Charles 20:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
By the by, I'm only a self-created expert — I have no formal or professional qualification, so I guess what you say is correct, I am apparently something of an expert! Either way, saying so is something of an ill-advised move, since it resembles appeal to authority, which is a fallacy. Not that I object to the authority of the appeal, of course! DBD 06:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Now, I feel I should syllogise my considered argument:

  1. The very basis of our conventions is common usage
  2. HM The King of Belgium, in common usage "The King of Belgium" (or presumably "The King" with Belgium) or "Albert II" (or "King Albert"]] is at "Albert II of Belgium", despite seldom being referred to as such, let alone commonly — this is because common sense has been applied to the common usage — i.e. that "Albert II" wouldn't do because there are other monarchs whose pages would clash were that precedent set, so to his title is appended "of Belgium", a qualifier based on his realm, and a sort of mixture of multiple common usages.
  3. By analogy, the King's eldest son is generally known as "Prince Philippe" and "The Duke of Brabant", but neither is suitable, so common sense is to be applied. Common sense would dictate that to differentiate the man "Prince Philippe" who is (substantively) "The Duke of Brabant", could be disambiguated as "Prince Philippe, Duke of Brabant" — thus ensuring that entrants from Prince Philippe and The Duke of Brabant are immediately reassured by the title that, yes indeed, they have landed at the correct man.
  4. Thusly, by the very evident and established blanket conventions, common usage is vetted by common sense. Simplicity is evidently king.
  5. Q.E.D.

Thankyou DBD 06:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

We are not obligated to combine and then to force that form upon all other royals. A real pity that people here are over-concerned with British royals when there is a whole continent and more of others. Andrew, Duke of York is simple and unambiguous. For someone who is HRH The Duke of York it is the closest we can hope to get to that style with a title. What's next, Princess Diana, Princess of Wales? Is Sophie, Countess of Wessex royal? Really, I don't know... Shouldn't she be Sophie, Princess Edward, Countess of Wessex or something? Seriously people, what is up with this? Andrew, Duke of York simply because we don't use styles in article names and Duke of York is an article on all dukes. Prince Andrew, Duke of York is too close to a style to be defended as a means for preserving "clarity". Charles 06:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
"What's next, Princess Diana, Princess of Wales?" -- Of course not, because that was never at any point in time her title. Stop being disingenuous. "Prince Andrew, Duke of York is too close to a style" no, it's not. 'HRH' would be the style. 'Prince' is a title. PrinceOfCanada (talk) 16:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I will be whatever I choose to be to show people how ridiculous their arguments are. If Andrew has to say at Prince Andrew, Duke of York, because "that's his title", we should rename Sophie to Princess Edward, Countess of Wessex. After all, that's her title. Charles 20:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
S'funny, but I thought as far as Belgium was concerned, the monarch was not styled King of Belgium, but rather King of the Belgians, in as much as they are monarch of the Belgian people, (wherever they may be), rather than the chunk of land called Belgium. This being along the same lines as the monarchs of the former Kingdom of Scotland, who were often styled King or Queen "of Scots", rather than "of Scotland". Talking of Scotland, royal titles here still require inclusion of "Prince", i.e. HRH The Prince Charles, Duke of Rothesay. 80.41.220.120 (talk) 08:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Using Prince Name, Title of Place is far more common for Prince Andrew, Duke of York than Andrew, Duke of York based on a google news search I carried out with the results posted higher up in the discussion. Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh is listed as just that on the UK Monarchy website. The naming conventions as they presently are "Prince Name, Title of Place" is widely for Princes who also hold other titles, and is not some form invented by Wikipeida and never used elsewhere. This obviously is not just a UK issue but the only other relevant discussion I'm aware of was the one for Prince Philippe, Duke of Brabant and a proposal to drop the princely title which was rejected. The arguments are the same for Briton's, Belgian's etc - dwc lr (talk) 11:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, in book search I got 91 for Andrew, Duke of York and 78 for Prince Andrew, Duke of York. The former with -"Prince Andrew" to exclude the latter. Charles 20:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose, Firstly, 4-1 is a ridiculously small consensus to start a change like this, and secondly, the Duke of York post comma portion of the name is for disambiguation from other Prince Andrew articles. It can never really be argued that one Prince whatever is the common usage over another, as that would violate neutral point of view. The normal in text reference to the article should be a piped or redirected Prince Andrew, not Andrew, Duke of York, so the change saves nothing in terms of linking without piping or redirects. MickMacNee (talk) 19:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it can be argued what is and isn't common usage and that would be NPOV. The point is to fix a broken convention when applied like a blanket makes for ridiculous titles. You people are sooo anglocentric. How annoying. Charles 20:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the archive box per the above comments [1]. MickMacNee (talk) 19:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Quite right. Archiving the parts of a discussion that end up with a majority in favour of what you want, when you are already outnumbered (I make it 4 in favour of the proposal and 8 against, so far), is simply not on. Charles, you should know better - and I've no doubt you do. Deb (talk) 19:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I tried to remove it earlier on but it got re added, so lets hope it stays removed as the discussion is still clearly ongoing. I even posted at WP:ANI to try and get the ok the remove it. - dwc lr (talk) 19:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I've reinstated it. Obviously you peopel have trouble understanding because you don't agree with the conclusion. Now there are two views presented in the conventions. I preserved the discussion supporting one of them. Otherwise the late-comers (and yes, you were late, very, very late) would use it to keep a broken convention in deadlock. Charles 20:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I registered by opposition in an open and ongoing discussion at 21:07, 30 May 2008. The said discussion was shut down at 23:16, 30 May 2008. So I got in with a few hours to spare, few! But if you insist on the Archive template remaining I will be of assistance to you and correct your template to include everything down to your comment "The 1910 Almanach gives the titles preceding the forenames of all junior members of a house or family without the territorial designation, which is given as the heading for the family, whether or not they hold another (substantive) title. It is not indicative of any type of support for the form Prince X, <title> of Y on that basis. Charles 23:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)". This obviously means you made a mistake and the correct outcome is in fact no consensus for your proposed change. Glad we've cleared that up. - dwc lr (talk) 21:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
No, you didn't 14:40, 4 to 1 then 14:43, change was made. You were too late. The archived discussion refers to the discussion which made that change which is still in the naming conventions. People came in after the change was made. Templates or not, the change was made after a consensus. That people disagree after does not change the initial discussion, therefore the archive templates. Sorry! You are of no assistance to me and your help is neither needed nor wanted. Obviously, you cannot read or have trouble comprehending what I said about the Almanach. They don't give the family designation for ANYONE because it is the header for each family. Therefore Prince so and so (without territorial designation), comma, substantive title in the almanach is NOT indicative of support for that style, it is simply information. If that is the basis of your argument then we must drop the territorial designations of all royals without substantive titles. Charles 22:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry but you should of shut the discussion down when you had the chance, the discussion was still open when I and others commented so our comments must be included if you insist on keeping the archive template. But like I say don't worry I will correct this for you. UpDown first came in before the change was made why is their comment not included? Yes the Gotha gives lists people as Prince Name, Title of Place like the present naming conventions also use. - dwc lr (talk) 22:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
UpDown did not come in before the change was made. I am going to call you out on the Almanach de Gotha. The almanach doesn't add the territorial designations because they are in the heading. For instance, Prussia with people listed under as Prince X, or Princess Y, without "of Prussia" at the end. Therefore that is their style guide only for brevity and to avoid repetition in a list. If that is your (very, very weak and ridiculous) argument then we have to rename Princess Victoria of the United Kingdom to Princess Victoria because the Almanach would list her that way. Therefore the Almanach is not indicative of how we should style people. Find better sources. For instance: "Andrew, Duke of York" -"Prince Andrew, Duke of York" 100 results and "Prince Andrew, Duke of York" 78 results. Charles 22:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
UpDown came in at 19:41, 30 May 2008 (in my time) the "alleged" change did not take place until two minutes later they clearly got in there in time. So again why is their opinion not included perhaps you felt you needed to act quickly as you could sense the tide turning. Yes the Gotha consider listing the Princely title important which lots of people have been arguing is when it comes to articles here and the Gotha is a good form to follow for people with substantive titles. As the Princely and substantive titles are important imo. And what does Google news say. We can use this as well to find what news sources use. I posted the results earlier. Prince Andrew, Duke of York (204) is more common than Andrew, Duke of York (44). - dwc lr (talk) 22:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
UpDown came in after the convention was changed. That is a fact. Just The Duke of York gets 8,880 results. That's without "Prince". We don't need to use prince. Also, you are ridiculous and obviously can't comprehend what I said about the Gotha. Your argument is weak, null even. The Almanach de Gotha doesn't list the territorial designation for anyone, even people without substantive titles. Therefore it is not indicative of support for a form where it gives the same blanket treatment to everyone. You can't pick and choose your arguments when they have holes in them. I posted book results as well and Duke of York, without prince, outnumbers the other. Charles 22:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
What time did UpDown make the comment directly under the Archive template. What time did you change the Naming Conventions. But most importantly of all what time did the discussion (half of it anyway) close. I could go and express an opinion on the renaming of the article Mark VIII. But I couldn't for Maria Vladimirovna, Grand Duchess of Russia as the particular discussion is closed. When I expressed my opinion here the discussion was open so I and lots of others got in there in time. Yes and what's more common Prince Andrew, Duke of York or Andrew, Duke of York. God knows how many hits there are for Prince Andrew - 23:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
In order: At 14:40, there was an 80% majority favouring changing the conventions. At 14:43, I changed the convention. The discussion was therefore closed even if I had forgotten the templates. I even made a move to the effect of the new conventions at 14:44. It was only later at 15:41 that someone objected, but too late at that. The changes had been made. There you go! The discussion was not still open because it had concluded. Charles 23:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
You are the only person who believes a change has taken place. The reality is that there is an ongoing discussion regarding a propsed change put forward by yourself on 18 May. At present there are four in favour and eight opposed. - dwc lr (talk) 23:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
If I was why does the naming convention show two sides? A change did happen, it is not the same as it was three or more days ago. And obviously, the discussion which introduced the other side needs to be preserved. Charles 23:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Really the NC article should be put back as your propsal has been ongoing since 18 May and not passed but a clear consensus is now forming. - dwc lr (talk) 23:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
The proposal ended at 14:40 with a clear majority. Charles 00:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Personally I consider it the same proposal and will do unless an administrator says otherwise. Either way I look forward to it's end. - dwc lr (talk) 00:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Clearly, a lot of people oppose this change and the discussion period was not as long as it could have or should have been in order to achieve true consensus, whichever way that consensus will go. As this is going nowhere, I think we should put in request for arbitration. I don't know how to do this. Help?PrinceOfCanada (talk) 22:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It does not matter whether people came "late" to the discussion. The fact is that there is no consensus for Charles's proposed change. Deb (talk) 23:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I too would like to see a consensus for this as I am in agreement with the points made by Deb, dwc lr, and D. Чарльз - жопа (talk) 04:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, shall we "tally up" and go with the consensus? DBD 21:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's perhaps time, the proposal has been running been since 18 May and has now received considerable input from numerous editors. - dwc lr (talk) 22:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Let's count it up... and go right back to where things were before the whole bunfight started, looks like. PrinceOfCanada (talk) 23:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
The proposal was concluded at the end of the May. Sorry! Charles 18:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh my God. Are you serious?PrinceOfCanada (talk) 20:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes I believe he does genuinely think that to be the case. I make it four in favour of the proposal put forward on 18 May: Charles, Jao, Pmanderson and Mcferran. And ten opposed to the proposal: DBD, UpDown, Demophon, Proteus, DWC LR, Deb, PrinceOfCanada, MichMacNee, Чарльз - жопа and FactStraight. - dwc lr (talk) 22:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The current wording notes that there is no consensus "about the form of name for a prince(ss) who holds a ducal (or other non-princely) substantive title". This is similar to the lack of consensus about the naming of deceased consorts of sovereigns.

One option is to just recognise the lack of consensus and leave the current wording.

On the other hand: there is definitely some use of the form Prince(ss) {first name}, {title} and User:DWC_LR has shown that this form is more commonly used for living princes of the UKGBNI in news sources. I have shown that the form {first name}, {title} is more commonly used in books and much much more commonly used for deceased individuals. The form Prince(ss) {first name}, {title} is virtually never used for deceased French or Italian princes (e.g. Louis, Duke of Nemours gets 51 hits in Google Books [2], but "Prince Louis, Duke of Nemours" gets absolutely none [3]. There are similar results for Antoine, Duke of Montpensier. Perhaps it would be an option to seek a consensus about a sub-group (e.g. by nation, or by time). Sometimes there are different ways in which princes from different countries are treated even in English-language scholarship (e.g. the exception in the current convention regarding use of family names for members of Italian Renaissance families). Noel S McFerran (talk) 22:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe all the French princes with substantive titles use the form "Name, Title of Place" anyway so it may make sense to write something in about them. I'm not so sure about Italian Princes the Duke of Aosta/Savoy uses the form "Prince Name, Title of Place" on his website.[4] - dwc lr (talk) 10:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
It is pure idiocy to modify the conventions to reflect the direct personal usage of various families. Charles 18:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Charles, seriously, can we please ask you to be more civil? You're being quite combative and rude, and it's really not necessary. PrinceOfCanada (talk) 19:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok, anyway this proposal has now been running since 18 May a clear consensus has formed in favour of "Prince Name, Title of Place". Numerous editors have commented that this proposal should be drawn to a close. Unless someone else does, I will at some point soon restore the naming conventions to reflect the consensus and I hope this will be respected. - dwc lr (talk) 19:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. PrinceOfCanada (talk) 19:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Disagreed. Just because you didn't get your own way doesn't mean you can change fact. Sorry! Charles 23:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
How much longer would you like your proposal to remain open for? - dwc lr (talk) 15:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
There is a significant difference between "a clear consensus" and "a clear majority". I do not believe that a clear consensus has been formed, and I think that the present wording of the convention reflects that lack of consensus. I do think that we should continue to discuss this particular aspect of the convention and try to achieve an actual consensus. I have suggested several methods. The former wording does not reflect the current usage on Wikipedia with most French and Italian princes as well as with many claimants to a throne/heads of houses (e.g. Franz, Duke of Bavaria). I do realise that it is difficult to achieve consensus when one or two editors insist on being exceptionally difficult and refuse to engage in useful dialogue. Noel S McFerran (talk) 00:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps I should of said "no consensus" which I believe is used when proposals are rejected. Regarding heads of Royal houses I believe something should be written into the naming conventions as I posted earlier most are listed under "Name, Title of Place" even if they apparently do not hold a substantive title. I personally have no issues listing heads of houses as "Name, Title of Place" this is how I have seen them listed in genealogical works without a princely title listed before there names. In the section below Charles is saying there should be a discussion on the naming of members of the house of Bourbon and notes that they use surnames etc. I believe this is the way forward now as the French princes are different to others as from what I can see the French form of their substantive title is used in some cases. So a separate discussion on the naming of French royals generally is what is evidently needed. - dwc lr (talk) 01:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Consensus is an official policy. You will never get unanimous agreement it blatantly obvious what the consensus is. If we have to wait for unanimous agreement no request move will go through, no article will be deleted, nothing will ever get done. Sooner or later this will have to close. I'm disappointed that people appear to be against recognising the consensus because they disagree with the outcome of the proposal but I have no problem allowing it to remain open a while longer but this discussion appears to be effectively over and it looks like it is only delaying the inevitable. - dwc lr (talk) 14:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

French nobility : name/title

There is an error in title of the article Louise Marie Adélaïde de Bourbon-Penthièvre. Her name is Louise Marie Adélaïde de Bourbon. "Penthièvre" is not a family surname. The last name at birth of all the members of the House of Bourbon-Toulouse-Penthièvre is de Bourbon, nothing after, but titles: Louis-Alexandre de Bourbon, comte de Toulouse ; Louis Jean Marie de Bourbon, duc de Penthièvre ; Louis Alexandre de Bourbon, prince de Lamballe ; Louise Marie Adélaïde de Bourbon, Mlle de Penthièvre. "Mlle de Penthièvre" is a "title" that was chosen for her because her father was the "duc de Penthièvre", it could have been as well "Mlle de Rambouillet". Frania W. (talk) 19:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we should discuss the naming of members of the house of Bourbon as a whole. I suggested some time ago that all the people who were "of France" should be named NN of France, possibly with the title of prince or princess, because it is retroactively applied. All others should be (<Title>) NN of X or NN, <Title> of Y. If no preceding title is used, we can use "de". For instance, just Louise Marie Adélaïde de Bourbon. I am not a fan of using "surnames" for those who have titles (I have see ... d'Orléans, Duke of Orléans, etc... We don't give surnames for anyone else. People, however, shouldn't have made-up designations as seem to be the case with Bourbon-Penthièvre. That is simply a genealogical designation and not something that she would have used. I am going to post a link to this discussion at WT:ROYALTY. Charles 19:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Charles, I read all the discussions (!!!) and even went on different language wikis to see if some had better ideas than others, or at least stuck to one rule. I thought the Germans would be tip-top sleek - well, they are not doing much better than the Anglo wiki: they translate titles: Louis XIV is Ludwig XIV., but do keep some in French... sometimes (marquise de Montespan)http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_XIV. As for the French, they translate everything into French: le duc de Windsor, Marie Stuart, reine d'Écosse, Marie-Antoinette de Habsbourg-Lorraine, reine de France, le prince de Galles; Richard Cœur de Lion, and do not seem to make any exception. That's for one thing. Now for the naming with titles, surnames, nicknames, it's a separate mess. Trying to put some order into it is not going to be easy: you seem to have been working on it for years. Like the French say: On n'est pas sorti de l'auberge. Frania W. (talk) 23:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Mongolian name order

When it comes to name order, I suppose "most common form in English" is our rule. This means that all Hungarian and most Japanese names are switched to western format, but not (generally) Chinese names, while Korean names are a total mess (Personal name#Name order mentions this). But what about Mongolian names? An example: at the ISSF World Cup in Milan the other day, Gundegmaa Otryad won and Munkzul Tsogbadrah finished third in 25 m Pistol. Or Otryad Gundegmaa won and Tsogbadrah Munkzul finished third? I have no idea what the common usage in English is here. The official results only say "OTRYAD Gundegmaa" just like they say "EMMONS Matthew" etc, so are not very helpful. (Also notifying about the issue on Talk:Mongolian name.) -- Jao (talk) 20:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The answer is given in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Mongolian)#People:
There are no family names in Mongolia. In conversation, a person is addressed by the given name. Today, the full name consists of the father's name and the given name, in that sequence. The father's name is in genitive form, usually ending in -iin or -yn (eg. Peljidiin Genden).
In international sports reporting, the patronymic is often falsely treated like a western family name. In such cases, we need to track down the original spelling in Mongolian (should be in the article anyway) and fix them accordingly. I regularly do this for new articles that I come across. Someone also created a template {{Mongolian name}} which can be added to the top of articles. In the case of sportspeople, where there is the most confusion, it probably should be added by default. --Latebird (talk) 04:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I had no idea WP:MON existed! I'll try to use this information to make sense of it all. -- Jao (talk) 05:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
btw. I think in this case Gundegmaa is really the personal name, i.e. the one that should be capitalized. Somewhere, there is also some Mongolian-born shooter who has become a Germnan citizen, where the naming question is probably even more complicated. Yaan (talk) 18:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, Munkhbayar Dorjsuren (that article mentions her birthname as Dorjsürengiin Mönkhbayar, so she now uses her old patronymic as a family name; I remember having a discussion about that name with someone, probably User:Punkmorten). I'm pretty sure you're right about Gundegmaa. The ISSF rules specifies that a "family name" should be included in the lists, which is of course a little problematic with Mongolian names (as with Icelandic names). I think it's fair to assume that the name capitalized by the ISSF is (quite erroneously, one would be tempted to say) in these cases the patronymic. Only problem is that Otryad doesn't seem to be in the genitive, at least it doesn't end in -iin or -yn. But then Mongolian name says that the genitive case is only used "very frequently", not exclusively. Would you say the fair thing to do is then to call her "Otryad Gundegmaa", unless evidence for another form can be found? -- Jao (talk) 19:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
It's Otryadyn Gündegmaa (Отрядын Гүндэгмаа), as confirmed eg. by the list of Mongolian medalists in Asian Games on mnwiki. If you have more names that you're uncertain about, then you're welcome to ask for clarification on the WP:MON talk page, and we'll try to figure them out. --Latebird (talk) 05:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Great! I thank you for your assistance. And I'll keep that page in mind for future reference, too (I can read cyrillic – albeit slowly – so it could probably help me). -- Jao (talk) 05:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Fools walk where angels fear to tred

In order to assist with ongoing discussion, I have created a few new section headings in the convention - but I have been careful not to change wording (even when I thought something was necessary).

There is now a section entitled Royals with a substantive title with the following text (what has been there for the last day):

  1. If an individual holds a princely substantive title, use "{first name}, {title}". Examples: Charles, Prince of Wales, Anne, Princess Royal, Felipe, Prince of Asturias.
  2. When dealing with a Crown Prince(ss) (however not consort) of a state, use the form "{name}, Crown Prince(ss) of {state}" unless there is a clear formal title awarded to a prince which defines their status as crown prince (e.g., 'Frederik, Crown Prince of Denmark', but 'Charles, Prince of Wales', 'Felipe, Prince of Asturias', etc)
  3. There is presently no consensus about the form of name for a prince(ss) who holds a ducal (or other non-princely) substantive title.
    1. Some editors suggest the form "Prince(ss) {first name}, {title}". Examples: Prince Andrew, Duke of York and Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex.
    2. Other editors suggest the form "{first name}, {title}". Examples: Louis, Duke of Nemours and Emanuele Filiberto, 2nd Duke of Aosta.
    3. Numerals are not generally used. Example: Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester, not "Prince Richard, 2nd Duke of Gloucester".
  4. If a prince(ss) holds a substantive title but is not widely known by it, use "Prince(ss) {first name} of ...". Examples: Princess Margarita of Bourbon-Parma and Prince Carl Philip of Sweden.

Please comment on how THIS TEXT should be altered. We've all had enough of "Charles is evil" and "No he isn't, but you are." Noel S McFerran (talk) 00:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I've never thought the Prince of Wales to be a particularly evil fellow. Regarding crown prince/crown princess, I would remove the "(however not consort)" part. I think that crown princes and crown princesses-consort should be treated the same. It almost implies, to me, that a crown princess-consort should not be named X, Crown Princess of Y. Charles 00:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for this effort. However, if a discussion of this issue is, indeed, "ongoing", isn't it premature to state that "there is currently no consensus...", since one may yet be reached (consensus being distinct from unanimity) before we conclude this conversation? I generally support this wording, but prefer the "Prince X, Duke of Y" format, because I think that the "most commonly used in English" standard, coupled with the implicit caveat for application of common sense (ergo, no "The Queen" or "Princess Diana" as article titles, despite their ubiquity), justifies the pre-emptive disambiguation provided by the princely prefix. FactStraight (talk) 03:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Excellent work. I would agree with everything, but that we should be using Prince/ss X, Title of Y whenever there is a substantive title. As for the final point.. I think the convention should be as uniform as possible. Using 'not widely known' opens up the door to yet more bunfights, which is probably a bad idea. Best to have them all at the appropriate P X, Title of Y page, with redirects from the more popular name, and something in the lead saying 'P X, Title of Y (more commonly known as P X of Z)'. Regarding Crown P/ss, I think usage should depend on whether the title has been awarded to the consort or not.PrinceOfCanada (talk) 16:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The discussion is ongoing in the above section. We should not detract from it by creating another duplicate discussion here, just because one user has succeeded in making it into such an uneeded case of drama. MickMacNee (talk) 16:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think that is precisely why the discussion should be moved here, without the BS that went on before. PrinceOfCanada (talk) 17:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Well whatever, I just don't think its helpful to be restarting the discussion in a different place, bacause for sure people have already left it once already, lets not create another obstacle to finding it again, I mean the title is hardly helpfull is it?. And it doesnt make any sense to have another location when there have been opinions registered above, that may not necessarily be repeated here. I suggest closing this section in deference to the above discussion, as it is obviously the prima facia location. MickMacNee (talk) 18:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
It could perhaps have been put with the main discussion as a sub heading. - dwc lr (talk) 18:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Question 1 about the convention proposal: Regarding Emanuele Filiberto, 2nd Duke of Aosta, the title Duke of Aosta.. is this really a substantive title? It seems to me more like a peerage title at its own, together with the substantive titles. It looks that the title have its own lineage and is not linked 'pers se' to the King of Italy. This in contrast to the titles 'Prince of Orange' or 'Duke of Brabant', which are today in the kingdoms the titles linked to the heir of the throne.
Question 2 about the convention proposal: why is the title of the page Louis, Duke of Nemours not 'Prince Louis, Duke de Nemours'? Demophon (talk) 18:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Response 1 Please review the meaning of substantive title as it is used on Wikipedia. A peerage title is a substantive title.
Response 2 Virtually none of the French princes are in the format Prince Name, Duke of Place. The format is NEVER used for them. It's inappropriate to impose that format on them, merely because that format is sometimes (although a minority of times) used for British princes. Noel S McFerran (talk) 19:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I give up, why doesn't everyone just ramble on regardless. MickMacNee (talk) 19:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

In fact no, as per Charles, I see exactly why Noel S wants to 'restart' the discussion in a different place. This is bordering on the ridiculous. MickMacNee (talk) 19:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding substantive title's one thing I'm not clear on is heads of Royal houses. Are their titles to be regarded as substantive, we articles like Maximilian, Margrave of Baden, now his title could probably be regarded as substantive, but what about Andreas, Prince of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, Konrad, Prince of Saxe-Meiningen or Prince Louis of Hesse and by Rhine. Are these titles to be regarded as substantive. The majority of heads of (European at least) Royal houses use the format like Andreas and Konrad etc. while others like Prince Louis of Hesse and by Rhine etc. do not. How do we define a substantive title for heads of Royal Houses. - dwc lr (talk) 10:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

A substantive title is unique to the holder (and his spouse). Maximilian, Margrave of Baden does bear a substantive title. Andreas SCG does not bear a substantive title; he should be at Prince Andreas of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. He is not THE Prince of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (even though he is head of the house). However, this practice is widespread on Wikipedia (cf. Georg Friedrich, Prince of Prussia and Maria Vladimirovna, Grand Duchess of Russia). I do not see any way of correcting this issue in the near future. There are a number of editors of royalty-related articles who are very inexperienced - but don't seem to realise just how inexperienced they are (since, in comparison with the person in the street, they know significantly more). Often there is no convincing them even when one provides all sorts of evidence from published sources. Noel S McFerran (talk) 11:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
In that case it's clear who holds substantive tiles and who doesn't. Like the Baden example other heads with substantive titles presumably are Bavaria, Saxony, Mortiz of Hesse, Parma. Why not move the others if they are incorrectly titled? - dwc lr (talk) 12:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Charles the Red

No doubt some editors have noticed that Charles' username is now in red. That is because about three hours ago User:PeterSymonds (an admin) deleted Charles' pages at his own request. Presumably Charles has (once again) decided to leave Wikipedia. I can only assume that this is in response to some of the recent personal attacks on him including the most egregious where he was described as "behaving like a Nazi dictator". Noel S McFerran (talk) 11:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it was a case of Gerrymandering then? deciding boundaries for ones own advantage. A lot of people are unhappy I perhaps took things to far. "Once again" he's left before then? I Suppose he'll be back. I'm obviously not happy at the way he decided to archive only half of an ongoing (still) discussion presumably because there were numerous views in opposition to his proposal being expressed. - 12:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
It seems pretty clear to me that he (Charles) went quite a bit over the line in massaging a discussion in order to reach the answer he wanted, he got called on it, and has left in a huff. I've seen this happen approximately eleventy billion times online; he'll be back, it'll happen again, lather rinse repeat. I hope it doesn't--I hope his actions here were a minor aberration, but reading through the history of his talk page...well.. it doesn't look that way. PrinceOfCanada (talk) 16:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I can only assume Charles is a Diva. MickMacNee (talk) 16:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
It happens again, you've been right. Gerhard51 (talk) 20:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Woah, okay, everybody calm down. MickMacNee, please assume good faith. Editors -- good ones -- sometimes go over the line, but I'd like to make a point that responding with comments such as "it appears that X is a WP:DIVA" is not the correct way to respond. NO, Charles has not left "in a huff"; he has semi-retired to concentrate less on royalty and more on an article particularly close to his heart. That does not mean to say that he has left completely, and he is still making edits. The decision was not sudden, it was being considered for a long while. Heh, if Charles left after every dispute, he would've been redlinked years ago! ;) But seriously, let's back off, assume good faith and refrain from the veiled personal attacks. Charles made mistakes, but he also did a lot of good for the project. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Hear, hear! DBD 21:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

When not to use a substantive title

User:PrinceOfCanada has suggested that "we should be using Prince/ss X, Title of Y whenever there is a substantive title", i.e. without any exceptions. Allow me to outline three cases where it might be appropriate to do otherwise:

  1. Princess Margarita of Bourbon-Parma Until two days ago this lady's article was at Princess Margarita, Countess of Colorno. She is NEVER EVER known as "the Countess of Colorno" - although her father did give her that title. The title is so uncommon that it doesn't even appear in many royal genealogies.
  2. Prince Carl Philip, Duke of Värmland This prince is hardly even known as "the Duke of Värmland", although the fact that he has the title is widely recorded. He is commonly called Prince Carl Philip of Sweden (a title of much more meaning to anybody coming to the article).
  3. Infanta Elena, Duchess of Lugo This lady is sometimes called "the Duchess of Lugo", but far more frequently she is called Infanta Elena of Spain.

I have presented these three cases not only as examples, but also to show that there are different levels of reason for not naming the article with the substantive title. A case can be made for Duchess of Lugo; I don't think that a case can be made for Countess of Colorno. The convention should address the fact that there are situations when a substantive title should not be in the title of the article, but only mentioned in the text. Noel S McFerran (talk) 19:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Um, you kind of ignored what I said right after that. I'll repost it here, for convenience:
I think the convention should be as uniform as possible. Using 'not widely known' opens up the door to yet more bunfights, which is probably a bad idea. Best to have them all at the appropriate P X, Title of Y page, with redirects from the more popular name, and something in the lead saying 'P X, Title of Y (more commonly known as P X of Z)'.
To give an example: Prince Carl Philip of Sweden should redirect to Prince Carl Philip, Duke of Värmland, as the latter is his correct title, whatever he may be known as in day-to-day parlance. The logical extension of your argument would be to have Princess Diana as the main page instead of Diana, Princess of Wales, which obviously doesn't make any sense at all. PrinceOfCanada (talk) 19:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Noel has completely misunderstood the purpose of article titles and in-line redirects/piped links. To hark back to Prince Andrew, that is his common name, but his article is quite rightly Prince Andrew, Duke of York. I fail to see what all this nonsense is trying to achieve. MickMacNee (talk) 19:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I haven't "misunderstood the purpose of article titles and in-line redirects/piped links". An article title should clearly represent the topic of the article. Redirects are useful for other ways that users might search.
In the case of Princess Margarita, Countess of Colorno, that article title does not clearly represent the topic of the article; even people who are friends with this lady probably wouldn't recognise her titled like that. In the case of Prince Carl Philip, Duke of Värmland, perhaps somebody should write to the Swedish court. He is not generally styled Duke of Värmland on their website (although the title is mentioned on his biographical webpage). [5]
When somebody uses the phrase "logical extension of your argument", they're using engaging in Reductio ad absurdum. I am not suggesting that there should be an article entitled Princess Diana. I am saying that there are some cases where a substantive title is so unused that it is not appropriate to include it in an article title.
Describing another editor's good faith efforts to discuss the content of a page as "all this nonsense" is contrary to the Wikipedia behavioral guideline on Civility. Please be more careful. Noel S McFerran (talk) 20:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe what I was saying was reductio. It comes down to this, for me: either we adopt a convention, or we do not. If we do, that convention should be equally applied, for the sake of ease of access to information--random person coming to Wikipedia won't know that we have decided 'P X of Y' for this person, while X, T of Y' for the next person. A convention should be followed across all implementations of that type of thing. While it's true that Duke of Varmland or Countess of Colormo may not be widely known, it is equally true that those are their official titles. Again, to use the Diana example, she was widely known as Princess Diana or Lady Di. Neither of those are accurate in any sense, and while it may be generally accurate to refer to Carl-Phillip as Prince of Sweden, it is not specifically accurate, which is sort of the whole point of an encyclopedia, is it not? You yourself said that "an article title should clearly represent the subject of the article". In the examples given, the subject of the article should also reflect what the actual title of the person is. Redirects from popularly-known titles make all sorts of sense, and avoid any ambiguity or mistakes. PrinceOfCanada (talk) 00:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Exactly how is Countess of Colorno the "official title" of Princess Margarita of Bourbon-Parma? There is not a single country in the world where this lady is legally recognised by that title (even in the Netherlands where her aunt is queen). No royal court gives it to her even unofficially (as happens with many other princes and their titles). She is never called by that title. One might just as well refer to her older brother the Prince of Piacenza as Duke of Madrid, a title he has received from his father but which very very few people accord him. Noel S McFerran (talk) 00:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Legally recognized is immaterial; her father bestowed the title upon her, as is his right. Ergo, she should be known as Pss M of B-P, C of C in her article, which can OF COURSE redirect from the more popular name. I mean really... John F Kennedy is more popularly known as JFK; are you arguing that his article should be titled JFK? That would be silly. Similarly, one of the major purposes of an encyclopedia is to provide accurate information. Thus we do not have articles at JFK, Princess Diana, or Jackie O; we have John F. Kennedy, Diana, Princess of Wales, and Jacqueline Onassis, with redirects from the more popular names as appropriate. I really don't understand your antipathy; if we use redirects to the factually correct name, everyone can find the article, no matter which way they are looking. If we use only the more popular name, we open a can of worms that simply isn't worth opening--see my examples above re JFK and others. Following from that, the simplest and most effective solution is to use the correct title at the article, with redirects from the more popular titles, and a line in the lead with "Pss M of B-P, C of C, more popularly known as yadda yadda yadda. This addresses every single point which has been raised, the most important of which is what you yourself said, that each article title should clearly (and, frankly, accurately) reflect the subject of that article. PrinceOfCanada (talk) 13:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
"Countess of Colorno" is her official title in the same way that cadets of other deposed dynasties are accorded noble titles by the heads of their houses. Parma was a sovereign duchy: since when are such titles only recognised when issued by royal pretenders (which the Duke of Parma happens to be -- irrelevantly, since Colorno is in Parma). Such titles may or may not be utilised by reigning dynasties, but I am surprised to see it suggested that this is somehow an ultra vires usage within the customary dynastic/genealogical context. As for "Duke of Madrid", that is a title of pretence which I can't really believe you are implying is inappropriately applied unless acknowledged by reigning monarchs. What, then, of the Count of Albany, the duc d'Anjou, or the Margrave of Meissen? That said, I agree that it shouldn't be used as her article's title -- because, per our Naming Convention, it is less common in English than her Bourbon-Parma title, not because it is unofficial. FactStraight (talk) 04:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, Duke of Albany was stripped, is now in abeyance, and has never been reinstated, so that's kind of a silly argument (I do see where you're coming from, though). And changing the Naming Convention is exactly what we are discussing here. PrinceOfCanada (talk) 13:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I made no reference to any "Duke of Albany", but mentioned the Count of Albany -- and wikilinked the reference so that anyone could readily discover its relevance to the discussion at hand. As for changing the naming convention, I will vote against such a change unless I first see a discussion of the rationale(s) which prompted inclusion of "use the name most common in English" rule into NC(NT). FactStraight (talk) 04:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
My bad; I misread. Sorry about that. There's another problem with the "use the name most common in English" rule; shouldn't WP contain the same content in each language? PrinceOfCanada (talk) 06:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
It never has before, so where did you get the impression that is a Wikipedia standard? Different languages (and different Wikis) refer to historic individuals differently -- a fact well-attested to and much-discussed in the archives of this talk page. FactStraight (talk) 06:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Where did I say it is the standard? I didn't. I asked the question. PrinceOfCanada (talk) 23:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
No, that commits us all to each other's errors; and the French Wikipedia may justly find some article here not worth inclusion. Perfect translation is not possible; each WP must get along as best it can by itself, with an occasional peek over each other's shoulders. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Kaiser Bill

There is a proposal on Talk:William II, German Emperor to change to the German form of the name; it is now also discussing removing any disambiguator. Noel and Charles have commented; the rest of you may want to weigh in. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Anglocentric

The article is written in a very anglocentric style, does anyone agree? Perhaps a separate UK naming convention page ought to be created? --Cameron* 20:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Probably makes more sense to create the anglocentric stuff as a subsection here, and then further subsections for French, Spanish, etc etc etc names & titles. Alternatively, separate pages for all of these (incl. UK), with links to the relevant sub-pages. Prince of Canada t | c 20:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea. --Cameron* 17:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Righto.. I'll give it a week, and if nobody objects I'll get started. It looks to be a fairly simple process. Prince of Canada t | c 18:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
What are you planning on doing? - dwc lr (talk) 18:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Subsections, with a view to splitting all (national/regional) sections into their own pages if the page gets too big. It's not really a huge change, but things tend to get a bit contentious around here, so I wanted to give a heads-up. :) Prince of Canada t | c 18:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Object. All we need to do is to divide the non-royal names into the British peerage, which is the majority of the section, and everything else, which I've done. If anyone wants to propose conventions on, say, the French Peerage, that should be done here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Errrrr... I'm going to go ahead and revert all that. I was seeking consensus before doing anything for a reason. Things can get heated around here, so I would much rather have us all agree, or a majority of us agree, before making any changes. Yes, yes WP:Be bold and all that, but still. Prince of Canada t | c 20:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Do you object to it? (If you meant no more than that, btw, I don't object either; but if so anglocentrism is overblown.) Do look at it first; all I did was to change a header and insert another; this implied moving, but not changing, the footnotes. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes; I don't feel your changes really address the issue. But that's neither here nor there: I want to reach consensus before changes, if any, are made. Prince of Canada t | c 20:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Then please state what your issue is, in clear, precise, language. You have begun by using a word primarily employed by nationalist POV-pushers; let us see what your case is without it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, umm.. first of all, Cameron did. Second, there's no need to be so combative. Our standards as they currently stand are very focused on the royalty and peerage of the British Isles. This obviously falls apart when it comes to conventions elsewhere in Europe, to say nothing of the rest of the world. It would make sense, in encyclopedic terms, to use the most accurate local term (witness the current debate over Emperor William vs Kaiser Wilhelm, for example) while still providing room to discuss the English-language version. Prince of Canada t | c 21:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Our standards as they currently stand are very focused on the royalty and peerage of the British Isles. No, they are not. We are indeed focused on the British peerage; but this is because they are complex, still exist, and are part of the English-speaking world. If you are volunteering to draft standards for the Peerage of France, feel free; they were requested above. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Using the most accurate local term is contrary to our naming policy and English usage, which is why we have policy against it. Strongly object. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
    Okay, you really are being needlessly combative about this. I would like to ask you to please be civil, okay? My point about 'most accurate local term' was perhaps misstated. What I mean is that there are areas of the world where the standards as currently written don't actually apply. The rule about using the most common English version is not always correct; if it were, for example, we'd be calling her Princess Diana, not Diana, Princess of Wales. That's about all I have to say on the matter to you, until you start discussing things calmly and less antagonistically. Prince of Canada t | c 21:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
    Not needlessly, I would hope inappropriately; the first sign of a POV-pushing nationalist (not that PrinceOfCanada has shown himself to be one) is the effort to rewrite the English language.
    • Of course there are areas of the world where the standards as written don't apply. For monarchs, they are specifically limited to Europe since the fall of the Roman Empire, although they may be applicable to the Muslim world by analogy. For others, they are perforce largely applicable to areas which use forename and surname. But this is not anglocentricity, unless that is, as all too often, a complaint that this English Wikipedia is anglophone. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay, dude? I really can't talk to you at all. Being needlessly--yes! needlessly--combative and antagonistic is one thing; veiled insults are something completely else. Prince of Canada t | c 03:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps changing the paragraph name is a good idea? The whole paragraph does concern the british Peerage. --Cameron* 07:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Two-thirds of it does; this edit would separate and rename the section on the British peerage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't really call it Anglocentric (despite being a Welsh nationalist) because the English-language wikipedia is inevitably going to concentrate on countries where English is spoken and there is a peerage (ie. the UK). So let's try and move on from that. I think the idea of having one section for the British peerage and one for everything else is a good start, and should be built on. Prince of Canada, you're a great user, but you shouldn't really revert other people's work unless you think it wasn't done in good faith. And Septentrionalis, please don't take it personally. Can we all be friends, now? Please? Deb (talk) 11:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't done in good faith; I was seeking consensus, and had made that very clear. Prince of Canada t | c 12:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
On the contrary, it was done to resolve your complaints, insofar as I consider them consistent with the text of this page and with general policy, which there is no consensus to change. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Missing the point entirely. I suggest you re-read the part about 'changing the page' and 'seeking consensus' to do so. *sigh* Prince of Canada t | c 18:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Fine; when you can express clearly what the point is, please post it. If renaming and dividing the section does not at least alleviate your grievance, I have no idea what it is. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I suggest you re-read the first two comments in this section; first Cameron's, and then mine. I really, really don't understand why you are being so rude about this. I am attempting to seek and form consensus before making changes. Perhaps you could show me the policy that states that editors should be subjected to rude and combative behaviour when they are trying to do so? Prince of Canada t | c 18:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
What part of my last comment was rude? I am willing to retract whatever it is. I do, however, see no real anglocentricity in the present guideline, other than the header cited. Some might argue that we should use more examples outside the British royal family, but I cannot agree; we should use well-known examples for which English usage is clear, and the House of Windsor is far the best known to current anglophones. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
"when you can express clearly what the point is, please post it" --which I had already done, and you kept ignoring. "If renaming and dividing the section does not at least alleviate your grievance, I have no idea what it is" -- which I had already explained, and you kept ignoring. You have been combative, rude, and argumentative since you showed up in this discussion. I suggest you re-read WP:Civil. Prince of Canada t | c 18:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
If you did, then I missed it. The only statement I can see that even comes close to meeting that description is Our standards as they currently stand are very focused on the royalty and peerage of the British Isles. I did not ignore that; I replied to it. I stand by my reply: I largely disagree, but would welcome a specific proposal to fix the part with which I agree. If that's not what you mean, what is? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
This is the last time that I will say this to you. If you continue to ignore it, I will have no choice but to consider you a troll.
  • The article is written in a very anglocentric style, does anyone agree? Perhaps a separate UK naming convention page ought to be created? --Cameron* 20:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Probably makes more sense to create the anglocentric stuff as a subsection here, and then further subsections for French, Spanish, etc etc etc names & titles. Alternatively, separate pages for all of these (incl. UK), with links to the relevant sub-pages. Prince of Canada t | c 20:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Prince of Canada t | c 19:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Does anyone agree with Cameron's observation? I don't, but someone else may.
  • We say nothing about French or Spanish names and titles specifically, in part because they're less trouble: use what English translations use for notable nobles, and follow English styles (as translations usually do) where there is doubt. (There's a separate page on Spanish matronymics now, and we link.) Until we add something (to which I have no objection), there is nothing to divide or move. Does anyone have text to propose on what to add? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh mein Gott im Himmel. OBVIOUSLY someone else agrees. CAN YOU GUESS WHO? For God's sake, seriously, what is your problem?Prince of Canada t | c 20:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, yes, the two of you agree on that, (although it's not clear that Cameron wants major changes); that's why I said else. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
So I'm assuming you missed the comment immediately under mine, where he said "sounds like a good idea"? Seriously? What is wrong with you? You popped up out of nowhere, you have been nothing but rude and combative, you ran roughshod all over my desire to chieve consensus before doing anything, you have repeatedly ignored what I have to say. WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU? Or are you just a garden-variety troll? Prince of Canada t | c 20:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
No, I wrote some of this guideline; although not the parts on the peerage. But enough. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
And all suddenly becomes clear. You don't own the guideline. And stop trolling. it's cute how you continually ignore every point and question that is put to you, but it's also sad. Prince of Canada t | c 20:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
As I said, I didn't write, and don't own, the part on the British peerage. I have, however, seen this page evolve, and deplore vague demands for sweeping change which seem incompatible with the present well-functioning text. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

This discussion has taken a turn for the worse; I recommend that those participating should take a break and calm down. Rather than accusations, it would be much more beneficial to discuss potential changes. Olessi (talk) 20:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I am quite calm, thank you. I just take umbrage at self-important, rude, aggressive people who prefer to pop in and start arguments rather than actually discuss the issue at hand. Prince of Canada t | c 20:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I repeat the substantive suggestion that the British peerage be reheaded and split from the rest of the section in which it lies. What more is there to do? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
You repeat? Wow, apparently you really didn't read what I originally wrote here. You had to come in and throw your weight around first, and then say exactly what i said in the first place. What is wrong with you? Prince of Canada t | c 12:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I agree with this suggestion (the one immediately above, not the one about ten paragraphs above!) Deb (talk) 11:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Then let's do it, and see if it is reverted again. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Doing so right now. What part of 'consensus' isn't getting through to you? Prince of Canada t | c 18:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Let's review the scoring. I proposed it, Deb likes it, you claim it's exactly what you said in the first place, and Cameron thinks changing the header is a good idea. Nobody objects. Where is the absence of consensus? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
There's no consensus on what will specifically be changed.
But you know what? What the f*ck ever. You just go ahead and do whatever you want, since you are SO VERY OBVIOUSLY SO MUCH BETTER THAN I AM O WISE ONE, and have clearly thoroughly enjoyed being a complete and total troll here. So.. you win. Do whatever the f*ck you want. Got it? You win! Yet again the troll wins because those of us who aren't trolls, well... it's like arguing with a moron. You dragged me down to your level and beat me with experience. Enjoy. Prince of Canada t | c 19:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
We usually change incrementally; it's one of the advantages of being a wiki. If you want more changes, propose them; they may or may not be agreed to, but isn't half a loaf better than no bread? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. I'm now stuck between trying to figure out if you're a troll, monumentally stupid, or both. It's a tough call. Cameron started this discussion, I chimed in and was going to try and gather consensus. That wasn't good enough for you, and it was better for you to run roughshod over that, treat me like crap, throw your weight around, and generally be a rude, argumentative, combative expletive deleted. So, you win. Go ahead and do what you want, because I am sick and tired of dealing with someone who a) thinks he owns the page, b) treats someone who is attempting to form a consensus like crap, and c) appears to be roughly eight years old. Bye. Prince of Canada t | c 19:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't think there is consensus for major changes; there never has been. I am not willing to join one unless there is a draft text to discuss; but I would be interested in seeing a draft, and there can certainly be consensus against me. I am pleased to see you are deleting your expletives. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Of course. Clearly writing a proposal without any idea of peoples' views or the nature of the problem would be simply brilliant. But perhaps that's enough sarcasm.

French nobility again

There evidently is a need of some thinking: René-Robert Cavelier, Sieur de La Salle, Antoine Laumet de La Mothe, sieur de Cadillac, Gaspard de Saulx, Enguerrand VII, Lord of Coucy, Bernard Stewart, Lord of Aubigny. Not consistent. Is it Sire, sire, Sieur sieur, Lord, lord or what? That choice helps determine the rest: X, Lord [de Qqc] would be silly, and so too would Y, Sieur [of Sthg]. Sieurs would probably not be called Stephen, Lords probably not Étienne, although that's less clear-cut. Calling M. Cavalier "Lord of La Salle" would be bizarre, but that needn't have any bearing on the general case. There's much the same variation to be seen with counts and dukes and what-have-you: Robert I of Dreux; Jeanne II, Countess of Burgundy; Stephen I, Count of Burgundy; Charles de Valois, Duc de Berry; etc. Some considerable number of articles must be named in ways which do not match whatever it is that this guideline suggests. But which? And why? Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. That will do as something to discuss. I note that the French Wikipedia uses fr:René Robert Cavelier de La Salle, so we may not need a title at all. But then they are generally less formal than we; they have Palmerston under fr:Henry John Temple, and Edward John Moreton Drax Plunkett, 18th Baron Dunsany under fr:Edward Plunkett. (I do not claim they are a reliable source, but they may be a guide to French usage; what should matter to us is English usage.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
"Sire" was used as a literal translation of "sieur", which is an obsolete version of "seigneur", both of which are also translated as "lord". Neither is an actual title in the French hierarchy, but simply indicated that the property following the "de" afforded the owner certain rights of squireship up until the French Revolution, akin to but more extensive than the prerogatives of an English lord of the manor. "Lord" is therefore a good translation because it conveys an imprecision also present in the French: it evokes an aristocratic landholder, without specifying whether or not he is legally a noble.
French titles are trickier, because the vast majority were self-assumed. But French society was more tolerant of titres de courtoisie than was British: rules for usage were broader and less well-defined. But there were boundaries: non-nobles were expected to refrain from adopting noble titles -- even if a rich and distinguished bourgeois purchased a duché-seigneurie outright. Whereas, an untitled noble whose family once owned a seigneurie could, more or less, call himself any title he preferred, below duke. However, in the 19th century these courtesy titles came to be used as prefixes to the name, so that "comte Jean de X" is understood to be a courtesy or cadet title, whereas "Jean, comte de X" is presumed to be a legal title, a hereditary count par excellence. I recommend that this last distinction be ignored in naming articles (except where confusion would ensue) for the sake of uniformity, but explained in the article text.
English-language encyclopedias historically treat French titles as unnecessary to translate. While that assumption of French fluency is out-of-date, French titles happen to be close enough to English ones for most English-users to unpack the meaning -- especially when wikified. So there is no need to "dumb down" encyclopedic tradition here. That said, there are some titles that are untranslatable (e.g., vidame, captal), or "unfriendly" (e.g. pair -- only some French dukes, not all titled nobles, were "peers" entitled to seats in the Parlement de Paris; and a prince was often merely the eldest son of an obscure French duke, rather than a scion of the royal dynasty). We have had bitter recent debates over capitalisation of French titles, yielding no clear consensus. There does, however, seem to be consensus that French and English should not usually be combined in the same title (although I urge that we not confuse matters by describing independent dynasties in French i.e. "Claude, duc de Guise was a younger brother of Antoine, Duke of Lorraine (not duc de Lorraine)", because the Guise dukedom was merely a peerage in the French nobility, while Lorraine was a nation-duchy). FactStraight (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
That depends on the title. Captal de Buch is almost invariable, but so is Duke of Normandy and Duke of Orleans. (Attempting to decide, retroactively, which duchies were sovereign or "independent" strikes me as a quick receipe for a headache; consider the Dukes of Anjou. Again, was Normandy independent when it was held, after 1214, by the heir to France?) There are exceptions, like Maine and La Rochefoucauld; but if we are going to regularize, I would choose Duke over duc. Duc is marginal English, but Herzog, duca, diuk, voyvoda are not English at all. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I think it depends more on the era than the title. To me, "Duke of Burgundy" suggests the quasi-independent duchy and its rulers, whereas duc de Bourgogne evokes later Bourbon dynasts. So my suggestion is to confine use of French titles to post-medieval Europe: I encounter duc d'Orléans and duc de Guise more often in Wiki articles about the Bourbon epoch than "Duke of Orleans" or "Duke of Guise". But I've cringed when encountering Wiki articles that refer to 18th century rulers from the House of Este as "duc de Modène", which I think is confusing to those not familiar with the sometimes precious habit of gallicizing everybody and everything having to do with a court since Louis XIV. We don't do that for other eras: Napoleon's Marshal Ney is not referred to in English as the "Prince of Moscow" but as the Prince de la Moskowa. Let's keep it that way. FactStraight (talk) 01:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
This is because Wiki articles are written, all too often, by those who cannot write English, or do not care whether they are; Modène for Modena is sheer incompetence. In particular, Bourgogne is not English, and we should use it only in telling our readers what the French for something is. I would similarly avoid duc of Burgundy, and fall back on Duke of Burgundy. That's the limit in one direction; we cannot charge mindlessly into Gallicism without looking illiterate. On the other hand, Duke of Maine or of La Rochefoucauld is certainly possible English, but it makes me uncomfortable; there is a soft barrier against excessive Anglicism. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not an expert of nobility by any means, and most of my experience with noble individuals is with German/Austrian nobility, not the British peerage. A few weeks back Gryffindor moved quite a few noble biographies to different names by following NCNT (Count Claude Florimond de Mercy, for instance, a phrasing only found in Wiki mirrors). In my experience, most lesser Germanic nobility mentioned in English texts have not emphasized their titles. Additionally, their title, when included, is not always translated. Ruling monarchs almost invariably have been in the form of "Monarch of Foo", of course. Just my two cents. Olessi (talk) 01:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I moved it because I thought that "comte" is clearly "Count". However that can be debated as well, it can be re-moved again if everyone objects. About the "Sieur" I would say stick with that instead of "lord", because there is really no English translation for that. Gryffindor 09:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
My concern is that following the current NCNT works fine for British nobility, but not necessarily for non-British figures. A perusal of GB suggests to me that the aforementioned field marshal is most commmonly known in English simply as "Florimond de Mercy" or "Florimond Mercy". To pick another one at random, Carl von Rokitansky and even Carl Freiherr von Rokitansky are used much more frequently in English than the current title, Baron Carl von Rokitansky. In my eyes, the current guidelines sometimes lead to verbosity. Olessi (talk) 18:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Well then use the native title, although that would run against the current rule of using English. As long as the titles are included in one form or another I am fine with it. Gryffindor 21:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
That should depend on the title. I would use Freiherr; but, on the other hand, I would use Margrave and Duke, not Markgraf and Herzog. To some extent it depends on the individual also; Baron Münchhausen is required by idiom. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Untranslated German titles are usually modern, and often seem to result from the writer not realizing that Fürst, Gräf, Freiherr, Ritter and Edler were titles rather than names (ditto with the Italian Don/Donna, Coscritto and Patrizio). Let's not repeat errors when we know better. We aggravate that problem when Wiki propagates little-known foreign terms: Conde, Knyaz, Fürst, Pfalzgraf and Veliky knyaz all have long-established English translations. Let's use them. FactStraight (talk) 01:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, some of the titles in the row you descibed are translatable, but not all, like "Knyaz" or "Fürst". Okay, roughly translated they would mean Prince or Duke, but this would be a poorly English definition. In these cases there are no suitable English equivalents. Demophon (talk) 03:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Only based on revisionist purism that would be original research are they "untranslatable". Europeans who held the titles Knyaz and Fürst until their countries abolished them in 1917 were in no doubt that the English version of their titles was "Prince". Who called a knyaz "duke" after the 18th century? Or a veliky knyaz "grand prince" after the tri-lingual Catherine the Great conferred it on her grandsons, translating it as grand-duc? Again, medieval titles vary in usage, modern ones not so much. FactStraight (talk) 09:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
The clearest examples here may be Bismarck, Pless, Lieven, and Kropotkin. There is extensive usage of Prince Bismarck; Fürst is pedantry. The Princess of Pless, Princess Lieven, and Prince Kropotkin wrote much of themselves in English; does Demophon really mean to suggest that Daisy, Princess of Pless did not know her own name in her native language? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

My objection is not with Gryffindor, as he merely followed the naming conventions. My unease is with the conventions themselves, as they seem to rigidly prescribe article titles for all nobles. I fully agree with the NC for monarchs, and I accept the British naming style for British nobility. Since I am an American, maybe I see it from a different POV, but I don't see the need to include full titles for other nobles in all cases. I can understand using an individual's full title in the article title if he was known because he was a noble, but Rokitansky was known for his contributions to pathology and Zieten was known for his military exploits. Olessi (talk) 20:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that is an over-reading of the conventions. Where do we prescribe it?
But I also don't see that it does much harm to include Zieten's title, a reward for his military exploits, just like we include Clive's or Nelson's. I view it as part and parcel of disambiguating him from the other General Zieten by using his full name.
Oddly, we don't include Rumford's, although he's usually called by it; we do include Lord Leighton's, since he is almost always called by it - an anachronism, since he was ennobled on his deathbed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I think much of my frustration is derived from Talk:Hans Ernst Karl, Graf von Zieten. Charles and I argued that the article should be at "Hans Ernst Karl von Zieten" (no title) or "Hans Ernst Karl Graf von Zieten" (German usage); Philip argued for "Hans Ernst Karl, Graf von Zieten" (including the comma as in British/French usage); Lethiere ardently argued for using "Count" and even suggested anglicizing the name (using NCNT as his rationale). The discussion ultimately fizzled out. Olessi (talk) 22:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
That would explain why it is frustrating. I do not think Lethiere's reading is what our guideline says; all four possibilities are more or less defensible, but I think I would use "Count von Zieten" as one of them, not "Count of Zieten"; 'taint a placename. The other three are "Hans Ernst Karl von Zieten", Hans Ernst Karl Graf von Zieten", "Hans Ernst Karl, Graf von Zieten". I'm not sure which I prefer, although PBS has a point when he says that the comma, and English syntax, will be most intelligible. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Now I'm confused: I thought you were our in-house advocate for translating everything into English :-) If someone has and uses a hereditary title, so should we. Omitting it on the grounds that it is irrelevant to their notability strikes me as either nonsensical (one's last name is equally irrelevant to one's achievements) or as egalitarianism-by-stealth, and should be beyond Wiki's proper agenda. Maurice, 6th duc de Broglie was famous for scientific research and Count Folke Bernadotte of Wisborg for diplomacy, but their professions never required them to become commoners, and both were officially known by their titles. OTOH, Wiki's articles on Arnaud de Borchgrave, Diane von Fürstenberg and General John Shalikashvili don't and shouldn't include their titles, because they aren't generally known or used. If, however, a German hasn't dropped Graf from his name (e.g. Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck), nor a Frenchman Baron (e.g. Guy de Rothschild), it's a good bet that they are known by their titles, and we have no business changing that. FactStraight (talk) 13:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Nope, that's GoodDay ;-> I'm the advocate of doing what English does, so you and I may agree in principle. On this page that is complicated by the long-established decision that we should have a standard format for monarchs and noblemen, where it doesn't strain usage too badly. Do we want a standard form for French titles at all? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Dutch nobility & royalty

I also want to write a Naming and title conventions regarding Dutch nobility and royals. There isn't now. The naming coventions are somewhat in between the British and German conventions. The Dutch have a law of nobility (Wet op de adeldom, art 5) which regulate the use of titles in the names of noblemen. In the Netherlands titles are really part of the naming or identity of the person.

Jonkheer: Is a Dutch honorific of nobility. Has to be put in front of the first given name. Is used when somebody belongs to the Dutch nobility, but doesn't have a title. This is because such a person belongs to a noble family that doesn't have a title (low ranking new nobility or high ranking old Dutch nobility) or is a son or daughter of a hereditary knight, baron, viscount or count. The honorific is quite old and difficulty to compare with the English nobility. It means something like "Sir" but also sometimes as "Lord (of X)"
Titles of nobilty: In the Netherlands and the rest of the continent whe don't have such as a peerage, we only have nobility. Inheritability of nobility is only via Salic law, i.e. only a male can pass on the nobility and the titles. In the Netherlands we have families in which only the first born will inherit the title (right of primogeniture), but there are also noble families in which every member get the title (pass on all).
Naming conventions titles: In the Netherlands the title is put in between the given names and the surname and the title is in small letter without a comma, i.e. "John baron Smith". Althought this is different it could be translated into the English situation: John, Baron Smith. Thus with a comma and the title beginning with a capital letter. However we Dutch don't use 1st, 2nd, 3rd. etc in the titles of nobility. Also, and this is very important, we don't put the titles behind the surname like the British, i.e. "Margaret Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher". This is because in the Netherlands the title and the surname are the same.
Royal titles: in the Netherlands the royals do not really have a surname, only titles behind their given names. So officially Willem van Oranje-Nassau (William of Orange-Nassau) is wrong, and Willem van Nederland (William of the Netherlands) is even more wrong. Also their titles are put behind their given name without a comma but the royal title begins with a capital letter: Willem Prince of Orange-Nassau. This is different compared with the nobility. If they have also a noble title besides their royal title, this is written in small letters. So you see, there are some similarities with the British nobility and royals, but also differences. Some can be translated to the English situation, but not all. The question is how. Demophon (talk) 11:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Please also remember that what matters to us should be what they are called in English, not in Dutch. The baron convention should be mentioned in an article on the Peerage of the Netherlands, but we should not use it unless English sources do. (Our titles are an unreliable guide to English usage; Margaret, Baroness Thatcher is proper, and the surname should be omitted even if she had become Margaret, Baroness Finchley instead. We chose, long since, to disambiguate between the three different families which became Dukes of Norfolk in this way, at some minor cost in accuracy.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Palmerston

A propos, there is a discussion at Talk: Henry Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston whether he should be moved to Lord Palmerston, as primary usage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

This has gotten much opposition, largely procedural (i.e. that there's something wrong with discussing it there first, rather than here). I don't think the procedural part is quite fair to the anon who made a good faith suggestion; I also think the point is worth discussing in general. Lord Palmerston primarily means, and redirects to, the Prime Minister; Lord Byron primarily means, and again redirects to, the poet. We have an exception for peers like Anthony Eden or Bertrand Russell who are almost always known without their title; do we want an exception for titles which almost always refer to one holder? (Or always, like Lord Leighton.) Are redirects enough? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
This is a really difficult one, but it's good to draw attention to it. Deb (talk) 16:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

X, 1st Y even when he was the only one?

Could anyone have a look at Talk:Robert Vansittart, 1st Baron Vansittart#Baron Vansittart? 83.199.82.153 (talk) 17:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Cameron* 17:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Kings of the Romans

We currently have some curiously-titled articles about the Kings of the Romans, such as Albert I of Germany, Albert II of Germany, etc. Rather than including a controversial "King of Germany" inference, wouldn't these be better at Albert I, King of the Romans, Albert II, King of the Romans, etc.? These would be used in absence of a more common name (i.e. Philip of Swabia). Olessi (talk) 00:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Ow, that's a mess. What level do we want to communicate on?
One side of the argument is: Many readers will find Albert I, King of the Romans quite misleading, since he never ruled Rome and never got there. (I'm not sure I'm convinced either way.) Wasn't he Germaniae rex? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Every "King of the Romans" was first elected "Rex Teutonicorum" or "King of the Germans" by the elector princes. Though his first style was always "John Doe, King of the Romans", he was first and foremost the King of the Germans. Such legal fictions were hardly uncommon. The English/British monarchs only abandoned the "King of France" style as part of their litany of titles in the 17th century, and the Kings of Naples, right down to Joseph Bonaparte in 1806, still maintained the style "King of Jerusalem", a kingdom that had not existed for some 500+ years at that point. No one is going to search for or expect to find an article for Albert I, King of the Romans or even Albert I of Rome (even MORE of an unbelievable title). Albert I of Germany is his recognizable title. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica has used "Foo, King of the Romans" before ([6]). The suggestion that "King of the Romans" is misleading is true, but isn't "Holy Roman Emperor" as well? Regarding this king, compare Adolf of Germany to Adolf, King of the Romans. Olessi (talk) 00:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Adolf of Nassau may well be preferable; so would Henry the Fowler (which we don't use). The Holy Roman Emperors are another subject. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I have been coming around to the view of using more common nicknames for medieval figures, such as Adolf of Nassau and Henry the Fowler, rather than using more formal regnal names. It seems to me that Henry I should be at Henry the Fowler - compare Henry I of Germany to Henry the Fowler. My suggestion to use "King of the Romans" (when possible) is in the absence of common names (like "Adolf of Nassau"). Olessi (talk) 12:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Let's try the common names first, and then see who's left. (It won't be many.) I've made a move request to restore Henry the Fowler. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
My understanding of the position is this:
  1. You become Holy Roman Emperor only on coronation by the Pope. All after Charles V were tecnically only Emperors Elect.
  2. The Emperor or Emperor elect was always ex officio King of Germany, Italy & Arles/Burgundy.
  3. Emperor Elect became an official title only in the 15th century.
  4. He was also King of the Romans, unless/until his successor was elected, which not infrequently happened during his reign. In this case the title King of the Romans passed to the designated successor.
So I suggest the title KoR be used in article titles for those who didn't live to succeed tothe main title, just like Prince of Wales, Prince of the Asturias &c. That leaves only the question of whether those early Kings of Germany & the Romans who were never crowned Emperor, before the title EmperorElect was invented, should be called by 1 title or the other. Peter jackson (talk) 08:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Holy Roman Emperors

I see the Carolingians are (no longer) labelled Holy Roman Emperor. Good; but it's almost as much an anachronism for the Ottonians, whom we do so call. Wouldn't Emperor Otto I be preferable, and equally unambiguous? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Idiom

I added a note on Earl v. Count, and Marquess v. Marquis. It is plain that some editors need this, and pocket dictionaries will not explain it to foreign editors. If it needs any emendation, please feel free. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Present queens consort and their living predecessors

Don't you think we should make some difference between their present queens consort and their living predecessors? As present queens consort are styled HM The Queen of [Kingdom], and their living predecessors are styled HM Queen [Name] of [Kingdom], it's confusing to have the article about the Queen of the Belgians titled the way her sister-in-law, Queen Fabiola of Belgium, is styled. As Paola is the queen and Fabiola is a queen, her article should be at "Paola, Queen of the Belgians" (just like the article about Prince Charles is at "Charles, Prince of Wales", and the articles about his sons are at "Prince X of Wales"). (Thank you, DWC LR, for showing me where to suggest these moves) Surtsicna (talk) 22:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

We do provide such distinctions, but I'm not convinced we should. We treat reigning monarchs like formerly reigning monarchs: Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom exactly like her father and great-great-grandmother; anything else could be seen as presentism. Prince Charles has other grounds: he, and he alone, now holds the substantive title Prince of Wales; William of Wales is a courtesy title. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Just like Queen Paola is the only Queen of the Belgians; her sister-in-law is not the queen anymore. Monarchs and consorts are obviously treated differently, so they cannot be compared. I know it's not a big issue, but most articles go by Name, Title of Place if the title is substantive. Surtsicna (talk) 09:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Although I opposed at Queen Rania of Jordan and said I didn't think a change was necessary I have changed my mind. I think this change would help to distinguish between actual current Queens and there living predecessors. I believe for Queen Mother's we use the form "Name, Queen Mother of Place" (e.g. Ratna, Queen Mother of Nepal) so I don't see why we shouldn't use "Name, Queen of Place" for "the Queen" of a country as opposed to a Queen like Belgium. Indeed male consorts have their substantive title attached e.g. Henrik, Prince Consort of Denmark so I'm actually personally in a favour of this change. - dwc lr (talk) 13:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I am in favour of all queens consort (both current and past, whether living or deceased) having article titles in the format Name, Queen of Place. Noel S McFerran (talk) 18:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
So, shall we start renaming the articles? Surtsicna (talk) 11:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
No, I don't think we need to differentiate between present queens consort and dowagers. A married woman's title doesn't change just because her husband dies. Mrs. John Doe wouldn't be referred to differently after her husband died, the rule is the same for a queen consort. Is there really any confusion that reading the first sentence or two of the article wouldn't clear up? Wikipedia already incorrectly lists the wives of peers/nobles by referring to them as though they were divorced (FirstName, Peeress of [X]), simply because it's so unfamiliar to many of us to see a name+title combination that doesn't include the subject's first name. Do we really need to insult widowed queens too? Ariadne55 (talk) 13:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
You are aware that a woman's style and title does change after her husband's death (i.e. widowed queen is not the Queen anymore), aren't you? My suggestion would not insult widowed queens in any way, since they in reality are styled differently than the present queens consort. For example, the spouse of the current King of Jordan is HM The Queen of Jordan, while his father's widow is HM Queen Noor of Jordan. Duke of X's widow whose daughter-in-law is the new Duchess of X is styled HG The Dowager Duchess of X (thus, her title is changed to reflect her widowed status). Surtsicna (talk) 21:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
As I've understood it, a consort is never actually "The Queen", except informally. It would be The King and Queen Jane, though they might be referred to as The King and Queen or she might be referred to as the queen for simplicity's sake. After he dies, it would be The King and Queen Mary, with the former consort still Queen Jane, though extra phrases can be added on after her title and name, such as "Queen Jane, the Queen Dowager" or "Queen Jane, the Queen Mother". Rania's official site says, "the official website of Her Majesty Queen Rania Al-Abdullah of Jordan". The title is before the the first name, except for divorcees, where the former title can be used as a last name. First names should not appear in the title of a wife of a peer. A duke's widow's title doesn't change until she has a daughter-in-law. At that point, the widow would be The Dowager Duchess of X to differentiate her from The Duchess of X. Notice that there were no first names in that last sentence. Ariadne55 (talk) 22:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry, but you are wrong. The King's legitimate spouse is always "The Queen", never "Queen {Name}". The official site of the Belgian monarchy doesn't even say "The King" fo "King Albert II", so the official sites cannot always be taken as an evidence, since they are usually simplified. See the Spanish Royal Family's official website: King Juan Carlos is listed correctly as "His Majesty The King" and his spouse is also listed correctly as "Her Majesty The Queen". All I am saying is that all people with substantive titles are listed as {Name}, {Title} of {Place} (for example, Letizia, Princess of Asturias, and we should list queens in that format too. Surtsicna (talk) 10:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
If we can't use webpages, I don't know how we can settle our difference of opinion on that question. To the other issue, Letizia would be properly listed as The Princess of Asturias. I realize there's consensus on Wikipedia to list her with a first name, but it's incorrect. There's no reason to move Queen Fabiola to Fabiola, Queen of Belgium; her name and title are correctly written as is. Ariadne55 (talk) 13:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the Belgian Monarchies website In the CV's for Queen Paola and Queen Fabiola, Queen Paola is called "The Queen", Queen Fabiola is referred to as just that. - dwc lr (talk) 21:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not clear from the above discussion whether Queen Fabiola's title changed when her husband died. I don't see any argument for Fabiola, Queen of Belgium. However, in my opinion, it would not be wrong to rename her article now (as we did with Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon) along the lines of the general consort "maiden name rule" - but whether we do so would depend partly on how she is known to the Belgians (which I am not getting from any of the above comments). Deb (talk) 19:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Further to the above, I am very puzzled by the move of Queen Rania of Jordan and I don't believe there has been adequate discussion of this - I have therefore put in a request for it to be moved back and I hope there will be more comments this time. Deb (talk) 19:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
To be precise, Queen Fabiola' title did not change, but her style, precedence, and position did. I've never stated that Queen Fabiola's article title should be changed (it is indeed correctly written) - I said that Queen Paola's article should be moved to "Paola, Queen of the Belgians" because she is now the one who holds the substantive title Queen consort of the Belgians. I am sorry for moving Queen Rania's page, I've put the request before proposing the change here. To Ariadne: all Wikipedia articles use "The Queen" when refering to a period during which a woman was married to the King (see numerous templates and articles on previous consorts).
Just to make it clear: I believe that the current queens consort should be at {Name}, Queen of {Place} while the articles about widows of kings should be titled Queen {Name} of {Place}. DWC noticed that male consorts have their substantive title attached e.g. Henrik, Prince Consort of Denmark. Most articles go by Name, Title of Place if the title is substantive. Surtsicna (talk) 20:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I disagree that we should distinguish. I also disagree that, if we do, this should be how we do. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

There are several questions here:

  • Should we distinguish between present queens consort, queens dowager, and deceased queens?
    • This convention presently does, but I am not convinced that we have reason to. In any case, our present distinction would be to use Queen Rania of Jordan for the present queen consort.
  • If we do, should we do so consulting official sources, or should we do following what English sources in general call the various queens?
    • The general Wikipedia policy is WP:COMMONNAME. We bend that for reigning monarchs, but not in the direction of official nomenclature, and our reasons for doing so are that Henry I is both common (for all who hold it) and ambiguous. This is not likely to happen with the Queens of Jordan or Belgium.
  • What should we do for deceased queens consort?
    • We are divided on that. The rule that they should all be known (as many English and French ones are) by their names of origin never quite got consensus. We usually do not use Queen, even for ones so recent as Mary of Teck.
  • What should we do for reigning queens?
  • What should we do for queens dowager?

I hope this helps. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Living queens and deceased queens are already distinguished between: living queens have their titles in the article title, while the deceased ones don't since their most common name does not include their title (best example being Katherine of Aragon). It is the present queens and dowager queens that need to be distinguished between. I am proposing that the present queens go under {Name}, Queen of {Place}. Dowager queens would remain under Queen {Name} of {Place}.
  • I completely agree with the present conventions for the deceased queens. I ve never seen Mary of Teck listed as Queen Mary of the United Kingdom (except for the Wikimedia Commons, hmmm). Surtsicna (talk) 21:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I would have to take issue with the statement that we use Queen Noor of Jordan because that is "the name under which she is most famous, and people are most likely to look her up". Although this logic may work for Queen Noor, it will not work for everyone. It would certainly not have worked for the last queen consort of the UK, the late queen mother, even though she had been known as "Queen Elizabeth of the United Kingdom" while she was queen. The best justification for having her at Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon is, I think, the need for disambiguation. Perhaps, if the forenames of Belgian queens tend towards uniqueness, there is no need to differentiate between Queen Paola and Queen Fabiola. Perhaps this is why it works for Queen Noor, but not for others. Deb (talk) 11:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

As I've said I'm in favour of this proposal especially as we always seem to differentiate for people with substantive titles and I believe this would be a positive change. For example we use "Name, Title of Place" for "the Prince" (e.g. Hans-Adam II, Prince of Liechtenstein, Ernst August V, Prince of Hanover) and the "the princess" (e.g. Marie, Princess of Liechtenstein, Caroline, Princess of Hanover) for their consort, while the others are just listed under "Prince(ss) Name of Place" (e.g. Prince Maximilian of Liechtenstein, Prince Christian of Hanover, Princess Angela of Liechtenstein, Princess Olga of Hanover). Hans Adam II is "HSH The Prince of Liechtenstein" his wife Marie "HSH The Princess of Liechtenstein" and his brother "HSH Prince Maximilian of Liechtenstein" and so on. Just as in Belgium, one is "HM The Queen" (Paola) and her sister in law is "HM Queen Fabiola". If its necessary to differentiate for "the" count, prince, duke etc. why not grant the same treatment for "the" Queen and Empresses of countries, all other consorts are at "Name, Title of Place". - dwc lr (talk) 15:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

This raises the metaphysical point: is Queen Consort a substantive title? If it is, then Queen Noor held it as much as Queen Raina now holds it. The non-substantive Princes of Liechtenstein are a red herring. (So is the comparison betweem Her Present Majesty, a reigning sovereign, and her mother, the late Queen Consort; it's not the same title, and there is no reason to treat it the same way.)
We are an encyclopedia, not a almanac; we should not distinguish between the living and the dead, and mostly we do not: we list Queen Victoria under the same style and title as Her Majesty now reigning. We should treat former, but living, holders as we treat the dead.
If Queen Elizabeth were to abdicate, would you move her article, only to move it back at her death? If so, we have nothing to say to each other; if not, we should do the same with the queens of Jordan. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Queen Noor, Queen Fabiola are no longer "the Queen" of their respective countries as they are not married to the sovereign. That position is now held by other people, hence I favour the form "Name, Title of Place" for these people ("the Queens") which is the same form used for "the's" of everything else from "The Prince Consort of Denmark" to "The Princess of Liechtenstein". Why use this form for these people but not present Queen Consorts. Marie, Princess of Liechtenstein is "The Princess of Liechtenstein", Queen Rania of Jordan is "The Queen of Jordan" why use the form "Name, Title of Place" for some but deny it to others? - dwc lr (talk) 21:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • This is presentism. Queen Noor and Queen Fabiola were as much Queens Consort as the present incumbents. Sub specie Vikipediae, they should bear the same title.
  • Name, Title of Place is not used for reigning monarchs, past or present.
  • I see no way past this impasse without wider opinions. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes they were at one point the Queen Consort's but not any longer and are now styled HM Queen Fabiola etc, while the present Queen Consorts are styled as HM The Queen. I just believe this proposal will reflect their present status but as you say hopefully there will be wider input. Regarding reigning monarchs "Name, Title of Place" is used for all with the exception of Kings and Emperors (excluding German/Holy Roman). All there consorts are at "Name, Title of Place" with the expectation of Queen consorts. - dwc lr (talk) 08:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Having now looked at the Belgian royal pages, the only solution I see is to re-name the whole lot as "King/Queen, etc, of the Belgians". Since Fabiola has apparently been given the title "Queen of Belgium" in order to differentiate her from the present royals, it seems illogical to continue to list them as "King/Queen, etc, of Belgium". I will now withdraw and wait for the stones and mud to hit me from a distance. Deb (talk) 11:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
But if an obscure official name of a state exists alongside a clearly understood one, it is fine to use the more widely known version. For example, Kings of Greece rather than the technically correct Kings of the Hellenes. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I would normally agree, but is it really so difficult to tell that "King of the Belgians" really means "King of Belgium"? Deb (talk) 20:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Is that the reason for the guidance? It's not hard to understand that the Hellenes live in Greece, either; it's just odd. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Frederick Barbarossa

Those who click on this may be surprised to find, as I was, that it is a redirect to Frederick I, Holy Roman Emperor. While probably technically defensible under our present rules, this defeats the purpose of predictable nomenclature: to have the article itself where readers and editors would naturally expect it to be.

I therefore propose we change the rules: instead of requiring that an epithet be unusual to omit, to one step closer to WP:COMMONNAME. We still do not want to use disputed nicknames, or ones of antiquarian interest, like John Softsword; but we should really be using prevalent nicknames.

How about: The epithet must itself be unambiguous; it must be distinctly more commonly used in English than all other epithets, including alternate spellings, and the plain name with Roman numeral put together. This would, I think, finally move William I of England - and we can stop talking about it whenever we get someone new; it might produce William Rufus; but it wouldn't do that much else; Richard I of England might be borderline: is Lionheart, Lionhearted, or Coeur de Lion, the prevalent spelling? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can't support this. I believe we would still have the same issues under your suggested wording. Deb (talk) 12:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Why? If you want looser wording, I may be able to support that; this wording is intended to be a small step, for the sake of continuity.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
It's not that at all. I just don't agree with the idea of changing the present standards to allow nicknames to be used. I understand the reasoning; I just don't agree and I think it is very rarely, if ever, possible to achieve consensus as to whether a particular nickname is a more common usage. Therefore I don't think changing the wording will help. Deb (talk) 20:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree it's rarely possible; but don't you think it's possible to determine it on William the Conqueror? A few cases settled is all I hope for. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

United Kingdom

Has anyone pointed out in archived discussion that the only monarch ever officially titled K/Q of UK is the present Q? From 1801 to 1949, the official title was K/Q of GB & I. 1949-52 of GB & NI. Peter jackson (talk) 09:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Style of the British sovereign disagrees with you. Proteus (Talk) 22:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
But agrees on the point at issue, since it says UK of GB & NI was adopted 1953 (at the coronation?). I think, however, this detail belongs with James VI and I (and I of Ireland); we don't want article names that long. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I see on looking it up in Debrett that my understanding was wrong. UK was part of the official title 1801-1927 & 1953 on. That still means this page is wrong in terms of official titles.
UK was restored legally under the Royal Titles Act 1953, tho' in fact I think it was used from the accession proclamation on. Peter jackson (talk) 10:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
As regards James VI & I, he started in 1604 to call himself King of Great Britain, while his kingdoms continued to call him King of England/Scotland. This remained usual practice to 1707.
I must add that I don't see why we have to depart from standard WP policy of using commonest forms of names. Some examples with my thoughts:
  1. Victoria of the United Kingdom looks ridiculous. Everyone calls her Queen Victoria, & the article should be under that title until the King of Sweden dies & his daughter becomes another QV, when it should be disambiguated as QV of the UK.
  2. The above point applies generally to unnumbered monarchs. If the above form is unacceptable, we should have something like Victoria (Queen), or Victoria, Queen.
  3. For numbered monarchs it's not so bad. I think Louis XIV is OK without qualification, as there's no ambiguity.
  4. For disambiguation of numbered monarchs we could have as now Henry I of England.
  5. In some cases double numbering seems sensible, eg James VI & I. In that order, as it's understood unofficially that a future King James would be called James VIII, not James III. James I would need disambiguating. Perhaps James VI wouldn't (I've a feeling the Aragonese went only up to James V, but I may be wrong there). However, double numbering is probably commoner than Scottish.
  6. I'm not sure whether a consistent policy could be developed for this, but does that matter? Just follow common usage. It may be common usage in German to double-number the Hanoverian monarchs with their Hanoverian & British numbers, but it's not done in English.

These are just 1/2-baked thought of course. Peter jackson (talk) 10:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

This page isn't meant to be 100% correct in terms of official titles. The point is that we name articles to a standard and we stick to that standard as far as possible. In response to your question about whether a consistent policy is important, I think most contributors to, as well as most users of, an encyclopaedia would agree that it is important.
The title of the Queen Victoria article is in keeping with the standard. It seems odd that you are advocating re-naming the article purely on a temporary basis. The fact that you recognise it would need to be changed back later is surely an argument in favour of maintaining the present naming conventions. Deb (talk) 11:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
It's perfectly normal for articles to have to be disambiguated when someone/thing else with the same name appears. Also, all articles on unnumbered monarchs are in principle subject to change of title even under the current system. I don't recognize it would have to be changed back, because I think it looks silly to have an article title "1st name of country". Both temporary & permanent forms would be different from what we have now. Peter jackson (talk) 15:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Queen Victoria should be under "V of GB" or "V of GB and I". "V of the UK" is nonsensical because her Kingdom is/was not called "the United Kingdom", it was called "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland". The current title is like calling every other King "King of the Kingdom".
Of course, this applies to all kings currently filed as "of the UK", including the current Queen.
(And moving an article only to move it back once there is a second QV - one that will never displace the British one from being the "Queen Victoria") seems strange to me.) Str1977 (talk) 20:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation

There is a question on Talk:Francis, Dauphin of France#Request for comment, which could use input from subject experts. One of the Dauphins of that name became Francis II of France, another became Francis III, Duke of Brittany. Is it useful for the dab page to link to them under artificial names we made up, like Francis, Dauphin of France (1544-1560), or should they be linked to under their common names? (These get the same place; but at a cost of confusion, and a risk of silly disambiguation). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

There were at one time also Dauphins of Auvergne (List of rulers of Auvergne), due to a mostly successful usurpation by a Wicked Uncle. Choess (talk) 04:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Names of people with an abolished title

In the article speaks of the following point:

7. Former or deposed monarchs should be referred to by their previous monarchical title with the exception of those who are still alive and are most commonly referred to by a non-monarchical title; all former or deposed monarchs should revert to their previous monarchical title upon death; for example, Constantine II of Greece not ex-King Constantine II or Constantine Glücksburg, Edward VIII of the United Kingdom not the Prince Edward, Duke of Windsor, but Simeon Saxe-Coburg-Gotha not Simeon II of Bulgaria.

But it only makes reference to people who have had a title during a period of time and it has been retired him. But, what happens with which never they have been princes?. Because in this wikipedia is in the only one in which the legality of each country is not respected and they are continued calling Princes, Dukes, Archdukes, etc. in the name of the article to people from countries whose laws are opposite to the nobility titles. For example, in Austria and Germany the monarchy and the nobility were agolished in 1919, in Italy in 1947 and Greece in 1974. Therefore nobody born after those years can take a nobility title: he is illegal and in addition they do not exist. To put names as Ernst August V, Prince of Hanover, Prince Odysseas-Kimon of Greece and Denmark or Archduke Georg of Austria is do not respect the international legality and go against the democratic decisions of the peoples that freely decided to expel to their kings and princes. --Hinzel 15:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Different people will have different views about whether this or that individual is really a prince or not. There is no reason why the current view of a particular government should be the deciding factor as if other views did not matter. What is really the point is: how is this individual generally known? E.g. there is an article about Otto von Habsburg and others about his son Karl Habsburg-Lothringen and his daughter Gabriela von Habsburg (all of whom are frequently referred to without any title) - but the articles about Otto's other children use their titles, e.g. Archduke Georg of Austria - because this is how they are generally known in English (although probably Walburga should be moved). The point of this naming convention is not to create new names for people, but only to follow a pattern when there is one. While some people may not like it, the fact is that Ernst August, Odysseas-Kimon, and Georg are all generally known in English by their titles. Noel S McFerran (talk) 00:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Entirely agree. Moreover, Wikipedia uses as its article names for people the name which is most widely used for that person in English writing. From the Queen of Britain in legal documents on down, in English writing Ernst August is predominantely referred to by his princely titles (although he should not be accorded a Roman numeral as if he were a reigning monarch), ditto the children of Constantine II -- unless Hinzel can show references to Odysseas-Kimon in English-language publications under some more commonly used name. Abolition of a monarchy has not, historically, usually deprived the ex-monarch or his family members of princely titles in English usage. Finally, Wikipedia's Naming conventions are to be discussed here, and consensus reached (or absence of any objection after reasonable notice), before they are altered. FactStraight (talk) 01:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
The pretenders to the Kingdom of France after 1848 were and are known as Henri, comte de Chambord and Philippe, comte de Paris; not a prince to be seen. We may wish to move to Count in both cases, but not Prince. Similarly Charles Edward Stuart, Count of Albany Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Obviously, late to the party, but the French pretty much never used the title of Prince at all during the existence of the monarchy, so this is unsurprising. That being said, those two pretenders were known by the style of "Royal Highness" - which is basically the same thing as being called a prince. And the Comte de Paris's daughters were known as "Princess Helene of Orleans" and so forth (sons were generally given courtesy titles). As to other cases, we ought to call people by how they are generally called, which is, for the most part, how they call themselves. What exactly are we supposed to call Princes Odysseas-Kimon, for instance? "Odysseas-Kimon Glücksburg"? That's ridiculous. I would add that, whatever the status of their Greek titles, the former Greek royal family certainly remain princes and princesses of Denmark, never having been deprived of such titles. BTW - why on earth do we have an article about a four year old simply because his grandfather used to be a head of state? The significant information in Prince Odysseas-Kimon's article could easily be covered in the article on his father, surely? john k (talk) 02:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to reduce naming conflicts

See Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions#Proposal to reduce naming conflicts - avoid preemptive disambiguation which would have a direct impact on this guideline. --PBS (talk) 00:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Is there a ruling on how blue links should be shown for such people? I cannot find one. Some editors put the title outside the link, like this: "Sir Philip Sidney" or "Dame Cicely Saunders". Others put the title within the link: "Sir Philip Sidney" or "Dame Cicely Saunders ". The second is fractionally more effort for the editor but seems to me to be easier on the reader's eye. Grateful for advice. Tim riley (talk) 09:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The direct bluelink is simpler, but it depends on the knight; how frequently is the rank used? I would not use Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, even for an unambiguously post-war reference. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
This questeion was already placed at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Linking_names_that_have_titles. The conclusion is overwhelmingly that the title should definitely be part of the link, piped if necessary. Which makes sense of course. Demophon (talk) 12:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Overwhelmingly? Three people expressed an opinion. I've added mine now. Deb (talk) 14:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to all for the foregoing. There seems to be a balance of preference for including the "Sir" (etc) in the blue link, but no firm ruling. Ought this to be addressed, and if so, how? Tim riley (talk) 12:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Jane of England vs. Lady Jane Grey

Currently there is a discussion on the Lady Jane Grey talk page about whether the article should be called Lady Jane Grey or Jane of England as is her right as a monarch. The trouble is that apparently most people refer to her as Lady Jane Grey (although personnaly I find this to be a rarety and Jane of England is more commanly used). I was wondering if some impartial membres could advise. The Quill (talk) 15:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

See also Talk:Matilda of England. User The Quill first proposed renaming the article and we agreed, but now he wants to edit the article to reflect his POV - he wants us to treat Matilda as a rightful monarch of England even though her status is highly disputed by scholars. I hope he doesn't intend to push his POV on Lady Jane Grey article too. Surtsicna (talk) 18:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Actually Surtsicna as I keep on telling you, I am trying to get the article to hold a neutral perspective as currently it is biased against her ever having held any type of claim. I am actually tryiing to get her article to say that she was recognised by some at the time to have been the legit ruler, which while to the casual observer seems the same thing is actually completely different.
It is exteremly unlikely I am going to get Jane recognised as a monarch becuase the article is actually neutral and shows that she was consider by many at the time as a monarch. Anyway that shouldn't effect wether the name of the article should be changed or not. The Quill (talk) 18:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I see no evidence that the move of the Matilda article was discussed or "agreed". Everyone must have been able to see that this was a controversial move, and yet no one seems to have considered going through the proper channels for requesting a move. I don't necessarily oppose the move of the article, but it should be done with consensus. Deb (talk) 19:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


Look in the Matilda of England section. The Quill (talk) 19:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
All I can see are comments made after the move. Deb (talk) 12:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Sir Philip Stott, 1st Baronet

I've been told that the "Sir" is part of the manual of style for this article's title, but I can't see any other example where "Sir" is used for an unambiguous baronet. Can anyone advise? --Jza84 |  Talk  16:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Hm, good point. According to the Wikipedia guidlines "Sir" of a baronet should be part of the article's title about the baronet, however this is not allways done so. For example, Sir Arthur Pearson, 1st Baronet and Sir John Rodgers, 1st Baronet are with, however Denis Thatcher (1st baronet Thatcher of Scotney)) and even his son Mark Thatcher (2nd baronet) are without. I think that the reason of deviating from the guidline is because sometimes the persons are primarly during their whole life known with only their popular name without the "Sir" prefix. Demophon (talk) 16:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
We have Winston Churchill (no Sir), and William Wallace (no Sir), who are amongst the two most famous Knights I can think of. If we use "Sir" in their title, then I believe it makes it hard to find articles when searching for individuals (from personal experience). Eitherway, the MOS here needs to be clearer. I'm surprised this hasn't been raised/tackled before now (this isn't my usual area of editting). --Jza84 |  Talk  16:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
You're wrong, WP:MOSBIO is quite clear about that; "Sir" of a knightship should not be included in the titlepage, but the "Sir" of a baronet should be (with "x-nd baronet" after the name). I do not know for sure why, but I remember a discussion that this is because the baronet is a hereditary one. Demophon (talk) 17:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I understand now. Could that be made clearer perhaps? - with some bulletted examples? The block text is awefully lengthy and unclear. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Dear Jza84, it seems my previous remark was not entirely correct. After searching I found the following text in Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(names_and_titles)#British_peerage, line 4: Baronets, as they hold hereditary titles, often for a large part of their lives, follow the same practice as hereditary peers and should have their title noted in the beginning of the article. The format is Sir John Smith, 17th Baronet. For the article title, this format should only be used when disambiguation is necessary; otherwise, the article should be located at John Smith. John Smith, 17th Baronet should never be used with the postfix and without the prefix. It is clear for me know, hopefully for you either. Demophon (talk) 01:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
The consensus hashed out during "The Troubles" spillover was, IIRC, that it's acceptable to place unambiguous baronets at the name alone, e.g., "Philip Stott". (You should be sure to create the redirect from "Sir ..., nth Baronet" if you do so, though.) Maybe the guideline should be clearer, but the intent is to avoid a hybrid form like "Philip Stott, 1st Baronet"; "Sir" and "nth Baronet" should appear both or not at all. Choess (talk) 17:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Nowhere does it say that baronets should have their titles included in the article title. It says they should have them included in the first line of the article. I do not believe we should use them in the title unless needed as a disambuguator. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Use of prefix "Sir" as a disambiguation aid

Our language plainly needs to be clarified, but MOSBIO has long said:

Wikipedia guidelines permit inline use of titles but forbid inline use of honorifics. Honorific titles (e.g. "Sir"/"Dame" prenominals used by some knights), not to be confused with honorary titles, simultaneously possess properties of both honorifics and titles. Because of this, their use inline has been controversial. This guideline permits inline use of honorific titles that in general have significant sourced usage or recognition (e.g. in general media) outside of the country or system in which they were given. To be clear, this paragraph is the guideline for permitting a particular class of honorific titles and not a particular instance for a given person. For further guidance, refer to the guideline for criteria for use inline of regular titles. Consensus has determined that the honorific titles 'Sir'/'Dame' and 'Lord'/'Lady' from the British honours system have met the above criteria. Consensus has not yet rejected any honorific titles; if/when they do so, they will be listed here. Open a discussion on the MoS Bio talk page if there is an honorific title that needs consensus.

That seems clear enough; it's controversial, but such titles may be used if they are widely known. (The rest is a warning not to revert war over styles.) We should permit Sir in article titles when disambiguation is needed and when the knighthood does disambiguate (this last is tricky; Sir Walter Raleigh doesn't). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Half-way measures only sow uncertainty and confusion. It should be all one thing or all the other. I am therefore submitting for deletion the brief sentence which is at the root of the problem, "'Sir' may be used in article titles as a disambiguator". It appears in the middle of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)#British peerage #5. Titles of Knighthood, and has been there since its insertion on July 15, 2004. Other than a minor correction ("maybe"→"may be") on January 13, 2005, it has remained unchanged (and apparently ignored) for the past four-and-a-half years. However, an unchallenged insertion constitutes a consensus by default, and can be trotted out to support the retention of some entries with stand-alone knighthoods in the main title header.
While the main directive clearly states, "Titles of Knighthood such as 'Sir' and 'Dame' should not be included in the article title: use personal name instead, e.g., Arthur Conan Doyle not 'Sir Arthur Conan Doyle'", the use of "Sir" as a disambiguator negates it by providing a glaring loophole for, apparently, knighted individuals bearing common names such as Robert Anderson, Charles Johnson and William Stewart. If, for example, one Robert Anderson out of the twenty-four who have Wikipedia biographical entries has a knighthood, then he can be simply "Sir Robert Anderson", but if two have knighthoods, they need a middle name, initial or a parenthetical qualifier for additional disambiguation, thus eliminating the original justification for the use of "Sir". Scotland Yard's famed inspector in the Jack the Ripper investigation, Sir Robert Anderson became Robert Anderson (Scotland Yard) and has since been reduced by other editors to Robert Anderson (police officer). We may disagree with the lack of gravitas in the parenthetical qualifier, but if we insist that he remain as "Sir Robert Anderson" because that is how he was best known, then we open a potential Pandora's box of endless similar disambiguatory exceptions such as "Professor", "Doctor", "Father", "Cardinal", "Generalissimo" and others such as "Master" and "Sheik", which continue to appear and continue to be moved to the subject's name alone, with the titled name remaining as a redirect. The commanding officer of Fort Sumter at the opening salvo of the Civil War has always been referenced as Major Robert Anderson, which is how his entry was originally titled. He was subsequently moved to Robert Anderson (Fort Sumter commander) and is now simply Robert Anderson (major).
Reducing "Sir" to a mere disambiguation tool trivializes knighthoods and robs the directive "Titles of Knighthood should not be included in the article title" of any real substance. Rules should be based upon firm principles and not serve as simple sorting devices. The very pointlessness of such a disambiguation is illustrated by the fact that, in addition to the universally-known (Sir) Walter Raleigh, there was another (Sir) Walter Raleigh (professor), neither of which has "Sir" in his main title header, apparently because in addition to the name confusion, the two knighthoods would cancel each other as disambiguatory devices. There are other possible mix-and-match combinations in these scenarios, but sufficient for the day is the evidence thereof. Let us make a clean break and jettison the sentence outright.—Roman Spinner (talk) 08:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I dissent from this proposed change. "Sir" and "Dame" make perfectly reasonable & easy disambiguators, and I see no reason why they alone should be banned from Wiki usage. The past insistance upon doing so wreaks to me of reverse snobbery that should be checked, not indulged. FactStraight (talk) 09:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I would support the proposal. To use "Sir" properly as a disambiguator would entail knowing for certain that none of the other article subjects with the same name were knights - this is an area where slip-ups are common. Deb (talk) 19:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. The person is not known for being a Sir (or other title), he or she is known for other accomplishments which led to being a Sir (for the pesonal ones, if you just inherited it it may be different). If we have two David (or Richard) Attenboroughs, one is David Attenborough (naturalist), and the other is David Attenborough (footballer) or whatever would be possible. We have a perfectly fine disambiguation scheme, and I see no reason to change this for Sirs, Professors, Doctors, Engineers, or whichever group would be next. Fram (talk) 07:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I oppose the use of the honorific Sir in article titles whether as a disambiguation tool or for other reasons (e.g. common name). I think that it's a slippery slope. Noel S McFerran (talk) 11:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I oppose, for the reasons covered by Deb and Noel. Also: in the case of somebody who received the title later in life, many contemporary sources will not use the title. For instance: although it bemuses the heck out of those who know him, a certain anti-monarchist humourist is now Sir Terry Pratchett! Dame Agatha Christie also comes to mind. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Agatha Christie doesn't need disambiguation; she's primary usage.
As for Noel's objection: slippery slope to where, exactly? We now use almost all peerages, most baronetcies, we routinely use Prince for Royal Highnesses. It is possible that we may want to rethink this entirely, but it the meantime, where is the harm from distinguishing Sir Edward Wortley Montagu from his son (the only other man of that name), by including the knighthood that one held and the other did not? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
No single entry or specific individual is targeted by the proposal to retire "Sir" from use as a disambiguatory device. Rather, it is the broad principle that is at the heart of the matter. If a visitor to Wikipedia sees an article entitled Sir George Hayes, there is no explanation within the article that "Sir" is there to distinguish the distinguished jurist from George "Gabby" Hayes and George Hayes (ice hockey). Rather, one is left with the impression that Sir George must be a truly grand figure to deserve such a fine honorific in his main title header. That is where the slippery slope comes in. If the "no Sir" rule is bent for Sir Edward Wortley Montagu, why not for all the others. Then, we could even slide down the grand slippery slope—Henry Kissinger was commonly known as "Doctor Henry Kissinger", Franco, Chiang Kai-shek and Stalin were commonly addressed as "Generalissimo" and so on. Finally, editors continue to create new entries with "Sir" as the prefix in the main title header, without intending for "Sir" to act as a disambiguator. The retention, under any circumstances, of the stand-alone use of "Sir" in headers would only confuse and encourage the continuation of such a practice.—Roman Spinner (talk) 04:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
This is folly.
  • It shows continued obliviousness of our practice; we use the full title and numeral of Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston, as a conventional means to guarantee that he is disambiguated from every other Henry Temple, including his own ancestors.
  • It ignores the actual rule being discussed, which is what to do when disambhiguation is necessary; Henry Kissinger has less need to be disambiguated than Agatha Christie.
  • To quote one of the !votes on the Montagu question, now a consensus to move back, Roman Spinner seems to be an American, who probably has little understanding of the place of honorific titles in Britain. Not all Americans are so handicapped, but we should discount his whims for this as well as his ignorance of Wikipedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not believe "Sir" or "Dame" should be used as a disambiguator except for baronets, where the combination of the pretitle and numeral (e.g. 3rd Baronet) can make a very effective disambiguator. For anyone else "Sir" is not a good disambiguator and should not be used. What's the problem with sticking to the parenthetical disambiguator? -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Parenthetical disambiguators have two problems:
  • They're clumsy, and WP:DAB recommends that other means of disambiguation be used first
  • They're OR. For example, Sir Edward is now dabbed through being one of the Lords of the Treasury, which is a fairly arbitrary choice; he is more well-known as an Ambassador, which is both a more distinctive and (in 1718) a more influential office. The reader should not have to guess at a dab where a natural one exists. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Let's face it, you're in a minority of one (possibly two). It's quite unfair to suggest that User:Roman Spinner is "ignorant" just because he disagrees with you. Next you'll be saying I'm ignorant of titles because I'm not English :-) Deb (talk) 23:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Look, a disambiguator has one purpose and one purpose only - to distinguish between two or more people with the same name. It doesn't matter if it's arbitrary as long as it's accurate and serves its purpose. And they are in no way OR - there's nothing more irritating than editors who twist the quite clearly stated meaning of OR to suit their own ends. -- Necrothesp (talk) 01:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Adherence to Wikipedia's Manual of Style is an issue which transcends any single editor's nationality, place of residence or knowledge/ignorance of a culture's standards in bestowing honorary titles. This is not a personal mission, but rather an effort at standardizing a set of rules and regulations. The anomalous selective use of stand-alone "Sir" as a disambiguatory device in main title headers flies in the face of the key directive which specifically negates any such stand-alone use of "Sir" (without prohibiting, as has been noted, extended titles with suffixes). At its very narrowest, the bending of the directive to state, except in case where "Sir" is needed as a disambiguator, would apply to a small number of "Sirs", perhaps ten or fifteen relatively-little-known individuals bearing common names or, as in the previously-mentioned case of Sir Edward Wortley Montagu, same-named family members. Such an incongruous exception to the rule would be of no satisfactory use—the familiar names, Sir Walter Raleigh, Sir Philip Sidney, Dame Agatha Christie would still remain without the honorific—and would confuse new editors unaware of this loophole and encourage them to continue creating new entries which begin with the stand-alone "Sir".
As to the question of other disambiguators, an individual who is known for his/her use of a middle name/initial, maiden name, nickname, stage name or pen name, already stands out on the disambiguation page from other same-named persons. Those which require a parenthetical qualifier, can rarely find something as prosaic as "(judge)" or "(politician)" satisfactory to all editors, and more-specific qualifiers such as "(Lord Commissioner of the Treasury)" or "(Scotland Yard official)" provoke objections that other aspects of the subject's life and career are being neglected. Ultimately, however, that is why we have disambiguation pages where nationality, years of birth and, if applicable, death, along with a brief elucidation of the name's notability provide the proper distinction among the many (or the few, as the case may be) same-named individuals. The single, privileged honorific, "Sir", used as a disambiguator confuses as to the reason for its use and encourages demands for the use of other honorifics as disambiguation devices or whatever other purpose.—Roman Spinner (talk) 03:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I see Roman Spinner has protested that [t]his is not a personal mission, the usual sign that it is. It is accompanied by the usual spray of misstatements or misunderstandings which accompany a personal crusade: of course this applies to a small number of knights - pretty much those where a name used by multiple notable people, exactly one of them has a knighthoood, and he is commonly called by it. (There may be an even smaller number of marginal cases.)


Years of birth are disastrous disambiguators, which WP:NAMEPEOPLE rightly disparages: Years of birth and death should not be used in a page title to distinguish between people of the same name (readers are more likely to be seeking this information than to already know it).. WP:RM routinely removes them (except in cases like infant princes, of whom nothing is known but the birthdate, which are usually merged).
Most of our "standardixation" is done this way, by editors who do not contribute data to the encyclopedia, and know neither our existing guidance nor our practice. The present Manual of Style is an indiscriminate collection of semi-literacy; valuing "adherence to it" reveals ignorance of what a guideline is, what English is, and how Wikipedia should be conducted: by consensus, not by bullying. Please stop. (Nor am I alone; it's not my wording, so others must agree. And even in this discussion, Deb's comment is on the other side of the discussion from Spinner's rant.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
If I'm understanding your comments correctly, it is true that there is a trend towards imposing standards simply in order that some contributors can build up their edit count by making minor "corrections" to perfectly good articles. But surely it is good guidance to discourage users from using something that does not work well as a disambiguator? Deb (talk) 12:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
It is also regrettable that in the aftermath of finding little or no support for the retention of "Sir" as a disambiguatory tool, Septentrionalis, a veteran editor who has initiated and participated in scores of these discussions, should feel put upon or bullied by the "no Sir" arguments. I have had no previous contact with this editor who, within the past week, left three messages on my talk page, including one in the midst of this debate, advising me that "it would have been nice if [I] had bothered to look up what Wikipedia actually did in related cases before opining".
Believing in the time-tested adage that good arguments can only be overcome by better arguments, not by personal reflections, I have tried to adhere to the narrow subject at hand, without questioning the purpose of anyone holding the opposite view. It is germane, however, to observe that while more than once taking me to task for my "ignorance" of Wikipedia's rules and, in the previous posting, also its fundamental spirit and character, Septentrionalis just denigrated those very rules in describing the Manual of Style as "an indiscriminate collection of semi-literacy". The sentence at the center of this discussion, "Sir" may be used in article titles as a disambiguator is, however, obviously one which Septentrionalis feels is well-designed and towards which non-observers should be pointed. This brief addition, inserted on July 15, 2004, an era when fewer editors engaged in fewer debates and challenges, was overlooked and never questioned, or even discussed until now, seemingly existing in a limbo of indifference rather than consensus (on March 11, 2003, more than a year before its addition, an edit summary presciently stated, "naming conventions are agreed after being circulated on wiki list, on talk pages, etc. Not unilaterally written when it suits"...).
Finally, any suggestion that this relatively minor action is part of a dark agenda or crusade against honorifics is, to use the previous expression, folly. The "no Sir" directive appeared on March 16, 2003 and, although questioned in a number of discussions, has never been seriously challenged. The present discussion is very narrowly construed and may be considered an appendix to that larger issue. Related matters such as my moves at Lord Evelyn Stuart and Lord Patrick Crichton-Stuart will have to be part of a separate discussion since, as we all know, consensus, not utilateralism, is the byword. The stand-alone Lordship, used without a suffix, is justified with the argument that the notable individual bearing the honorific would be unrecognizable without it. That must mean that to avoid POV decisions as to notability, all such honorifics would need to be in place within the main title headers, recognizable or not. I would also be supportive of Necrothesp's suggestion, in the above-discussion regarding Sir Philip Stott, 1st Baronet, of a more-appropriate reduced use for a title as a disambiguator, in distinguishing between and among baronets. Again, all these are matters to be discussed separately, taking into consideration the fact that my original concern stems not from any prejudice against honorifics, but from the monumental name sorting task in which hundreds of thousands of individuals, lacking "DEFAULTSORT" or "listas", appear in categories under the first letter of their entry, including scores of Sirs under "S" and Lords under "L", without even wading into innumerable malsorted names which sport accents, inflections and diacritics within the initial character.—Roman Spinner (talk) 18:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I am very tired of invalid arguments, especially when they smack of ignorance (of Wikipedia) and prejudice (against the British system of titles). I have no particular feeling about that system myself; but Wikipedia should treat it neutrally, and use it when convenient.
  • When Roman Spinner finds some arguments better than trolling for his disruptive conduct, I shall treat him as better than a troll.
  • His original claim (that we do not generally use titles) was and is ignorant falsehood. We use titles when English normally does; see Mother Teresa. As with Mother Teresa, this tends to be the case when the subject holds the same title for most of her life; the courtesy titles of the children of peers (like the sons of the Marquess of Bute Roman Spinner has been monkeying around with) are perfect examples of this.
  • At present, there appears to be consensus to use Sir as a dab in actual practice, Deb standing out; this should only be done rarely, but our guideline should be clarified (among other things to say that this should be done when there is in fact only one knight of a given name). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Three opinions does not a consensus make, and to claim it does is ludicrous. And I am neither ignorant of Wikipedia nor prejudiced against British titles (in fact, I am quite the opposite). -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
But consistent practice does - and I will be perfectly happy to continue to discuss this with Necrothesp, or anyone else who knows what our guidance actually is before proposing to change it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I concur with Necro that there is not in fact a consensus on this idea, and that it violates the principles we are trying to apply consistently across the board. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
The principle we are trying to apply consistently is use a simple a name as possible, consistent with English usage and disambiguation. It isn't always possible; that's why we use Henry IV of England - because Henry IV is ambiguous. We use Lord David Cecil, because that's what he's called; we call his father Robert Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury, and his eldest brother James Gascoyne-Cecil, 4th Marquess of Salisbury, to distinguish them from each other and all the other Marquesses of Salisbury; but we call a later prime minister and peer Anthony Eden, because he's called that. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
OK, this has annoyed me enough to intervene. FWIW, I'm with Septentrionalis on this. Once again: Wikipedia is not a game of Nomic. Our objective is to make things easy for readers to find, not to achieve personal fulfillment by creating a perfectly self-consistent set of rules. There's no real reason we should prefer "Sir X Y" over "X Y (knight)" other than obsession with writing an elegant ruleset. I agree that "Sir" should be used sparingly, but I think the number of instances where a) a name requires disambiguation and b) only one of the people to be disambiguated is a knight is sufficiently small that we're not going to be overrun by articles with "Sir" in the name. Given the additional (incorrect) moves on people titled "Lord ...", I am concerned that Roman Spinner is trying to eradicate honorifics in names in the interest of some sort of internal consistency or Leveller POV. Once again, our purpose is to write an encyclopedia, and our "principles" should be to record historical fact accurately and to make ourselves useful to our readers. Setting up perfect consistency and enforcing our internal naming rules is only of value insofar as it advances those goals. The complete eradication of "Sir" and "Lord" from the titles of articles when people were known by those styles does not advance those goals. Choess (talk) 04:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I fear you are mistaken in this. I think we could well be inundated with "Sir" articles in the long term, precisely because so many people don't understand how it works. Lord is a completely different kettle of fish, because you can be "Lord" or "Lady" from birth. Deb (talk) 12:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate your position, and might come round to it yet. I agree that knights should, in general, not be at "Sir X Y" for the reasons you've given. On the other hand, compare with the situation with baronets. We shouldn't be using "Sir X Y, nth Baronet" unless there are other "X Y"s to disambiguate from. Is this rule breached sometimes? Yes, but it's pretty trivial to fix that with a move, and (now that The Troubles have moved off to other pages), we seem to have a consensus for the rule, so people shouldn't get very far contesting it. I looked over Ernest de Silva, which seems to have inspired some of this contention, and it doesn't seem that people were invoking WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to defend their move; they were just going ahead and moving. I don't think fiddling with the MOS is going to affect that one way or another. (Frankly, in a case like that where people keep moving against consensus, I think there's something to be said for semiprotecting the redirect to block it.)
I just checked Special:Prefixindex, and frankly, it looks like we're in pretty good shape as far as knights go. (Baronets, probably less so, but I'll try to work on that.) I don't think the tide is about to roll over us if we allow an exception for disambiguation. Choess (talk) 13:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • For baronets, the prefix "Sir" arrives when his predecessor dies. To refer to a knight without his honorific is impolite (assuming he uses the title). The practice for those who attained peerages is that they are usually described according to the highest title they attained, but there are exceptions such as Prime Ministers, who are often named according to their title while PM. I do not think this is something on whcih we can lay down hard and fast rules. In some cases, a person will be most notable before attaining a title, in which case there may be a case for the article not using it. Where a man was most notable after being knighted, I would suggest it should be used. I accept that Sir is not entirely satisfactory as a disambiguator, but it was useful for Sir Edward Wortley Montagu (about whom this also arose) to distinguish him from his son. I think that has now been moved back to its old form. In summary, I would oppose egalitarian moves to drop "Sir" from article titles. See also discussion on Adam Nicolson, to whom a peerage was applied that he does not use. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Following the creation of Wikipedia talk:Special:PrefixIndex on May 8, 2007, the opening exchange, on June 30, 2007, was, as as follows:
Is there an option to not include redirects? ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ|c) 20:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I am not aware of such an option, but at least redirects are enclosed into <div class=allpagesredirect> (which already has italic CSS). So
div.allpagesredirect {display:none}
will hide them (leaving empty table cells unfortunately), while
div.allpagesredirect a {color:gray}
will simply make them easier to distinquish from normal pages. CSS code goes into your monobook.css ∴ Alex Smotrov 19:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, but I was looking for a built-in MediaWiki option (that should be present anyway). Oh and I use simple.css. ;) ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ|c) 21:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
As the above-exchange demonstrates, even though redirects have been displayed in italics, a stumbling block in the effective use of Special:Prefixindex, is still the inability of obtaining a list of solely the article titles. Special:Prefixindex has virtually as many entries as there are Wikipedia articles, with main title headers and redirects listed alphabetically (by first letter) and each page arranged in three columns of 115 entries, thus giving it an invariable number of 345 entries. There is a large, although still manageable number of "Sir" prefixes—21 pages of 345 entries, minus 77 non-"Sir" final entries on page 21, for a total of 7,168. More than half are redirects, close to 2000 are baronets, and other entries are on the order of Sir Patrick Sheehy Professor of International Relations, Sir Winston Churchill Secondary School (Hamilton), place names such as Sir Abu Nu’ayr, stage, film and record album titles such as Sir Army Suit, fictional characters such as Sir Benedict, Sir Les Patterson and Dame Edna Everage, horses (Sir Barton, Sir Bear) or self-granted honorifics used as stage names such as Sir Jinx, Sir Shina Peters and Sir Lord Baltimore. Other stage names, however, such as Sir Cedric Hardwicke, while invariably seen in that form, do not, and cannot use the veritable honorific in the main title header. Ultimately, though, over a hundred of the honorifically endowed names seem to be in need of moving. I will not handle these myself, for now at least, until this matter is settled, but for those with the inclination to tackle the project, here is a starting list of some 70 main title headers:
1. Sir Henry Fane, 2. Sir Hugh Wyndham, 3. Sir Hyde Parker, 4. Sir James Mackenzie, 5. Sir James Ramsden, 6. Sir James Thorburn, 7. Sir James Wainwright, 8. Sir John Bassett, 9. Sir John Bolton, 10. Sir John Byron, Jr., 11. Sir John Byron, Sr., 12. Sir John Clay, 13. Sir John Dawnay, 14. Sir John Dodson, 15. Sir John Fiennes, 16. Sir John FitzGerald, 17. Sir John Graham, 18. Sir John May, 19. Sir John Pakington (1549-1625), 20. Sir John Retcliffe, 21. Sir John Scott of Scotstarvit, 22. Sir John Seymour (1474–1536), 23. Sir John Shelton, 24. Sir John Stanhope, 25. Sir Adam Roberts, 26. Sir John William Fisher, 27. Sir John de Grey, 28. Sir Lawrence Peel, 29. Sir Andrew Murray, 30. Sir Michael Quinlan, 31. Sir Michael Stanhope, 32. Sir Michael Wood, 33. Sir Nathaniel Bacon, 34. Sir Nicholas Bacon (Ipswich MP), 35. Sir Oswald Cheung, 36. Sir Patrick Kilvington, 37. Sir Peter Buckton, 38. Sir Asman Jah, 39. Sir Quentin Thomas, 40. Sir Richard Cox, 41. Sir Richard Fiennes, 42. Sir Richard Pearson, 43. Sir Richard de Exeter, 44. Sir Robert Aitken, 45. Sir Robert Boyd, 46. Sir Robert Hitcham, 47. Sir Robert Pattinson, 48. Sir Ronald Hugh Campbell, 49. Sir Daniel Macaulay Stevenson, 50. Sir Sultan Ahmed, 51. Sir Thomas Blaikie, 52. Sir Thomas Boyd, 53. Sir Thomas Dingley, 54. Sir Thomas Drew, 55. Sir Thomas Parr, 56. Sir Thomas Rush, 57. Sir Thomas Stanhope, 58. Sir Thomas de Dacre, 59. Sir Tom Hopkinson, 60. Sir Walter Synnot, 61. Sir William Baker, 62. Sir William Brockman, 63. Sir William Charles Ellis, 64. Sir William Cornwallis, 65. Sir William Forester, 66. Sir William Rowe, 67. Sir William Samwell, 68. Sir Charles Fox, 69. Sir Christopher Bullock, 70., 71. and 72. Sir Balan, Sir Balin and Sir Breunor (compare with Sir Lancelot whose main title header lists him simply as Lancelot).
Perhaps 25% to 30% of these names (and others yet to be listed), may claim dubious disambiguation status, with Sir John Byron Jr, Sir John Byron Sr, Sir John Pakington (1549-1625), Sir John Seymour (1474-1536) and Sir Nicholas Bacon (Ipswich MP) using double disambiguators. On closer examination, however, none of these entries can really present a convincing argument for the retention of "Sir" as a disambiguator (if or when the occasion arises, each case will be discussed separately on its own talk page), in addition to sowing confusion as to the primary use of the honorific and, perhaps, even being seen as cluttering Wiki sorting devices, which, unless instructed otherwise, sort by the first letter, as in "S" for "Sir".—Roman Spinner (talk) 12:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
In many of these cases "Sir" is not present as a disambiguator, but because it is part of the name that the person was usually known by. Until the abolition of knight service in the 1640s, a person holding land by that tenure had to take out a knighthood or pay a fine. Accordingly, such persons would commonly obtain a knighthood as a young man and be known by it through their life. I would deplore Sir John Byron Jr and Sir John Byron Sr, because "Jr" and "Sr" are American abreviations and should not used for British people. The British abbreviations are jun. and sen. but WP would put junior and senior. Contemporary usuage was in fact commonly "the younger" and "the elder", but would only be properly applied when both were alive. The best solution is to use an occupation or their dates as a disambiguator. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Roman, that's very helpful. I see Deb's started moving some of the cases; I'll strike those out here for tracking. I think you're right; many of these are not appropriate even in the limited disambiguation case discussed. Choess (talk) 01:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, sorry, I should have thought of that myself. There's at least one that is linked to as a "baronet", but isn't. I stopped there because I couldn't decide what to do about it. Deb (talk) 10:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Having read the debate I seen nothing wrong with using sir as a disambiguator. Indeed I am not sure we should not include sir in the article name if the person is/was usually known with that title while they were/are having their 15 minutes of fame. What should be the guide is what were/are they usually known as in reliable sources, and WP:NC (precision). --PBS (talk) 20:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Poland

Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Poland#Monarchs_and_Dukes.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 06:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Exceptions

Deacon revised this, adding exceptions which don't use {name} of {Place} for kings. He has been overeager; we do in fact use Edmund of East Anglia to disambiguate the Anglo-Saxon kings from each other. )And I don't see what's wrong with saying that we use this convention for Western Europe because ambiguity is likely.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Javanese sultans

I havent seen any discussion in this neck of the woods regarding the Indonesian/Javanese usage of honourifics in the name of the rulers/monarchs.

When Indonesian editors touch their monarch/ruler articles the tendency is to want to put a range of honourifics in front of their rulers names out of respect - viz Hamengkubuwana - the feel the need to predicate the name with Sri Sultan. Very similar to the practice in the past in Islamic articles with the PBUH appellation. (which has since been resolved in WP:Islam MOS)

If I understand the general consensus to date in areas of the other parts of WP - then the rulers honourifics are not actually part of his name ( I have italicised for the moment those that I find rather than reverting) - and for that reason should never be included in a title of an article ?

I am posting this as WP Indonesia as well. Any feedback of any sort is appreciated SatuSuro 13:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

That would be our general practice; there might be very rare exceptions for disambiguation. If there is consensus to make an exception here, as there is for Emperors of Japan, it's not worth stomping up and down about. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Pre-Conquest English monarchs

An awkward problem arises with English monarchs before the Norman Conquest. When English monarchs began to adopt regnal numbers they retrospectively started this from the Norman Conquest, and the numbering of the Edwards in now far too well-established to change. However a problem arose with a recent debate over whether to move Harold Godwinson to "Harold II of England". Regnal numbers are sometimes but not frequently used for the pre-Conquest kings. It would be inconsistent to apply numbers to some but not all kings during a period, and there is some dispute about who was the first king of England, which creates problems for the numbering of some kings. I would say we should "keep it simple stupid", numbering of English monarchs starts at the Norman Conquest, pre-Conquest kings are disambiguated by cognomen. PatGallacher (talk) 09:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

In principle, I agree. Deb (talk) 11:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I also think this is a good idea in principle, but there are usually well known forms: Edward the Elder Edward the Martyr and Edward the Confessor. We have Ethelred of Wessex for Alfred's predecessor and Ethelred the Unready. Post-Norman kings were formally numbered e.g. Edward, the second after the conquest. I do not think it matters whther we have Harold Godwinson or Harold II of England, as long as the other still exists as a redirect. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Page names for biographical articles on individual baronets

Proposal to stabilise the pagenames of articles on baronets by either by either forbidding the use of baronet titles in page names or making them universal. 21:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The current naming convention for articles in individual baronets allows for different naming formats depending on whether disambiguation is required. The section relating to article names reads in full:

Baronets, as they hold hereditary titles, often for a large part of their lives, follow the same practice as hereditary peers and should have their title noted in the beginning of the article. The format is Sir John Smith, 17th Baronet. For the article title, this format should only be used when disambiguation is necessary; otherwise, the article should be located at John Smith. John Smith, 17th Baronet should never be used with the postfix and without the prefix.
(permalink to current version)

This optional usage has caused move wars at least three times in the last few years, as editors who like titles add them to article names, and those who dislike them get offended and move them back again if the move technically possible. These disputes are massively wasteful of energy, and seriously undermine the possibility of stable disambiguation of articles in a field where ambiguity is rife. It was quite common for families holding baronetcies to reuse the same first names repeatedly down the generations, and for identical first and surnames to be held by a number of notable people with very similar careers. I have tried to use these titles for disambiguation as per the guidelines, but have found yet again that unlike any other form of human name disambiguation, this form of disambiguation is unstable ... and that trying to uphold disambiguation by title causes huge contention.

I suggest that the solution is simply to remove the ambiguity from the guideline, by one of two options:

  1. Impose an outright ban on the use of baronet titles in the pagenames of biographical articles, just as has happens in practice with knighthoods (theyy they are permitted per Wikipedia:NCNT#British_peerage#5, but in practice this appears not to be used). So the article on "Sir Thingummy Wotsit, 78th Baronet" would be named Thingummy Wotsit ... and if all 77 previous Wotsit Baronets were notable enough to have articles and all had the same name, they would be disambiguated in the same way as any non-titled group of people with shared names
    or
  2. Follow exactly the same principle as used for Wikipedia:NCNT#British_peerage: always use the title in the article name, regardless of whether there is any issue of ambiguity.

Either option would remove the contention from these titles, and bring much-needed peace. I don't care which solution is adopted, because each has some advantages. Omitting titles conforms more with common usage and makes for simpler page names in many cases, but using them makes disambiguation simpler (the disambiguator comes readymade). But whatever the relative merits of the two options, I believe that either makes for a huge improvement over the instability of the current conditional use of titles.

Previous discussions about this guideline have focused on the different views editors take of the desirability of titles, and it is clear that there will never be consensus on those points. Please could we focus this time on what will be most effective way to implement here the general principles in WP:NAME:

Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number 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.

--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

  • BrownhairedGirl, do you have to be reiminded that Kittybrestwer, your mainstay supporter is currently banned from all pages connected to baronets, that will include your RFC. So is this not a little premature? Especially, as the Arbcom are currently debating a topic ban on you from baronets and de-sysoping you? I would suggest you wait silently and patiently before initiating anything else concerned with baronets. Giano (talk) 22:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Giano, I have no idea what possesses you to think that I would expect Kittybrewster to support the idea of removing titles. My intention was merely to suggest to the wider community that there are two ways in which this current guideline could be changed to remove any further contention. The present guideline is basically a compromise between two polar opposite views, and it appears to me that a move in either direction would bring stability. I have intention of getting stuck into this: I have said my piece and made it an RFC to see if the wider community might want to consider one or other of the alternatives which would take the conflict out of this area. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - I would support removing baronet disambiguation from baronet article titles in most cases (similar to how 'Sir' is not usually used as a disambiguator). The examples I am thinking of here are five scientists (two holding higher titles, three being baronets with this not mentioned in the title): William Parsons, 3rd Earl of Rosse (commonly referred to as Lord Rosse), William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin (commonly referred to as Lord Kelvin), John Herschel, Humphry Davy, Charles Lyell (all commonly referred to by their names, not their titles). In addition, the examples of Norman Moore (medical historian) (baronet) and Robert Muir (pathologist) (knighted) are articles that I initially created with "Sir" being used in the title to disambiguate them, but following later discussion the bracketed disambiguation by "profession" was adopted. It is possible that in the examples above, some of the people are the "primary topic" for that name, even if others with that name exist, but when that is not the case, I think disambiguation by what they are notable for is better than disambiguating by baronetcy. Unless they are only notable for being a baronet, which would lead to "NAME (baronet)". Unless there is more than one baronet of the same name, in which case there is a ready made disambiguation system in use in the real-world (the titles themselves), or even the other disambiguation system used in the real-world, of middle names or initials (e.g. Norman W. Moore). I would caution, though, against setting things up to be easy for editors, and to avoid editing disputes. The aim should be to make things easy for the reader. Editors should discuss things and only change when needed. Carcharoth (talk) 05:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment one There are whole families of baronets who have similar names, one I have been marginal involved in recently is Maclean Baronets of Morvern, and thier most distinguishing feature is their title, in which case disambiguation using the title as a counter is useful. In this family's case many of the members before they obtained their title are disambiguated using their position as clan Chief of the Macleans ({{Clan Maclean}}) so even if we were to abolish this convention all that would happen in this case is they would be numbered like their ancestor Hector Mor Maclean, 16th Chief. But in the case of many Baronets this would not be possible for example see another one I have been working on Baronet of Leadclune where three of the six who held the title were "William Fraser". --PBS (talk) 07:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment two Although today in this modern meritocratic society where inheritance and nepotism are frowned upon, if one is writing articles about people and their actions prior to World War I they lived in a hierarchical society and a family's position in society was much more important than it is today (although a quick look at members of the British cabinets and shadow cabinets over the last 30 years shows that coming from a well known political family has its advantages). For example the reason I am interested in the Baronet of Leadclune is because the person who did a lot of research on the Duchess of Richmond's ball was Sir William Fraser, 4th Baronet, a major asset when he was doing this research was his position in Victorian society which his title afford him. I am also active in writing articles about the English Civil War, where within their counties a family with a title had an important effect on the politics of that that county and the effect was roughly in proportion to the status of the title the family held. So while I agree that for modern Baronets the title is probably only useful for jumping the queue at quality restaurants, in the past it was a much more important asset, and as such was a notable attribute. This means for the majority of men who have held Baronets since their conception as a cynical a money making scam by the British Monarchy in 1611, they are an important and notable indicator of that man's position in British society, the scandal over Lloyd George selling knighthoods and peerages (c 1920) and the more recent scandal over the Labour party donations and the alleged promises of life peerages is anything to go by they are still considered desirable social indicators in contemporary British society. So I think the current wording is acceptable, but if it is either all or nothing I would go for all (with the same proviso over common us usage of other titles as is done for people such as Margaret Thatcher ). --PBS (talk) 07:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment The John Smith, 17th Baronet style is best. The Sir stuff doesn't belong in the article title. GoodDay (talk) 14:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment -- The omission of the "Sir" from a person entitled to it is discourteous; accordingly John Smith, 17th Baronet is wrong: 17th baronet is a description, not a mere disambiguator. Some people do not use their title, e.g. Roddy Llewellyn, in which case WP should respect their choice. However, if "baronet" appears in the article title, the prefix "Sir" MUST appear in it as well. I consider the article titles such as Norman Moore (medical historian) and Humphrey Davy acceptable, but the alternative form Sir Norman Moore, 1st Baronet should also exist (though only as a redirect). The form of the standard baronetcy article titles is well established and conforms both to conventional British usage and the format adopted for peers. There is no need to changed it and it should not be. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
  • What is this about the British titles that singles them out to be treated differently, the Italian nobility are all quite happy, such as dear old Giacomo Durazzo. As for the "discourteous" aspect mentioned above, why is it any less discourteous not to mention all men as Mr? Just give all people a forename and surname and let the titles be expained in the first words of the lead, unless they are a monarch universally known by forename alone. Giano (talk) 09:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
That's acceptable too. If John Smith, 17th Baronet is too much of a mouthful, then John Smith will do, as the article title. In agreement with Giano, these Baronets are no better then anybody else, therefore the special treatment isn't required. GoodDay (talk) 13:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
On the other hand, if there are three Sir John Smith, Baronets notable enough to have an article, disambiguating them by title and number, instead of juggling John Smith (baronet), John Smith (landowner), and John Smith (Justice of the Peace) is encouraged by other conventions. Reversing this to say "We don't normally use titles for baronets - but if a baronet needs to be disambiguated, we often use his title and number to do so" may help avoid confusion. (This doesn't change guidance, it clarifies it.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
GoodDay, did you see my comment above, in British society before WWI it was a hierarchical society so yes baronets were notably better than everyone else. Further you logic would suggest that we should junk all titles of nobility, unless you think that Kings, Dukes etc are better than everyone else. --PBS (talk) 07:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, junking all titles of nobility, would be an excellant idea (however, that's only my political PoV). PS: Kings, Dukes etc, are not better than everyone else. You've a point though, considering Barons with identical names. However, keep Sir out of the article titles. GoodDay (talk) 13:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. People should only be called "Sir" if they wield supreme executive power.[7] Kaldari (talk) 22:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. Well, when I wrote the current convention (going on three or four years I think) the purpose was a bright line rule for disambiguation and I'm not sure what has changed. If there's only one John Smith, then locate the article at John Smith. If there are multiple John Smiths, then use the prescribed format. The purpose was disambiguation, not (per Giano's well-taken concerns) to "use" or even acknowledge the title. I see no reason to alter current practice. Mackensen (talk) 01:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't see any reason to mandate baronet inclusion in all cases, but there's some times when it's indispensable. For instance, how to distinguish between Sir Robert Peel, 1st Baronet, Sir Robert Peel, 2nd Baronet, and Sir Robert Peel, 3rd Baronet? All were British politicians. The second is the primary usage and gets Robert Peel, but both his father and son were politicians, and had no middle name. The baronetcy seems like the natural way to disambiguate. john k (talk) 17:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment -- The present standard form for the titles of bio articles on baronets conforms to that for peers. "5th baronet" is a precise disambiguator, but doesd not appear in brackets (unlike normal disambiguators) becuase it is in fact part of their full title. Accordingly leave things alone. In these egalitarian times some people such as Roddy Llewellyn distain having a handle on their name and do not use their title. That is their choice and WP should follow it in article titles, but the standard form of article name should also exist as a redirect. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Raine, The Countess Spencer?

I believe the title of this article is not only against these conventions, but also factually incorrect, since this person is no longer "The Countess Spencer". I've tried to revert the move, but it's not possible to do it. Surtsicna (talk) 15:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

This convention would probably call her Raine, Countess Spencer - and I have so argued. I would oppose using The if she were still married to a living Earl; we are not the Court Circular, and we don't need to go moving all these articles whenever a peer dies - his heir is enough. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Isn't she actually now a French marquise or comtesse anyway. Giano (talk) 21:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
OK, I have just read the page. I see she can be who she likes. That has to be the worst biography I have ever read on wikipedia. It ought to be deleted until someone writes a better version. Giano (talk) 21:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
If Lady Spencer, wants to be a Spencer, and she slearly does, then her correct name for the page is Raine Spencer, Dowager Countess Spencer; as she is unique in every sense of the word her page could justas easily be Raine Spencer. Giano (talk) 06:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I would suggest that the correct form is "Raine Spencer". She and Earl Spencer were divorced. At that point (or perhaps upon her remarriage) she ceased to be Countess Spencer. She is not the dowager countess: a dowager is (or was) a person entitled to dower by becoming her husband's widow after his death, but she is not his widow due to the divorce. I have removed the word "dowager" from the lead, substituting "formerly", but I leave others to make the move, once this is agreed here. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
If there were a choice, Raine Spencer would be it, purely for egalitarian reasons. However, she was not dicorced from Earl Spencer she was his widow (legal wife at the time of his death) and legitimately (see references) returned to her older title and surname when her subsequent marriage broke up - Hence, Raine Spencer, Countess Spencer is the correct name per Wikipedia naming conventions. Giano (talk) 22:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Style guide

It seems to me that this text

...but the appropriate post-nominal letters or explanation should be in the article. Thus, Bob Geldof is not "Sir Bob Geldof" in the title and is "Bob Geldof KBE (hon.)" in the text. Post-nominals should not be used for non-Commonwealth or former British Empire citizens, as their use outside a Commonwealth context are rare. Knights bachelor have no suffix.

is straying into MOS territory as it has nothing to do with the name of an article. It is also contradictory as Ireland is not part of the Commonwealth. So for both those reasons it should be deleted. --PBS (talk) 21:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I do not see the first as a problem. We should "stray into MOS territory" if there is no MOS page on a question and editors are likely to see it here; WP:NCGN certainly does. (I do not think handing something over to MOS tends to improve guidance; most MOS rules are crankishness anyway.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I suspect former British Empire is intended to mean formerly British countries, including Ireland. We should clarify; and if we do not now agree to do this for Irishmen, we should change example. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
It may be simplest to remove the boldface prohibition, as not what we do; John J. Pershing has post-nominals, for example. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Parts of the United States are also former British Empire. Also see Pele etc, I still think that advise such as this if it belongs anywhere it is in the MOS not the naming convention guidelines (Just as the MOS should not trespass on the naming of articles). --PBS (talk) 23:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Granted on the US. I would take out the whole sentence beginning with Post-nominals as false (and ungrammatical), but object to handing this over to MOS incompetence. Comments from third parties? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

James VI and I?

This is up for discussion again at Talk:James I of England#Please move, and we should consider whether we wish to adapt this guideline and how far. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

RM for Elizabeth II

As it's probably of interest here, see Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom#Proposed move. —JAO • T • C 17:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Canada's National Day has rolled around again, I see. This grows repetitive; should we set up a FAQ on the handful of pages this happens on, explaining, at least, what our present reasoning is? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

You know, she is Canada's Queen, as well. This ought to be discussed, not only on the articles in question, but here as well. The naming conventions are very interesting, especially when compared to those of different languages. Nonetheless, designating Elizabeth II as only the Queen of the UK in the article title is misleading, and a compromise should be developed. Jagislaqroo (talk) 07:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)</s,all>

If you can think of a suitable compromise, it is open to you to suggest it. Deb (talk) 11:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
I assume you're talking about adding an exception to the naming convention. How would one go about doing that? Jagislaqroo (talk) 23:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
It's worth noting that she isn't Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, but Elizabeth II, queen of the United Kingdom (and other places). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
This is a good point, just refer to her title at coronation: Elizabeth II is no longer belongs exclusively to the UK. The 15 other Commonwealth Realms just happen to share the same monarch, other than that, they have no link to Britain whatsoever(except the few countries whose final court of appeal is with the Law Lords of the British House of Lords). She has been described as having a personal union with 16 different states; perhaps a category should be made for this in the naming convention.
As well, some say that the "British monarch" has previously been head of state of multiple countries. This is true, but in the majority of cases, these were England, Scotland, and Ireland, countries that now make up the UK. Starting with George VI, the Monarch of the Commonwealth Realms has been head of not just the UK's constituent countries, but (now) 16 different countries worldwide where Elizabeth II personifies their own unique monarchies. Jagislaqroo (talk) 23:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
I actually support the case to move "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom" to "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom", but I disagree with some of the arguments being bandied around here. Every British monarch since around the Glorious Revolution and certainly after the Hanoverian Succession was monarch of an empire stretching among territories much larger than the British Isles, including the Thirteen Colonies, what would be Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, Pakistan, Burma, South Africa and so on. Yes, Elizabeth II was crowned monarch independently of each of the Commonwealth Realms at the time of her succession, but then Victoria, Edward VII, George V, Edward VIII and George VI were crowned Emperor/Empress of India and George III and others were crowned King/Queen of Ireland (now Northern Ireland and the Republic).
If we're going to make a new policy, we're going to have to remember that while some monarchs (Queen Elizabeth II for example) have a name and ordinal that are almost always used to refer to one monarch, many earlier ones (particuarly the Georges and William IV) have names and ordinals used by a large number of European monarchs, while they themselves were king or queen of a much greater territory than that of the current Commonwealth Realms. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 18:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Please take part in the discussion here. The amendment to the conventions is being proposed there, not here. We have thought of a way to deal with those earlier European monarchs who have their names used many times. Oh by the way, entities such as the Thirteen Colonies, or any other entities which are not independent sovereign countries would not count, as a monarch is King/Queen of an independent country/countries, not of colonies and territories. --~Knowzilla (Talk) 18:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out. I think it's a bit more ambiguous with regards to colonies and the like - George III was the king of the American colonists, if only because they were British subjects. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 19:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Knowzilla, if only it were that simple! What do you mean by independent? For example was the Indian Empire (a member of the UN) independent? Today one can argue convincingly that at a minimum independence is covered by membership of the UN, but what about before 1900? Personal unions make the definition of independents fussy, to begin to understand how it operated before 1900 (to pick a arbitrary date), one has to think of modern day ownership of corporations, where a company may be bought by another, and then in five years times either kept, sold on, or refloated on the stock market as an independent company again. --PBS (talk) 13:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Did I miss something? When did I mention being a UN member makes a nation independent? But the point is, can we argue that a nation like Canada or Australia is not independent? --~Knowzilla (Talk) 14:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Not that it matters for this discussion, but even UN membership is not a sufficient criterion for independence; consider the Byelorussian SSR and the Ukrainian SSR. —JAO • T • C 13:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Or Plaid Cymru's then-leader Dafydd Wigley declaring that the party had "never" advocated independence for Wales but did want a seat at the UN and the two were not incompatible... Timrollpickering (talk)
It is not if present Australia and Canada are independent counties (see my comment above) but what about England, Scotland and Ireland, circa 1639 and the War of the Three Kingdoms? --PBS (talk) 16:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Are these exceptions

Are the articles from Category:Kings of Armenian Cilicia exceptions from these conventions? Surtsicna (talk) 15:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

These are certainly inconsistent, at present. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Name-Ordinal-Country construction revisited

Firstly, I apologize if I am bringing something up that has been gone over before but is now somewhere in the archives, but consensus can change, and I think this needs review. The Name-Ordinal-Country construction seems to work well enough for most of the post-conquest monarchs of England, but what about early rulers or the legendary and medieval kings of Nordic countries, where no such designations existed? We should not be inventing names for people who are not widely known by any such name (such as Eric VII of Denmark, who is almost always named Eric of Pomerania in reliable sources and reference books). It seems to me that either A) it should be clarified that "use the most common form of the name used in English" trumps "Name-Ordinal-Country construction" except in a finite set of circumstances, or B) we should clearly state exceptions to the "common English name" rule which follow the "N-O-C" construction. It just doesn't make sense to have Wikipedians creating neologistic names for historical persons based upon Wikipedia's own rules. It doesn't do our readers any favors when they are searching for the names they read about in their history books or in other books of reference. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 06:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I must agree with this, common use is more important than Name-Ordinal-Country. It applies to modern Monarchs as well, especially to Queen Elizabeth II, whose article is currently at Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. This title is not only made up, but is also not a good name for the article for a Monarch who reigns over several independent nations. In any case, who refers to EIIR as "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom"? People search for "Queen Elizabeth II" or "Elizabeth II", not "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom". This NOC guideline does not apply perfectly to a lot of Monarch's articles, including for medieval kings of Nordic countries and those Monarchs who reigned/reigns over several sovereign nations. --~Knowzilla (Talk) 09:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, the ones who held reign over several different kingdoms (as was many times the case with medieval Nordic sovereigns) seem to defy the N-O-C construction, particularly in light of "which country are they best known for?" In the case of Eric of Pomerania, he reigned during the Kalmar Union as sovereign over Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Greenland, etc., but somehow he was always best known as "Eric of Pomerania", not "Eric of the Kalmar Union" or "Eric... of [Denmark/Norway/Sweden/etc.]" or "Eric, King of all Norden", so I don't see the need for us to construct a name for a sovereign who already has an unambiguous common name in English, however odd that name may seem. As for Elizabeth II, I haven't looked into that one specifically, but I would wager that all Anglophones would know immediately which "Elizabeth II" is meant. I also want to clarify, I didn't mean to focus only on Nordic sovereigns, that was just the immediate example. I don't know how well other countries' lines of succession follow N-O-C either. I just think that if we are going to declare an exception to the overarching rule of naming conventions (as the N-O-C construction appears to do), it is important that we clearly delineate the boundaries of that exception. Otherwise, I might even suggest repealing the N-O-C guideline altogether, in favor of the "rule" (Use the name most commonly used in English as long as it is unambiguous). Honestly, I don't think the exception is at all necessary. In many cases, the N-O-C convention will be an almost natural product of COMMONNAME (Henry V of England or Henry VIII of England, for instance). In other cases, I think it is simply contrary to our goals to institute an artificially constructed name in favor of one that is already well-known to our readership. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 11:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Eric VII of Denmark is not a made up name. "Erik VII" is the name used by Britannica, for example. And the Kalmar Union was basically a means of Danish domination of Norway and Sweden, so I don't see how that makes it problematic. john k (talk) 17:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

This aspect has only recently been discussed at length at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions#Modification of convention for monarchs. I think the concept of "common name" gets misunderstood - the Wikipedia convention is aiming to avoid scientific terms (so "Dog" not "Canis lupus familiaris") rather than requiring an absolutism of nicknames ("Bloody Mary" is probably the most common name in the street but Mary I of England is most recognisable). People with titles, especially rulers, can often be referred to in multiple ways depending on the context and the current convention aims for a balance between accuracy, recognitionability and universality. It makes linking easy, it ensures the article titles convey clear information and it avoids endless RM discussions over all manner of details. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the link, Tim. What a read! I did not mean to propose abolishing the [Country] from [Name] [Ordinal] [Country] as was porposed there. What I want is to simply clarify that N-O-C construction is not always preferred over the common name, as the rule currently seems to state. I would say, for example, calling Eric of Pomerania "Eric [X] of [Y]" would be rather like calling dog "Canis lupus familiaris", but without the precision. Another example would be to call Eric Lamb "Eric III of Denmark". I just want clarification that the latter are not always preferred over the former, and that COMMONNAME still carries weight, particularly when dealing with early rulers and sovereigns who reigned over multiple dominions. Basically, I'm not aiming for the [Country] component, specifically, just that in several cases it is best to revert to the overall rule of COMMONNAME. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 11:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Well put. john k (talk) 17:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Can we close this pointless discussion? The issue of Eric VII/Erik VII depends on whether the spelling of the name is anglicised. I think that the common practice of historians on this has changed since the beginning of the 20th century, so that we now use native orthography for foreign monarchs. However, ultimately, it does not matter as long as the alternative forms exist as redirects. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Not so fast, if you please. I'm sorry, Peter, but I think you've completely missed my point. It has nothing whatever to do with the spelling; it's "Eric VII of Denmark" vs. "Eric III of Norway" vs. "Eric XIII of Sweden" vs. "Eric of Pomerania". Do we pick a country, which can be rather more problematic than John Kenney makes it sound (all due respect to you, sir), or do we just go with the name by which he is most commonly known in English (Eric of Pomerania)? Also, I'm really not asking about just this article specifically. I am asking about the standard itself, as it also applies to numerous other early and medieval kings of Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and quite possibly other countries (not to mention pre-conquest England). I thank you for your note of clarification, Tim, and my question is where exactly do we strike that balance? The current language of WP:NCNT#Sovereigns seems to hit a bit over the mark. I wouldn't necessarily argue for "Bloody Mary" over "Mary I of England", but in those cases where the person is overwhelmingly known by a cognomen or held dominion over multiple countries without being overwhelmingly known by any one ordinal name, I think we need to clarify that there is some allowance. Again, I don't see the need to assign ordinals where only a small minority of sources do so. I think we should use the names our readers are familiar with, where they are neutral and unambiguous. Recognisability, my good Tim, is precisely what I'm aiming for. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 10:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I think current conventions can be used to make a reasonable case for Eric of Pomerania, as if I am not mistaken there are already exceptions made for rulers known primarily by a cognomen. It just has to be done on a case by case basis. john k (talk) 18:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps I was overhasty in calling for closure, but the discussion is currently focusing on one Norse monarch, with different ordinals in various kingdoms. That would be better addressed as a discussion on that talk page. I appreciate that may be an example of a wider problem. However the principle is that we have (generally) one article on one person; we need to settle on one name for the title, perhaps in this case "Eric of Pomerania" may be taken as a neutral name; other versions of the name exist as redirects to that article. Yes there will be exceptions, but the present standard provides a good norm. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
"Make a reasonable case", perhaps, John, but exceptions really should be exceptions, and I must agree with Peterkingiron. Deb (talk) 11:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
And therefore we don't need to change the present rule to allow for Eric of Pomerania - which I think to be John's point. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I see. I mistook his meaning and thought he meant that exceptions were the same as precedents. Deb (talk) 19:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I just want to make sure I understand what is meant by 'letting exceptions be exceptions'. Are we talking about N-O-C as the exception to COMMONNAME, or are we talking about cognomens as the exception to the exception? I'm all for letting exceptions be exceptions, if I may interpret that as meaning we should have a clearly defined exception (N-O-C) to the rule (COMMONNAME). I don't think the cognomen exception-to-the-exception needs further clarification, but when the cognomen and COMMONNAME are one-and-the-same, I think it outweighs N-O-C (barring problems with Neutrality or ambiguity), but we need to state this somewhere in our naming conventions, lest some editors wikilawyer in article names that comply with N-O-C but are at odds with COMMONNAME.
I guess my second question is whether the N-O-C exception is really necessary as an exception. I think it's fine as a guide to how to name articles where COMMONNAME is in line with such a construction; it answers questions like whether or not to include certain terms as disambiguators. But I'm all for letting the rule (COMMONNAME), which has the support of wiki-wide consensus--and for good reason--and stands as the most beneficial rule to our readers, and making sure any exceptions to that are of greater benefit to our readers. I really don't see that consistency counts for much, when no such consistency exists in the real world. I think it is not our job as editors to churn out cookie-cutter names for people whose actual names never followed such a pattern. Again, for those that did, great. We have lots of rulers whose common names followed the N-O-C convention (post-conquest kings of England, Spanish Alfonsos and Ferdinands, post-Gustav Vasa Swedish Gustavs and Carls, etc.), but earlier rulers, such as ancient and medieval rulers of Northern European countries, have been traditionally known by bynames that are (for the most part) perfectly unambiguous, and I see no need to search for an obscure and recently-invented N-O-C name to apply to them. For these, COMMONNAME should continue to be the rule, and I don't think we should have to prove the COMMONNAME appropriateness of the cognomen to any greater extent than for the COMMONNAME of any other (non-NCNT) article. Why should Eric Lamb have to be proven as a common name to any greater extent than The Big Bopper? The current verbiage of WP:NCNT#Sovereigns seems to imply that it does. Is there in fact consensus that it does, or does NCNT just need some clarification on this point? If there is not, in fact, consensus that it does, then why do we need the N-O-C construction as an exception rather than as a clarification? Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 11:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

There are three cases:

  • Is Name of Country necessary for Henry IV of England, Henry IV of France, the three kings dabbed under Charles III? Yes. The most common names are ambiguous, and this is the convenient and natural way to dab them. That's 90% or so of our articles on (European) royalty.
  • Should we continue this pattern for the 5% or so who are always known by nicknames, like Charlemagne? No, probably not; WP:COMMONNAME should prevail; but the assumption that this applies to most of the early northern royalty is silly. We could probably apply this more widely than we do; but English doesn't use Eric the Memorable as often as Wilhelm supposes. (To some extent, this is disagreement as to how to represent a traditional nickname; the Norwegian wikipedias have one form for Harald I of Norway; English has at least five (Finehair, Fairhair, two different original forms, and Harald I.)
  • That leaves the 5% or so where name and numeral do not happen to be ambiguous. Is it necessary to continue the Name-of-Country rule there? No, but it is desirable. Otherwise you expect that the reader know which Charleses, which Henries, are unambiguous or primary usage; if he knows that much, why is be looking them up here at all? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
This seems a very clear summary of the position. Where there is a byname, such as Philip the Good (an article), giving the article that title would be fine, we will still need alternative Philip III, Duke of Burgundy to exist as a redirect. The versions of Harald I of Norway are no doubt the result of variant translation into English. Ultimately, as long as there is one definitive biography and the necessary redirects and dab pages exist, the title of the article does not matter unduely, as long as it is not ambiguous. Charles II is a dabpage for 18 people. That is why I proposed early closure. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm good with that. I have no problem at all with making sure "Eric III of Denmark" exists as a redirect to "Eric Lamb", or that "Eric VII of Denmark" (etc.) exists as a redirect to "Eric of Pomerania". Am I to interpret the responses here as meaning that the COMMONNAME standard stands at the same threshold for the bynames of early rulers as for other article names (all other factors being equal in terms of neutrality and ambiguity)? As for the common names of other early Erics, I might suggest having a look at Talk:Eric I of Denmark. Book and scholarly article searches are clearly supportive of "Eric the Good" over "Eric I of Denmark" but web search hits are quite problematic, particularly when one stops counting hits and starts looking at the quality of search results. A Google search for Eric I yields more web hits, but most of them are completely useless to us, while Eric the Good yields fewer but much higher quality hits. When I get a little more time, I will look deeper into Eric II to see if this is the case there as well. While I would like to see Harald I at "Harald Fairhair" (or Finehair, whichever turns out the more common), I would be less inclined to see a clear case for commonname there. He is also the first Norwegian king I would assign an ordinal name to. Any of the legendary kings before him should have their bynames (but then they wouldn't be kings of Norway either, would they, since there was not yet a unified Norway?). I would also support moving Gustav I of Sweden to "Gustav Vasa", however, as he is by far more commonly known by his byname (and the name Vasa is also notable in direct connection to him: Vasaloppet, Vasa (ship), etc.). Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 05:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I would take the opposite position. We should maintain the Name-ordinal-of-country construction except in the rare few cases where the common name is demonstratably well known, such as the Charlemagne example above. It seems fairly plain that in most cases, the Charlemagne-type cases are already at the right locations. In cases where the monarch is NOT demonstratably well-known, we should maintain the current Name-orginal-of-country even if there is wide spread scholarly usage of a more common name like "Eric the Good" or some such. Any such moves should be considered on a case-by-case basis, but in general the current system works fine, as long as the relevent alternate names are redirects, there does not seem to be a compelling reason to move a whole bunch of articles en masse but rather, only in those cases where there is a compelling reason to do so. --Jayron32 05:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I see historical precedent and 'commonname' usage to support implementing the use of the [commonly used in English] bynames of Swedish sovereigns up to and including Gustav Vasa (except the Danish sovereigns ruling during the Kalmar Union) and [Name]-[Ordinal]-[Country] construction for those from Eric XIV of Sweden onwards, as Eric "XIV" actually adopted the (inaccurate) ordinal and started the use of such names in Sweden. As an illustration of the problem of applying these names to earlier Swedish kings, take a look at the mess at Charles VIII of Sweden. Why on earth should we refer to someone far better known (and more accurately and less ambiguously known) as Karl Knutsson Bonde (usually by the same spelling in English) by such a confusing and inaccurate name? I do support N-O-C construction for the Danish Margarets and Christians, and for all Swedish sovereigns since Eric XIV, as well as all Norwegian monarchs since the dissolution of the personal union with Sweden in 1905 (Haakon VII of Norway onwards). Early Danish sovereigns are more problematic and should be taken on a case-by-case basis, but certainly N-O-C construction works for Danish sovereigns from Christian I of Denmark onwards. Some earlier rulers are far better known by bynames, but others may be well-known by ordinals. I really don't think it's too much to ask that we give the same consideration to these as we have given to English rulers. There has actually been discussion about a coordinated approach to naming articles of English sovereigns, apparently resulting in a consensus to apply N-O-C construction from 1066 onwards. I think it is time we have the same talk about Scandinavian sovereigns and establish some definition of how our naming guidelines apply to them. I'd like to leave a brief notice of this discussion at some related talk pages, such as WT:WikiProject Sweden, WT:WikiProject Norway, WT:WikiProject Denmark and WT:WikiProject Norse history and culture, but please don't think I'm canvassing. I'm looking for what wider consensus there may be, be that what it may. If the greater WP community disagrees with any part of my assertions, I will be the first to abide the consensus. In order to avoid running away with this page, I'll go ahead and move discussion to a subpage. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 10:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Sovereigns (item 4)

How about changing it from "Where a monarch has reigned over a number of states, use the most commonly associated ones." to "Where a monarch has reigned over a number of states, and disambiguation is necessary, use the most commonly associated ordinal and state. If disambiguation is unnecessary, and the {name} {ordinal} of {country} formula is contested, use the most common name." DrKiernan 11:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Hasn't it also been customary at times to name a monarch who reigned over several countries by the first of the countries ruled, such as Charles XIII of Sweden with a redirect there from Charles II of Norway? (If I am out of context here, please ley me know!). SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I think "contested" is a recipe for a mess as any handful of editors can "contest" a title for an eternity. And it's not disambiguation but about presenting the title information in a consistent format, particularly because monarchs generate umpteen different variants of name. As for "first ruled" there's the problem that a lot of monarchs first ruled a small state before inheriting/conquering a big one. It would be strange to put Henry IV of France at Henry III of Navarre when clearly France is the country he's more associated with. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I see that the joint Polish-Lithuanian kings has been standardised to a consistent format, such as Sigismund III Vasa, without a territorial designation. So the wording becomes: "Where a monarch has reigned over a number of states, use either the most commonly associated ordinal and state, or the most common name. Within dynasties ruling over multiple states, the format used should be as consistent as possible." DrKiernan 07:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Which implies we should find names consistent with Matthias Corvinus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Vasa is a surname, so that no disambiguator is necessary. Charles XIII of Sweden is certainly the preferable title for the primary article, since the Swedish kings conquered Norway and retained it as a separate realm, until the two crowns were separated. Henry IV of France is clearly the better choice, because France was the more important country, Navarre being a small area on the border of Spain. Similarly we have settled on James I of England not James VI of Scotland, after considerable discussion recently. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
If there is consensus to use the N-O-C convention for post-conquest English monarchs and bynames for pre-conquest monarchs, why not do the same for Swedish and Norwegian monarchs? We have Norwegian kings up to the Kalmar Union who are traditionally known by either patronymics or a cognomen, then Danish and Swedish monarchs up to 1905, followed by Norwegian kings who are almost always known by their ordinals. It works rather neatly. In the case of Swedish monarchs, we have Eric XIV of Sweden and subsequent monarchs known primarily by their ordinals (inaccurate though many of them may be - but we should not try to correct them), and all pre-Kalmar Union Swedish kings were traditionally known by patronymics or cognomens. I think the best solution would be to stick with the bynames for Swedish kings up to and including Gustav Vasa and ordinals for all Swedish monarchs from Eric XIV onwards. Early Danish monarchs can be a little trickier. Some of the early Danes have become well-known by ordinals. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 23:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Concur with Timrollpickering that putting Name+Numeral on same par with Name Ordinal of Country destroys valuable consistency in format & invites disputes, i.e. James I of England --> James VI, not to mention grandfathering in contested usages like Elizabeth II without the vetting or validation of consensus building. Lethiere (talk) 08:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I am very happy with the existing convention, despite it sometimes being clumsy. However the option should exist for national projects to adopt differing conventions, particularly in cases where a king had multiple crowns with different ordinals, provided this does not result in multiple biographies. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Lethiere, consensus already exists for "use either the most commonly associated ordinal and state, or the most common name." because the joint monarchs of states like Poland-Lithuania are already dealt with in the latter way. What's your objection to: "Within dynasties ruling over multiple states, the format used should be as consistent as possible"? I thought that is what you wanted. DrKiernan 14:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
My understanding of our consensus on this differs, which is that we use the format of Name Ordinal of Realm for emperors and kings unless consensus develops in favor of a different name. Otherwise, I fear the consistency that format brings to these articles will be diluted to the point that the pattern is unrecognizable to readers. I thought that the years of disagreements over Polish/Lithuanian monarch naming had yielded a solution tailored expressly for them. I don't oppose exceptions adopted by clear consensus, however. I do fear that changes dear to a few could be slipped in under this proposed change without having been vetted by discussion of all sides or without developing clear consensus. Is it no else's understanding that a change of Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom --> Elizabeth II or James I of England --> James VI or similar changes could be effected unilaterally more readily under this proposed change rather than following discussion? Lethiere (talk) 16:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I totally agree. Deb (talk) 21:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

British peers

I quote the MOS page:

Members of the hereditary Peerage (people who inherit their title or have received a title that they may pass down to their heirs e.g., William Wedgwood Benn, 1st Viscount Stansgate), such as a marquess, viscount, count, duke, earl, etc., as with royals have two names. For example Henry John Temple was also the 3rd Viscount Palmerston, hence typically referred to as "Lord Palmerston". Rule here is, "So-and-so, ordinal (if appropriate) title (of) place"

So these people have two names, and the title should use both. This strikes me as quite batty. If for example

Gerald Hugh Tyrwhitt-Wilson, 14th Baron Berners (18 September 1883 – 19 April 1950), also known as Gerald Tyrwhitt, [...] is usually referred to as Lord Berners.

as I believe is true, then I don't see why he shouldn't be "Lord Berners", with disambiguation if necessary ("Lord Berners (composer)"). And Alistair McAlpine, Baron McAlpine of West Green is plain Alistair McAlpine, as far as I know.

Hirohito is probably better renamed "Shōwa", Burma is luckily not renamed "Myanmar"; there's a case for renaming both but, as far as I know, not for naming the one "Hirohito, Emperor Shōwa" and the other "Burma, Union of Myanmar". We also don't have "Big Dipper, Plough" or "Big Bopper, Jiles Perry Richardson" or "Balthus, Balthasar Klossowski de Rola". Why the need for this bizarre and laborious article naming system for one group of people in one nation? -- Hoary (talk) 09:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

  • WP:COMMONNAME requires Hirohito (we should not use names that may cause an anglophone who knows the subject to wonder what we are talking about); that this is inconsistent with Meiji is a problem - if any - with the English language, not with us.
  • Lord Berners the composer is a rare case of being one of the few men of his title to be notable - not, I note, the only one -, partly because there was no Lord Berners for centuries ; any realistic proposal, therefore, should discuss how it would disambiguate the Dukes of Devonshire or the Lords Berkeley. Duke of Devonshire is ambiguous - and therefore it is (in effect) a disambiguation page on the whole family. We disambiguate by using the whole name - and numeral, because William Cavendish is not enough; the Baron of Berkeley is another example.
You actually mean Baron Berkeley. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
  • But it is not actually the case that there are two names here. Gerald Hugh Tyrwhitt-Wilson was not the composer's name after his father's death; and although he was entitled to sign himself Berners, it was not his full name.
  • Life peers should be under their original name when sources normally use it; see Jeffrey Archer. If McAlpine is another case of this, put in a move request, including evidence. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know enough about McAlpine to be able to pronounce on the matter.

As I vaguely understand it and perhaps misunderstand it, the rule is that life or other peers should be simply under their non-lordship name when they or sources exclusively use this; thus Christopher Guest. Though presumably the latter was (Baron) Haden-Guest when in the House of Lords, and the WP article (not a reliable source, of course) says he was there.

Clearly you're going to have a lot of people for whom two (or more) distinct names have had more than trivial use. Outside this single, bizarre area, WP takes this in its stride. Yevonde Cumbers [...] was a English photographer, who [...] used the professional name Madame Yevonde. And, sensibly enough, her article is Yevonde. Antony Charles Robert Armstrong-Jones, 1st Earl of Snowdon, GCVO, RDI, [...] is an English photographer and Emmy Award-winning documentary filmmaker. He was little known as a photographer (or anything else) till he got his new name, which I think he used consistently thereafter. (Every book I have seen of his photos is by "Snowdon".) His article is Antony Armstrong-Jones, 1st Earl of Snowdon; I'd have thought he'd better be "Snowdon (photographer)" or similar. -- Hoary (talk) 01:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Certain people are much better known without their title; of so, we should not force them to use it. Roddy Llewellyn is a baronet, but the article with his title is a redirect. Adam Nicolson inherited a barony, and some one moved his article to the standard peerage format. Then a user (believed to be Nicolson himself) moved it back, but Adam Nicolson, 5th Baron Carnock continues to exist as a redirect. The practice has been (except with Prime Ministers) to give people their final (i.e highest) title, even if they only enjoyed it briefly before their death. I think that should remain the norm, but today titles are unfashionable (so that some people do not use them); if so, we should not impose the title, but the titled form of the name should exist as a redirect. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
except with Prime Ministers and a handful of other cases, like Bertrand Russell. The clearest case on the other side is Frederic Leighton, 1st Baron Leighton, who was a peer for 24 hours before his death, but is normally called Lord Leighton. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Elizabeth vs. Elisabeth

I've noticed that this Wikipedia refers to all medieval non-British women as Elisabeths, even when Elizabeth is their most common name and even when the native spelling of their name is not Elisabeth (eg. Elisabeth of Bosnia, Elisabeth of Slavonia, Elisabeth of Bohemia, Elisabeth of Hungary, Elisabeth of Pilica, Elisabeth Richeza of Poland etc). Is there a particular reason for this? I've already moved Elisabeth of Bosnia to Elizabeth of Bosnia and Elisabeth of Slavonia to Elizabeth of Slavonia, on the grounds of Elizabeth being the anglicized form of their names, the most common name used by English-speaking historians and more closer to the native form of their names (those being Elizabeta and Erzsébet). Surtsicna (talk) 14:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe this was originally done on the ground that Elisabeth of Hungary (and so on) is how the name is actually and normally anglicized for people outside Britain - just as we use Marquis, not Marquess, for the lords of Mantua; certainly Erzsébet is not. This is a question of fact; is it time to reopen it? (Note the minor benefit of having Elizabeth of Bohemia for the daughter of James I (which is usage) and Elisabeth of Bohemia as a dab page.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Does outside Britain mean outside English-speaking countries, i.e. is the name "anglicized" as Elisabeth in (for example) the USA? If not, then it doesn't matter how the name is anglicized for those who do not speak English, as the articles of this Wikipedia are written for those who do speak English. Regardless of how the name is anglicized, when Elizabeth of X is the most common name, why should Elisabeth of X be used instead? Surtsicna (talk) 18:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
No, outside Britain means that people, like St. Elisabeth, who lived on the Continent of Europe, are normally spelt with an s; this is not a varietal question. The Virgin Queen is spelt Elizabeth by Americans and Commonwealthmen together; the question is whether Elisabeth of Hungary normally is or not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Why aren't we always careful with English phonetics in all cases of older history, so that we would automatically want to spell Elizabeth with a z enabling it to be pronounced correctly in English for the benefit of young and old listeners? Language is not only written, it is just as important when it is read/spoken, preferably as smoothly as possible. Wouldn't sticking to the correct phonetical solution of whatever language is involved solve most or all of this? Just two friendly questions. SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Consorts with maiden names

I am very unhappy about the convention that stipulates that names of queens and princesses consort, after death, are to "revert to her pre-marital title", such as the late Queen Louise of Sweden being called Louise Mountbatten or her predecessor Queen Viktoria of Sweden being called Victoria of Baden. My unhappiness with this centers primarily on two motives:

  • such naming has always seemed to me to rob these women, in most cases, of their most historically important titels by far, thus the convention can be considered (1) disrespectful to their memories or (2) unnecessarily confusing re: social position or even (3) more-or-less male sexist;
  • I have seen hundres of examples by now in literature (in seven languages I know) where authors obviously have had to reword what otherwise would have been smooth language to avoid such disastrous terminology as Queen Hedvig Elizabeth Charlotte of Holstein-Gottorp of Sweden and Norway or ... Lovisa Ulrika of Prussia, the Queen of Sweden... - who besides WP policy specialists would get it?

At risk of being considered very tedious for bringing this up, if has been discussed, perhaps at length, somewhere within the archives of this page before, can I please be directed by anyone toward a palpable explanation of an oddity I frankly find utterly unfathomable? I would like to begin to understand. Sincerely, SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

You wouldn't believe how useful the maiden-name rule is. For example, it is much more easier to have the article titled Louise Mountbatten than Queen Louise of Sweden because three women were known as Queen Louise of Sweden. Then having the article about her predecessor titled Queen Victoria of Sweden would make an unnecessary exception and so on. Even if we do manage to have the articles about Swedish queens titled using their queenly titles, we are left with hundreds of British and French queens who are never referred to by their queenly titles (who refers to Catherine of Aragon as Queen Catherine of England?). Besides, these women are known by their maiden names. Wikipedia has no right to suddenly decide that using commonly used names is robbing or disrespecting someone, or that all the historians who refer to them by their maiden names are more-or-less male sexist. We call them the way scholars call them.Surtsicna (talk) 20:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Of course titles should never be put before personal names in article names. There have been only two Swedish Louises that I know of and they could very clearly be called Louise of Sweden (queen 1859) and Louise of Sweden (queen 1950), then there was Louise Ulrica of Sweden, only one such. Instead, a Danish queen is called Louise of Sweden because she was born there. What a mess, in my opinion! I have seen Catherine of Aragon called Catherine of England when referred to as Queen there. Shame would be if she never were, as that position was her major claim to fame, not her Aragonese title. In her case the many wives of Henry VIII have had an impact on the differentiation of the queens by origin. I am not saying that Wikipedia has a "right to suddenly decide" neither this not that. On the contrary, my quesion was: is there any determined convention at en.WP about this or is it mainly based on POV and challengeable interpretations of what are or are not "commonly used names"? Anyone else know? SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
What you are proposing is based neither on commonsense nor on any of Wikipedia's guidelines. You are proposing that we invent names for women because you believe that historians are robbing them by not calling them the way you want them to be called. In this case, the Common name rule is not challengeable at all; referring to (for example) Catherine of Aragon as Catherine of Aragon is perfectly accurate and so is referring to any woman by the name which is most commonly used by historians. Nobody would support moving Catherine of Aragon to Catherine of England (1485-1536) (or something like that). Once again: we cannot invent names and ignore historians.Surtsicna (talk) 09:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Your critique of my "commonsense" and unfounded accusations such as "You are proposing that we invent names for women because you believe that historians are robbing them by not calling them the way you want them to be called." (none of which I said) are beginning to amount to a personal attack. Please stop that kind of wording! It is very unfair to me, is frowned uopn by WP and is totally unnecessary to make a valid, factual point. I have a right to my opinion, as the owner of a historical library of over 500 volumes. Assume good faith! All I asked is that someone tell me exactly where in the en.WP conventions it was decided by consensus to adopt a strict naming policy for queens and princesses consort which is to "revert to her pre-marital title" after death. I have given perfectly valid reasons for asking the question (the 2 points I made above), even if you do not agree with them out of your POV. If you cannot be civil, please let someone else, who can, try to answer my question. Cordially, SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Criticizing your arguments is a personal attack? How can you say that my "accusations" are unfounded when you yourself said that "such naming has always seemed to rob these women" and proposed silly titles like Louise of Sweden (queen 1859)? You were given several valid reasons for adhering to the maiden-name rule, yet you keep ignoring them.Surtsicna (talk) 12:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not going to argue with you or even discuss with you at all anymore since you use insulting words words like "silly" to describe my POV and quote me out of context (about robbing) to do battle. I will now be glad to discuss the facts here, but not you. I am certainly not ignoring rules (haven't made a single edit against them yet), but asking where they came from and when. False accusations like that are not up to par according to one of our moxt important WP rules: try to be civil! SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Your POV is utterly irrelevant for this project, which means that it doesn't belong here anyway. This discussion is pointless since your POV is obviously your only argument.Surtsicna (talk) 12:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree with User:Surtsicna. It is standard throughout works of reference and historiography to refer to consorts by these names, and your proposal would make it more difficult both for users to find the one they want and for contributors to find a suitable disambiguator Deb (talk) 11:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I highly respect your POV and am aware of the rather recent standard you mention, but (obviously) my findings are that the standard also is - and long was - to refer to queens and princesses by their nationalized names and positions. Though I, as we all are, often am wrong, I base these particular findings on about 45 years of historical research and the Indexes/Lists of Persons (Louise, Swedish queen 1950: p. 334... etc.) at the ends of thousands of books, especially before about 1995. Northern Crowns, The Kings of Modern Scandinavia by John Van der Kiste ISBN 0-7509-1139-7 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum is one excellent example from as late as 1996 of a book and author trying to maintain what worked so well before, for hundreds of years. Another is I kung Magnus tid; Norden under Magnus Eriksson 1317-1374 by Michael Nordberg ISBN 91-1-952122-7 from 1995. My question is when and how en.WP decided to support the saturation of world knowledge, in this regard, with a relatively new policy that I find extremely unfortunate, confusing, and so forth according to the two points I made above. SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
In an effort to answer your question, I went back through the archives, because I know for certain that there was a lengthy discussion on this. From the archive entries I can find, it is obvious that this debate took place either in later 2002 or early 2003, but where it is now I cannot tell. Several of the archives had been deleted, but I restored them and yet couldn't find what I was looking for. However, if you look through them yourself, you will see that the topic has been resurrected a number of times since then, always with the same result. If there really are thousands of books that support your case, I would ask that you cite some better examples than the ones above, because I can find much older books that support the statements I made. But even if I accepted this as evidence, I would have to point out that the indexes of books are not as helpful a guide as entries in works of reference such as biographical dictionaries, where disambiguation becomes a major factor. Deb (talk) 21:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I suspect that the application, of an name of origin to a royal consort, is the work of historians, not of contemporaries. The name Catherine of Aragon distinguishes her from Catherine Howard and Catherine Parr later wives of Henry VIII; also from Catherine of Braganza, Charles II's queen; and perhaps others. This use of a maiden name is necessary because we have no ordinals for queens. During theri marriage each would have been to contemporaries queen Catherine, also as dowagers if they lived to be such. WP has rules of style, but they should not be followed too slavishly. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Lord Fisher

There is an immense and disorganized brouhaha on Talk:Jackie Fisher, 1st Baron Fisher, on what the article should be called; please comment. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The debate is of some general importance because it turns on the interpretation of WP:NCNT#British peerage. Points under debate include whether the personal name part of the title should follow WP:NCP and use the name by which he is best known, excluding his peerage title, which in this case seems to be a nickname, "Jacky Fisher" (but that looks odd when combined with his peerage title), his given name by which he was best known (John Fisher) or his full name (John Arbuthnot Fisher); whether that decision turns on John Fisher being ambiguous (which it would be if the peerage title were not also used, but it isn't ambiguous with the title); and whether, in the title of a barony, it is necessary to include "of Kilverstone" even if there is no other Baron Fisher, and again whether that turns on ambiguity with or without the personal name. The debate arises from the inherent conflict between the two guidelines, given that peers are hardly ever known in sources by their full peerage titles. Cyclopaedic (talk) 08:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Why do we include the place-name for life peers? It exists for most hereditary peerages (being the normal form for patents), but we do not include it except where necessary for disambiguation (Baron Grey of Ruthyn needs disambiguation; Baron Byron of Rochdale doesn't). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Do we not? WP:NCNT#British peerage doesn't seem to say that, although it is not clear on the point. In my experience outside of Wikipedia, when a title is given in the form "Pat, 2nd Baron Postie of Greendale" the "of Greendale" is always included (but not necessarily in the form "Lord Postie" - these two forms of the name are quite distinct and should not be mixed (as Baron Byron does - should be Lord Byron on the basis that it is the name by which he is known). The name is actually the "disambiguator", not the place: Duke of Northumberland, Earl of Cambridge, Baron of Kilverstone. Barons have their family name (or another name) in the title in a way that higher-ranking peers don't. Cyclopaedic (talk) 17:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
      • We don't. Feel free to look through the peerage articles for yourself. And your post makes clear one reason we don't: Lord Fisher is common usage; Baron Fisher is correct; Baron Fisher of Kilverstone is correct, but may be ill-advised, as too formal even for us; Baron of Kilverstone is wrong. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Crown princes

When dealing with a Crown Prince(ss) (however not consort) of a state, use the form "{name}, Crown Prince(ss) of {state}" unless there is a clear formal title awarded to a prince which defines their status as crown prince (e.g., Frederik, Crown Prince of Denmark, but Charles, Prince of Wales, Felipe, Prince of Asturias, etc)

In almost every other situation, the rule is that the word order in an article title is as it would appear in ordinary text. For example, it's Pope John Paul II, not "John Paul II, Pope." Princes typically have the title "Prince" before their names. But the rule quote above requires reverse word order for crown princes, i.e. why is it "Frederik, Crown Prince of Denmark" as opposed to "Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark"? Kauffner (talk) 16:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Because "Frederik, Crown Prince of Denmark, was born..." is ordinary English; as ordinary as the other. I have no opinion on which is better; the chief difference is that one needs a DEFAULTSORT to fall under F. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Because Prince Charles of Wales can't be used as the title of the article about Charles, Prince of Wales and Prince Felipe of Asturias can't be used as the title of the article about Felipe, Prince of Asturias. In other words, the reason is consistency: putting substantive royal titles after the person's name. Surtsicna (talk) 16:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Other princes all have their titles first. I don't see any logic in making an exception for a crown prince. The base of the article title should be whatever the most common English-language style is, possibly followed by disambiguation. What to do with substantive titles is a separate issue, but by the same argument it should be "Prince Charles, prince of Wales" and "Prince Felipe, prince of Asturias". This is also closer to their official styles. Kauffner (talk) 01:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Names first, titles (if at all) after them, please! Charles of England (1952) ... etc. for everyone else ... would have been best of all, but I am joining these debates far too late to do any real good here. So sorry about that. SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Can't you imagine people wondering: Who is Charles of England (1952)? Why would we want to confuse the readers by inventing a name for a person? Charles is not of England and few would recognize the year 1952 as the year when he became heir apparent. On teh other hand, everybody knows that Charles, Prince of Wales, is the son of the Queen of the United Kingdom. Surtsicna (talk) 09:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

It is common sense: every prince who is The Prince of X is named "<Name>, (the xth) Prince of X" and princes who are a prince of X are named "Prince <name> of X". In case of the name Pope, this is not a royal but a religious title. Furthermore there is only one pope, no "The pope of X". Demophon (talk) 21:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Queen consorts

Just curious (not complaining). When were the Queen consort articles changed? I seem to remember (for example) Queen Silvia of Sweden, once being 'Silvia Sommerlath' & Queen consorts having their articles uder their 'birth position' : Princess X of country. GoodDay (talk) 22:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd support moving those articles to their previous titles. Other Wikipedias have those articles under the women's birth positions. Besides, that way we would avoid presentism. Surtsicna (talk) 22:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Silvia of Sweden (1978) is still alive, according to guidelines should not be Sommerlath again until after her death (makes a lot of sense, doesn't it?). Huge mess permeates the whole project in this regard and spreads all over. Sorry to say, because obviously everyone involved has acted in good faith, and I'm sure no one ever thought there would be such a mess. SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
What mess? There is no mess. The only problem with the current guidelines is that treating present queens differently from the past queens is presentism (see the discussion started by me and rightfully closed by Pmanderson). The past queens were as much queens consort as the present incumbents. We cannot adjust the past queens consort to the present queens consort because Firstname of Birthcountry rule is widely accepted and we can't change it, which means that the present queens consort should be adjusted to the past queens consort. Considering the number of the past queens consort, adjusting the present incumbents to their predecessors would be easier too. One could also find it weird that the title of the article about Queen Sonja of Norway includes her queenly title, while the title of the article about her husband doesn't include his monarchical title - as if Sonja's title somehow outranks Harald's title. Surtsicna (talk) 09:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Can't understand why we use a different rule for royal women. Why not list Marilyn Monroe as Norma Jean Baker then? And so forth? Sonja of Norway is a perfect name for their queen. There has been only one Sonja of Norway. Are you going to change her to Sonja Haraldsen? That probably will alienate the royal court of Norway toward WP for all time. Not that that matters (???). Silvia's name has not been Sommerlath since 1978, so why call her something she is not? No one knows her as Silvia Sommerlath everyone as Silvia of Sweden. (This proves my point that that is how these queens and other consorts were known at the height of their careers, the idea of titling them by obsolete maiden names being a later invention from about 1990 except perhaps for Henry VIII's Catherines.) The official Swedish census lists her as Silvia Renate *, the asterisk meaning that she has no last name as a royal person. Why have titels in there at all? Seems totally unneccessary and a bit elitist (you have to be a royalist or title-happy expert to understand). I'll bet (see previous section) 10 times more people in the world, globally, would know who Charles of England is than any other naming. If you told him that he isn't Charles of England I know he'd hate that claim. Sure there is a huge mess in all this - please don't make it worse and even start offending BLP royal women by fiddling with their names in some masterful yet incomprehensible way! Please! SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
We are not the Swedish census; we are not a census, and (perhaps more importantly) we are not in Swedish. What is Silvia? A disambiguation page, for good reason; Sylvia offers a dozen more reasons. Your proposal is unlikely to be understood by the plain reader, and likely to be puzzling to experts. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
From about 1990? That's ridiculous. This is the standard way by which British and French queens, at least, are known. For a few examples Mary of Guise, Catherine de' Medici, Anne of Austria, Anne of Denmark, Catherine of Braganza, Mary of Modena, Elizabeth Woodville, Marie de' Medici, and so forth. If you ever go to Versailles, Marie Antoinette is noted there as "Marie Antoinette de Lorraine". And who the hell is "Charles of England"? If you are speaking of the current Prince of Wales, I think most people know him as "the Prince of Wales" or "Prince Charles." The Swedish article, by the way, on the current queen is at "Drottning Silvia" (Queen Silvia); her predecessors are at Louise Mountbatten and Victoria av Baden. john k (talk) 19:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Why start swearing??? Can't we remain civil here and discuss and disagree like gentlepersons? Telephoned 25 educated cosmopolitan acquaintances (none British though, and none particularly royalist, this time) and asked them this question: If you had to say you were more sure about whom is meant by either of the following two names of a person living now, if either, which would you say you were 100% sure of?
  1. Charles of England
  2. Charles, Prince of Wales
I don't think I dare tell you which name all of them picked. I don't want to be sworn at. SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Ooh, I used the word "hell." I'm sorry to have wounded your delicate sensibilities. And seriously, you called 25 friends to ask them that question? There's a profanity that comes to mind for what I think about that, but since I know it would hurt you, I won't say it. At any rate, a random sample of your friends is not an argument. And "Charles of England" is a completely ambiguous title. At any rate, referring to queens by their maiden names is extraordinarily common, and is certainly not a practice which originated in 1990. john k (talk) 20:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Insolent sarcasm is very offensive to me (shall I pretend it isn't?) and far worse than swearing, and "profanity" is not at all allowed even for administrators (don't do me any particular favors!), but your POV is respected anyway on this end, because I am trying to be nice. Cordially, SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
People who get squeamish about other grown adults' use of (very mild) profanity in writing on the internet and comment on that rather than responding to substantive points offend me, so I suppose we're both offended. As far as profanity goes, WP:CIVIL says the following is uncivil: Gross profanity or indecent suggestions directed at another contributor. So far as I am aware, the word "hell" is not generally considered to be "gross profanity," and it was not, at any rate, directed at a contributor - it was merely an intensifier. At any rate, if my use of a very mild profanity offended you, I apologize - it was not my intention to offend you, as I hadn't realized that anyone any longer found the word "hell" to be offensive. And the "insolent sarcasm" in my follow-up was certainly unnecessary, and I'll apologize without reservation for engaging in it. Can we consider this nonsense over with and get back to actually discussing content? john k (talk) 21:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you! Sincerely. I have seen so much unwarranted nastiness between WP users for so long. Perhaps I am a bit oversensitive. We agree I think that any such tendencies tend to get in the way of productivity. As for these name issues, I think I'm done for now. Seems I am going it pretty much solo with my POV here. Your good faith is obvious. I hope mine was too. Cordially, SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
No problem. I do think that consorts present a general problem in terms of naming, but I'm not sure there's a good solution. For example, Anne of Austria=Consort; Anne of Great Britain=reigning monarch. Victoria of the United Kingdom=reigning monarch, but her daughter, who was a consort and shared her name, and thus ought to also be at Victoria of the United Kingdom based on the naming conventions, is at Victoria, Princess Royal. (Anglocentrism is a significant issue). But I think the somewhat muddled situation we have now is probably about as good as we're ever going to get. Complete uniformity is not to be expected, and probably not desirable. john k (talk) 21:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I really do think years in parentheses after nationalized names, without any titles, could have been a simple and effective method - such as Victoria of the United Kingdom (1819) and Victoria of Prussia (1858) or Victoria of Germany (1888) for the women you mentioned just above - but I also concede it really is too late now to suggest such a thing. That's what I meant above, though, and I did mean well with it. Thx again. SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind year dates, but I'd much prefer to do it by birth and death years, and stick with maiden names. Victoria of the United Kingdom (1819-1901), and Victoria of the United Kingdom (1840-1901) and even perhaps Victoria of the United Kingdom (1868-1935), although she was a spinster princess, and never an actual consort. john k (talk) 23:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Your years would be fine with me, as long as we don't call the current living Swedish queen Sommerlath or the Norwegian Haraldsen. As for the Victoria nationalities (= usually names for past royals), even though the issue is probably moot by now, I'd have to paraphrase Bill Clinton (at his shiftiest?): it all comes down to what they really should be considered of of. Good night! SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

1) Are your 25 educated cosmopolitan acquaintances aware that Charles isn't anything of England - not a prince of England, not a king of England, not an emperor of England - because the Kingdom of England had ceased to exist three centuries ago? Charles could only be described as being of the United Kingdom and nobody is convinced that we should start confusing people by referring to the subjects of our articles by names which barely any English-speaking person uses or understands. Just like john k, I can't resist not saying that it's hard for me to believe that you telephoned 25 educated cosmopolitan acquaintances of yours just to ask them how would they refer to the Prince of Wales. 2) You've said that referring to Her Majesty as Sonja Haraldsen would alienate the royal court of Norway from Wikipedia. Could you prove that the royal court of Norway has alienated from the German, French and Dutch Wikipedia (all of which have their articles about her titled Sonja Haraldsen)? Could you point me to a guideline or policy which says that Wikipedia must oblige to royal courts? 3) Treating the present queens consort like their predecessors would be better than favouring the present queens consort, but I will not insist on that nor will I support inventing names for people who already have common names in English language. Does anyone really think that Anne of Austria should be called Anne of France (insert a year unrelated to her birth or death)? Surtsicna (talk) 07:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I know I've said this before, but I think the idea of using years in brackets as a disambiguator is absolutely ridiculous in this case. We should be aiming to make these articles easy to find if possible. Deb (talk) 11:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. As I said, I truly don't believe that Charles of England (1952) is better than Charles, Prince of Wales in any way. Same can be said for queens consort - is Catherine of England (1509) better than Catherine of Aragon in any way? Those titles are so ridiculous and unused that they don't even exist as redirects. Surtsicna (talk) 14:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Just to clarify my own position - I'm generally reasonably happy with the current format, although I think that there are certainly some issues with queer disambiguation and where people are at titles for which they are not the primary topic, but merely the only topic that has no other logical place to be (example: Princess Victoria of the United Kingdom - her aunt and grandmother were never styled that way, but were just as much "Princess Victoria of the United Kingdom," and the aunt at least is quite as likely to be looked up under that name as the niece. Other times the names are even more arbitrary. Often times a title will just go to the first article to occupy the space, with no clear indication that it is a primary usage - see for example Princess Louise of Prussia - its current subject seems to have the article simply because all the other possible subjects are somewhere else, and there's no other obvious place to put it, but it's clearly not a primary usage. But I think Serge's suggestion is simply terrible. My suggestion of birth and death years (and maiden names) was an attempt to guide him towards a more reasonable position. john k (talk) 16:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
How about Grand Duchess Louise of Baden, the photo caption? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Wouldn't that create unneccessary inconsistency? Surtsicna (talk) 19:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
We're not consistent now. We use maiden names for some consorts, but not, thank goodness, for Alix of Hesse. This would be a step towards using married names when they are customary - as with Marie of Romania - not her daughter. We should consistently follow usage, which has normally solved such problems - as by calling the Empress Frederick the Empress Frederick, and then figure out a rule for predictable solutions to obscure cases. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
We do sometimes use married names. Sophia of Hanover, Elizabeth of Bohemia. I agree that following usage is most sensible, and it's ridiculous for Marie of Romania to be about the daughter rather than the mother. I'm not sure "Empress Frederick" works, though - she was only known as that for the last dozen years or so of her life, and it's not her highest title (which was "Empress Victoria," which she held during her husband's reign). Normally one comes across her before her father-in-law's death, when she was "the Crown Princess of Prussia". I'm not sure it's always easy to determine usage. But certainly Marie of Romania and Maud of Norway would probably make more sense than the current titles. One clear way to think of it is that the article title for royals should be a unique way of identifying the person which makes sense and obeys other naming guidelines (like avoiding using a title for someone if they are not a primary topic for that title), but that we should not expect them to convey information. Maud of Norway doesn't imply that Maud was either a reigning queen of Norway or a Norwegian princess who became a queen consort of somewhere else unless one is already familiar with Wikipedia naming guidelines. It's a perfectly reasonable title for her otherwise. Broadly speaking, I think what's likely to happen if we look at common names is that we increase the already existing asymmetry between Britain and continental Europe. Basically, foreign princesses who married British cadets would be likely to be known by their husband's title - Princess Louise, Duchess of Connaught and Strathearn; Princess Helena, Duchess of Albany, Princess Marina, Duchess of Kent - because in Britain, this is how they tend to be called in English language sources, most of which are going to be from the Commonwealth and focus on their role in Britain. British princesses who married abroad would be known by their husband's titles - Maud of Norway, Marie of Romania, Elizabeth of Bohemia, and so forth - because to English people their status as British princesses is taken for granted and what is interesting is where they married into. British queen consorts would continue to follow the naming pattern they already have. Non-British princesses who married Non-British princes and monarchs would probably also tend to be known by their maiden names, but usage would vary depending on use. john k (talk) 20:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
We use maiden names for most consorts, but every rule has exceptions. Of course, exceptions should be respected - they do, after all, confirm the rule. However, I am not sure why both of you chose Marie of Edinburgh and Maud of Wales as examples when both women are known by their maiden names (Maud of Norway vs. Maud of Wales; comparing Marie of Romania and Marie of Edinburgh is hard because Marie's daughter Marie is also referred to as Marie of Romania). Surtsicna (talk) 20:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Then one consults literary sources, like Dorothy Parker:
Oh, life is a glorious cycle of song,
A medley of extemporanea
And love is a thing that can never go wrong,
And I am Marie of Roumania.
That was intelligible in 1926, and meant the well-known author and war heroine, not her just-married daughter. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Queen Maud of Norway was known as Princess Maud of Wales prior to her marriage. She was never known as "Maud of Wales" (sans Princess) so far as I'm aware (even worse is Augusta of Wales, who was never even known as "Princess Augusta of Wales"). The google books search is hardly conclusive - 400-odd vs 600-odd means very little, especially since so many of those sources appear to be very old. john k (talk) 20:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
After checking things over, I believe the consort articles should be changed. It's odd to see Harald V of Norway, Queen Sonja of Norway & Albert II of Belgium, Queen Paola of Belgium (for example). Sonja of Norway; Paola of Belgium would be acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 20:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Please note that we do use titles for Emperors and Grand Dukes. The anomaly, if any, is for reigning Kings and Queens. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Maria Leszczyńska

Everyone is invited the discussion about the title of the article Maria Leszczyńska. Surtsicna (talk) 16:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

More discussions

Both of these are an opportunity to rethink or reword our guidance. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Short-lived monarchies

A discussion about Boris of Russia v. Boris Godunov has led me to realise that there is some inconsistency about how we deal with monarchs in short-lived monarchies or short-lived dynasties. Should they be dealt with according to normal naming conventions for monarchs? I detect the implication that some people were not proper monarchs, but that is POV. We have Maximilian I of Mexico, but Agustín de Iturbide (not Agustín of Mexico). We have Faustin I of Haiti, but Jean-Jacques Dessalines (not Jacques of Haiti) and Henri Christophe (not Henri of Haiti). We also have John of Scotland, Robert I of Scotland and Napoleon I of France. PatGallacher (talk) 11:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

And we should be inconsistent; English is. Most of these cases seem to me contrary to this guideline, as applied to Charlemagne: Boris of Russia is as weird as Charles I of France would be. (The exception is Maximillian, for whom Maximillian Habsburg would be equally bizarre the other way; and it's probably ambiguous.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Discussion started at Talk:Boris of Russia. Is it worth discussing John Balliol, or is this going to mire in stalemate between the opposing varieties of Scottish patriotism? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Sir for baronets

(moved discussion from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage.) My actions in removing Sir from a baronet title was challenged at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage with the comment: User:DGG, aparently an American librarian has move the article on Sir Alexander Cockburn, 12th Baronet to the above title saying that this is according to WP:MOS. He has also protected this against furhter moves. If MOS does require this in the case of baronets, there is something very wrong with MOS, because a baronet is not correctly addressed without the prefix "sir". Could an Admin please sort this out and explain the correct nomenclature for British baronets to this user? If this is not done then we are going to have thousands of articels on Baronets moved to this horrid mangling of correct style. I know we do not like "Sir" in articles on knights, but it is invariable the title used for baronets. Peterkingiron (talk)

I responded: "It is not that I am unaware of UK nomenclature for titles, but I think it makes no sense for Wikipedia purposes. and is inconsistent with general disambiguation practice. (In fact I think it makes so little sense that I couldn't imagine there was a special rule requiring us to use it and followed the general MOS rule; when the special rule was pointed out to me, I unprotected as my error) The general rule for Wikipedia disambiguation is to add only as much as is necessary to disambiguate. If this leaves less than the entire title, what of it? We give the full correct title in the article. I am going to continue to challenge the rule. Not that i typically care much about details, but this is a blatant exception to general practice, and would logically lead to the use of Sir and Dr. and all other prefixes, which are equally part of the person's full title. We don't even use full middle names unless necessary. It's a single exception to the rule against prefixes. I see no reason why it is necessary--it does not clarify, it does not help disambiguate. I referred further discussion to this MOS talk page, which is more widely read." DGG ( talk ) 00:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Agree that MOS should not be modified for a single special case. While "sir" may be the invariable title of baronets, it is not the inevitable name of baronets. Baronets (unlike certain title holders who are known by only their first name or other such) are known by their first and last names, just like non-baronets, so no special convention for naming their articles is required. Bongomatic 01:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


I think that the particular article in question is Alexander Cockburn, 12th Baronet. DGG's move was in the right direction, although disappointingly half-hearted. Cockburn is described as a barrister and judge of some note. I see nothing remarkable in any way about his baronetting (or whatever it is that baronets do). There's an odd section (titled "Family" rather than "Trivia") about his descendants. Alexander Cockburn starts with the hatnote This article is about the journalist. For the English jurist, see Sir Alexander Cockburn, 12th Baronet; if "jurist" is the most appropriate term, then it should instead point to Alexander Cockburn (jurist). Unless of course Wikipedia turned into "Debrett" while I wasn't looking. -- Hoary (talk) 01:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
This would be Debrett's only if all baronets were given their full style, but they are not; see Jock Delves Broughton. (Many are disambiguated without need, like Richard Acland, the politician, who should be at his unadorned name; but that's a problem with editors, not with guidance.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

What we have now as the article title: Alexander Cockburn, 12th Baronet is a violation of Wikipedia guidelines. According to WP:NCNT, section British peerage, number 6: "Baronets should generally have their article located at the simple name John Smith. But their hereditary titles, often held for a large part of their lives, should be noted at the beginning of the article in the format Sir John Smith, 17th Baronet. If they need to be disambiguated from another man of the same name, use the full style as the article name. John Smith, 17th Baronet should never be used with the postfix and without the prefix". So it should be with or without both the prefix and postfix, but now (only the postfix) it is utterly wrong. And since there is already an Alexander Cockburn, the guidelines indicates that in this case the use of the postfix and postfix are preferred (since they are normally are used together with / part of the name) Demophon (talk) 13:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Wrong guideline. Naming decisions are taken by WP:Naming guidelines, and its associated pages, such as this one.
  • Wrong title, What this guideline says is: Baronets should generally have their article located at the simple name John Smith. But their hereditary titles, often held for a large part of their lives, should be noted at the beginning of the article in the format Sir John Smith, 17th Baronet. If they need to be disambiguated from another man of the same name, use the full style as the article name,
    • Thus Alexander Cockburn would be fine, if unambiguous, or primary usage over the living journalist. (unlikely)
    • Alexander Cockburn (jurist) would be acceptable, if it were unambiguous; doubtful for a family of Scottish gentry. Some would find it clumsy.
    • But if we are going to disambiguate by name and style, as here, we should do in the form in which English actually uses it, not a barbarous one, which nobody else uses. To do is not egalitarian, but embarassing.
  • Wrong admin. DGG has protected an article over a content dispute, in which he has a strong opinion, which is (by his own admission) not shared by others. He deleted a redirect to do so. This is abuse of admin powers, and should be taken up elsewhere would be taken up elsewhere if DGG had not changed his mind. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
PMAnderson: Alexander Cockburn (jurist) would be acceptable, if it were unambiguous; doubtful for a family of Scottish gentry. Some would find it clumsy. / If an article about any other jurist named AC is written, the article can then be re-retitled accordingly. "Alexander Cockburn (jurist)" neither embarrasses me or strikes me as barbarous. Pray explain again what is wrong with it. -- Hoary (talk) 01:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate that British (not in this case English) titles are a difficulty for other nationalities. I thought the usual principle was that the article normally bore the subject's final title, except in the case of Prime Ministers and (perhaps) a few others who are more famous by an earlier name. If there are other names, they should exist as redirects. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
It depends. We do not normally include knighthoods in titles at all, because Arthur C. Clarke is more common than Sir Arthur Clarke in English as a whole, and is simpler. We do include peerages, because (if we didn't have to worry about clarity and disambiguation) we would call all the Marquesses of Salisbury, including the Prime Minister, Lord Salisbury - but that's hopelessly ambiguous.
Baronets are a middle case: did anybody ever call Judge Cockburn "12th Baronet"? Perhaps a forelock-tugging tenant or a genealogist. But he needs to be disambiguated; he is not primary usage over the living journalist Alexander Cockburn. One way to dab is to use the title - in which case we should get it right; but the vast majority of baronets don't need to be disambiguated.
(More accurately, the majority of baronets were plain country gentlemen, who don't need articles; of those who do, most should be unique.)Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
"did anybody ever call Judge Cockburn '12th Baronet'?" They certainly did call him Sir Alexander Cockburn, Bart.[8] as Victorian and earlier sources seem to be very interested in whether a man was styled Bart. or Knt. or Esq. or Mr. or no title at all. For example Sir William Strickland was noted as both "knt. and bart." (in that order) in Mark Nobel's 1784 list of members of Cromwell's Other House. -- PBS (talk) 15:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
And Sir Alexander Cockburn, Bart. would be a perfectly reasonable dab; in other families, it would produce ambiguity between members of the family. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Now look, we just went over this in May: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)#Page names for biographical articles on individual baronets. I think we had a pretty good discussion then and the consensus was to leave things as they are. I'll repeat what I said then:

Well, when I wrote the current convention (going on three or four years I think) the purpose was a bright line rule for disambiguation and I'm not sure what has changed. If there's only one John Smith, then locate the article at John Smith. If there are multiple John Smiths, then use the prescribed format. The purpose was disambiguation, not (per Giano's well-taken concerns) to "use" or even acknowledge the title. I see no reason to alter current practice.

Has anything changed since May? Mackensen (talk) 11:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Almost all baronets are now disambiguated with the title; I suspect many of them don't have to be - although Cockburn does. Yhis should be rolled back. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
No, this fellow's need for disambiguation can easily be satisfied via "Alexander Cockburn (jurist)". -- Hoary (talk) 23:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't care about British political squabbles; but we have a preference against using parenthetical disambiguation when there is a reasonable alternative available; as it is here. So why? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't know which British political squabble might be relevant. Here are two alternatives: "Alexander Cockburn, 12th Baronet", "Alexander Cockburn (jurist)". The former disambiguates via four syllables, the latter via two. The former doesn't start to explain what he did (so it would be less helpful in a disambiguation list), the latter does. In addition to "Kate Price" we have not "Kate Price, Katherine Duffy" but "Kate Price (actress); placenames aside, "Primary name (disambiguator) seems a lot commoner than "Primary name, Extra stuff". -- Hoary (talk) 00:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
She's not called "Kate Price, Katherine Duffy"; most people don't have a commonly used longer form to their names. (For peers, who do, we almost always use the long form, because the common short form is Lord Palmerston by itself, which is ambiguous). Baronets do.
  • Alexander Cockburn, 12th Baronet is unacceptable as a public embarrassment; it is as much an error as the baronent in the title to this section. It is not usage.
  • Parenthetical dabs are used when nothing else is conveniently available; they can't be used in running text. For people, like Kate Price, very often nothing is; but that should not deter us from using an alternative when there is one.
  • (Jurist) is a vague dab, probably ambiguous itself. (Lord Chief Justice) would be reasonable, although it shares the inconvenience of all parenthetical dabs. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
You've lost me. What is "the inconvenience of all parenthetical dabs"? Sure, "Lord Chief Justice" would be more precise than "jurist", and "painter and friend of Ben Nicholson" or "painter 1901–1930" is more precise than "English painter", yet we have "Christopher Wood (English painter)". Or should these be "John Christopher Wood" and "Alexander James Edmund Cockburn"? ¶ Oh, I notice that you've already stuck the "Sir" back in. -- Hoary (talk) 15:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Parenthetical dabs are not, any of them, common English expressions. They will not be used in running text, and readers will not guess them readily. That's inconvenient.
Jurist is a vague loan-word. It is not an office; it is not a profession: that's barrister or lawyer. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
"Jurist" starts to indicate what he's notable for, "baronet" does not. I've no idea why it should matter whether a word is a loan-word. You're right that "jurist" is vague: like "lawyer", it raises various possibilities. "Baronet", by contrast, is clear: it means next to nothing. The first of a triplet of descriptors in the first sentence is "lawyer". "Lawyer" is a common English expression. The word "lawyer" is used in the running text. The combination "Alexander Cockburn (lawyer)" is not used in the running text, but then neither is "Alexander Cockburn, 12th Baronet", let alone the the latter with "Sir" stuck on the front. Thanks to the gods' glorious gift of disambiguation and redirect, anyone looking for this Alexander Cockburn can look him up and find him, however straightforwardly or ludicrously the article on him is titled. I find it hard to imagine that any person of sound mind would type in "Sir Alexander Cockburn, 12th Baronet"; but were they to do so, a redirect would take them to the article on this person, who (to my mind) is remarkable for having helped to bring about the M'Naghten Rules rather than for, say, being "entitled to have 'a pall supported by two men, a principal mourner and four others' assisting at his funeral". -- Hoary (talk) 23:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually checking the OED turns up, as a quotation, "Even more important is the divergence between the English and American uses of jurist, which is not restricted in the United States to the meaning of an expert in the science of law. It is commonly applied to any one who has obtained the qualifications required for legal practice." It is clear that Cockburn distinguished lawyer, but no scholar.
Were Cockburn American, I would still argue that (lawyer) was better; but to use a rare and vague Americanism for a man with strong national ties to Great Britain is silly - and contrary to long-established practice. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Dear oh dear, I am frightfully sorry to have suggested "jurist", a word that I had unthinkingly plucked from the very first sentence of the article itself, as it then was. But your characterization of "lawyer" astounds me. We are (or anyway I am) in the 21st century, when "lawyer" is not an Americanism, is not rare (79.3 million ghits), and, I venture to suggest, means more to most people than "baronet" does. -- Hoary (talk) 03:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
That wasn't talking about (lawyer) but about (jurist). I did miss it in the lead, but will fix. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
So may the article be moved to "Alexander Cockburn (lawyer)? -- Hoary (talk) 11:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
I suggest you post this proposal atWikipedia:Requested moves to avoid further controversy. Deb (talk) 12:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Done. -- Hoary (talk) 13:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Cockburn aside, I take it the form Sir Etc Etc, Number Baronet remains in replace when disambiguating by the baronetcy (as opposed to profession)? Mackensen (talk) 02:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Lord Byron

There's a move request ongoing at Talk:George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron which may be of interest. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The claim by others is that the Royal standard no longer applies because of a false claim that the "common name" is "Lord Byron" or simply "Byron", even though all academic listings are "George Gordon Byron" and the LoC classification is "George Gordon Byron". The naming convention is very, very clear on the matter and says that an individual must -universally- be known, meaning -no- exceptions, before such a shorten name with an honorific can be preferred over their actually used name. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Keep it on the main discussion, please. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
And if, ourselves included, there is general consensus to move milord to what most sources actually call him, that may justify tweaking this page (slightly; Byron is an exceptionally clear case of common, primary, usage). WP space is descriptive, not prescriptive. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
"Exceptionally clear", unless you chance to read about any of the other Barons Byron — in, for instance, the article "Baron Byron" — and notice any of them being called by the same title. Ooops. So much for clarity. There have been twelve other Lords Byron besides the poet, including the living incumbent, and he has a 19-year-old son ready to carry on after him. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 01:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I think you need to acquaint yourself with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Just because there are other people called, say, Michael Jackson, it doesn't mean we can't use that name for the article about the best-known one (indeed that's what Wikipedia does as a general rule, and greatly serves its readers by so doing).--Kotniski (talk) 09:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
FYI, we already do this for Lord North and Viscount Castlereagh, and perhaps others. Choess (talk) 04:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The title "Baron North" (and thus "Lord North") is at least abeyant, not held by a living incumbent. As for "Viscount Castlereagh", that was a courtesy title; are there any contenders for it? If not, then how can that situation compare to the multiple Lords Byron, including among them men of General and Admiral grade? ....

Are there any living contenders for Viscount Castlereagh? Why, yes, the eldest legitimate son of the present Marquess of Londonderry. (There appears to be a bizarre complication that his first Marchioness had an adulterine son, but that at most provides another claimant.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


But... I see the articles in question are actually titled "Frederick North, Lord North" and "Robert Stewart, Viscount Castlereagh", in accordance with WP:NCBRITPEER, so it wasn't true that we "do this" (move to "common name" titles) after all, was it? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 09:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Sissi

And on the same note, see Talk:Elisabeth of Bavaria. Do we want to be more pedantic still, and call the poor woman Elisabeth in Bavaria? Or do we want to be idiomatic, and use the Empress Elisabeth of Austria? or what? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Baron?

There is currently a request at Talk:Alfred Tennyson, 1st Baron Tennyson, to follow usage and move him to Alfred, Lord Tennyson. If this fails, we should certainly explain that Lord Tennyson is not a courtesy title in our page.

But should it fail? Is there any real point to saying Baron Tennyson or Baron Byron instead of Lord Tennyson and Lord Byron? We aren't a Court Circular; do we have to sound like one? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

For that matter, should we use the first Tennyson? It's technically incorrect, and it adds no information for the large number of barons whose title is their surname. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Alfred Tennyson, Lord Tennyson is the only correct form. He has a last name, and Lord Tennyson is not (it is his title). Ottava Rima (talk) 01:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Evidence for this? Please note that the authorities you are contradicting include Tennyson himself. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Seeing as how Tennyson published all the way back to 1828 and didn't receive the title until 1884, that is a very long time where he went by Alfred Tennyson and was only known as such. And where exactly do you think he contradicted this? Do you want me to provide letters from his collected letters? The LoC, British Library System, and Google Books all list his author name as Alfred Tennyson, Baron Tennyson for a reason, you know. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, do go see how he signed his name after his elevation before you proclaim that there "must be only one"; you should also find simple Tennyson. No one denies that there are fuller forms; the absurdity is in claiming that the name he used for self-hypnosis (Alfred, Lord Tennyson) was not his name. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
The convention is that the article should be under the person's full name. I think that generally we should stick to that, but if another name is more usual, that should exist as a redirect. Occasionally, it should perhaos be the other way around. It should not matter unduly, as long as both exist and one redirects to the other. Unfortunately for WP, life is complicated and we cannot always make real life fit tidy rules. It would be boring if it would. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
But not the fullest name; we omit middle names often, using Edward Plunkett, 18th Baron of Dunsany, not Edward John Moreton Drax Plunkett, 18th Baron of Dunsany. Alfred, Lord Tennyson is a full name. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Senior peerage

The alteration that Septentrionalis made to the guideline, leads to questioning the next sentence "When a peer holds one or more other peerages of the same rank as his most senior peerage, use only the most senior peerage in the title." Sometimes a person is notable under a different name (and title) to the title they hold at the end of their lives. This is particularly true of British soldiers who tend to do their fighting as young men and retire to a quite life in the country.

The result of this is that many people are known in reliable sources by names other than those of the most senior title which they hold. Do we want to make allowances in this guideline for such people? Two give two example Philip Sidney, 3rd Earl of Leicester is usually known as Philip, Lord Lisle (how would we dab such name/titles) and Bernard Montgomery, 1st Viscount Montgomery of Alamein is better know as Bernard Montgomery. --PBS (talk) 10:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree re Monty. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I disagree too. Monty is more commonly known by the full Alamein title. No one would call him Bernard Montgomery. Deb (talk) 12:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
no one?, but without getting bogged down in specific names, (as there lots and lots of examples to choose from) what about the principle? -- PBS (talk) 12:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Is this really usefully distinct from the principle about courtesy titles (which is what Lord Lisle is), which we already state? The sentence PBS questions was put in, I presume, to curb the people who want to put in all of Wellington's titles, of which there are half-a-dozen. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

<--No that is not what I meant Septentrionalis, on rereading the sentence I realise that I misread it, sorry to have wasted peoples time. -- PBS (talk) 17:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. Can you suggest a wording less prone to misreading? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Archive 15←Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21→Archive 24

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(royalty_and_nobility)/Archive_19&oldid=1142541152"