This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited tojoin the project andcontribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to thedocumentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Russia, aWikiProject dedicated to coverage ofRussia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at theproject page, or contribute to theproject discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of theUnion of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Finland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofFinland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.FinlandWikipedia:WikiProject FinlandTemplate:WikiProject FinlandFinland
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Saints, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofSaints and other individuals commemorated inChristianliturgical calendars on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.SaintsWikipedia:WikiProject SaintsTemplate:WikiProject SaintsSaints
This article is within the scope of theMilitary history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see alist of open tasks. To use this banner, please see thefull instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
This article has been checked against the followingcriteria for B-class status:
I read somewhere in the internet, that Nicolas II was sending soldiers to the battle with no uniforms, no boots, and no rifles. The slaughter was so bad, that there were days he was losing up to 100,000 people per day! Can someone help find this information?It would be interesting to think, what kind of a person would:1. Celebrate his marriage, having a few thousand people stomped to death, (this is why he was called "bloody" first time)2. Have peaceful demonstration of peasants executed,(this is why he was called "bloody" second time)3. Send millions to their death just for his pleasure,and finally be canonized as a saint, just because he happened to be killed by the bolsheviks.— Precedingunsigned comment added by69.246.160.250 (talk)17:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, Wikipedia is a place where facts presented, not propaganda. If you "read something somewhere" it does not necessarily proves to be true. The Great War was a disaster for all the world, and Russia lost less lives than most of its enemies and allies. Max (Moscow, Russia)62.231.5.194 (talk)06:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Russia lost more soldiers than any other country in WW1 except Germany (and the second most civillians and total lives after Turkey), as can be found on the WW1 Casualties wikipedia page.—Precedingunsigned comment added by137.120.200.129 (talk)15:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
laiming that Tsar Nicholas II lost 100,000 soldiers per day is not just wrong — it’s an insult to anyone who can even read a history book. There was never a point in World War I, or in any war in human history, where a nation lost 100,000 soldiers a day. Not even the worst battles like Verdun, the Somme, or Stalingrad reached such ludicrous numbers on all sides combined, let alone for one country alone. Russia’s total casualties over four years of WWI were around three million — wounded, missing, and killed combined — meaning the entire claim falls apart with just the tiniest application of math and common sense. There is no serious historian, Western or Russian, who supports this brain-dead myth. It’s pure internet folklore for people too lazy to pick up a book.
The nonsense about soldiers being sent to war without boots or rifles is another twisted exaggeration. Early in WWI, Russia, like many nations, faced supply shortages — especially during the disastrous early mobilization. But this did not mean millions of men were thrown barefoot and empty-handed into battle. The Russian Imperial Army corrected most supply issues by 1916, and the idea that the Tsar personally ordered a mass suicide of unarmed soldiers is a grotesque distortion invented by Soviet propagandists who needed a cartoon villain to justify their bloody revolution.
Dragging up the Khodynka Tragedy at Nicholas II’s coronation is another intellectually dishonest smear. Yes, it was a tragedy. A terrible stampede killed over a thousand people because of poor crowd management. Nicholas did not cause the stampede. He did not celebrate over corpses. In fact, he wanted to cancel all celebrations but was pressured by government ministers and foreign guests to fulfill diplomatic duties. Pretending this shows him as a heartless monster only exposes the ignorance or malice of the accuser.
As for Bloody Sunday, Nicholas II did not order the massacre. He was not even present in the city when the demonstration was violently dispersed. The truth is that nervous local military commanders, fearing a revolutionary uprising, overreacted. That day was indeed shameful, but laying it personally at Nicholas’ feet is historically false. He actually mourned the deaths and was deeply shaken by what happened.
The claim that he “sent millions to their death for pleasure” is vile. Nicholas II tried to prevent World War I. His telegram correspondence with Kaiser Wilhelm II, known as the “Willy-Nicky telegrams,” shows two monarchs desperately trying to avoid conflict. Once the war was unleashed by Austro-German aggression, Nicholas had no choice but to defend his nation. The suggestion that he derived “pleasure” from war is a slander so evil it doesn’t deserve to be taken seriously.
Finally, Nicholas II and his family were canonized not because of his politics, but because they died as Christian martyrs. They were brutally murdered without trial, without defense, without mercy by the Bolsheviks — slaughtered not because they had done evil, but because they symbolized Orthodox Russia. Nicholas, Alexandra, and their children were recognized for meeting death with patience, prayer, and forgiveness, embodying the very Christian virtues that their murderers hated. They are saints because they bore the Cross until the end, not because of how they ruled.
In short, this entire post you shared is a regurgitation of Soviet-era lies, rooted in communist hatred, not serious history. Anyone repeating this trash today is either a fool who hasn’t read a book in their life or a propagandist who thinks smearing martyrs is clever. It’s pathetic.
I can tell you for one, if read this article on him and Bloody Sunday, you'd know that the czarist officials knew of the event several days before hand, and willingly decided to send the czar out of St. Petersburg on vacation without telling him of the event. He never found out about it until a few days later, in which he wasn't happy. His relatives in St. Petersburg wrote him a letter encouraging not to trust the government officials. My point is the actual czar didn't know how to run the country, and other people were controlling it, and even doing things without his permission. As for him having people stomped on his marriage day, I have no clue what you are talking about.— Precedingunsigned comment added by70.234.177.164 (talk)23:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nicholas II wasn't a saint, but compared toLenin andStalin, he a lamb. In the war, Russia lost about 3,000,000 persons against more than 70,000,000 persons during the "Communist peace" between 1917 and 1991.Agre22 (talk)21:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Read Robert K. Massie's bookNicholas and Alexandra for more information on Nicholas' role in Bloody Sunday and World War I; it also contains an extensive bibliography.Sdsures (talk)21:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly, people who wish to make vague references to "heard somewhere" or "people have said" definitely should do some reasonably serious research. With today's availability of sources online this is not a hard undertaking. - The reference "1. Celebrate his marriage, having a few thousand people stomped to death, (this is why he was called "bloody" first time)" is totally incorrect. The applicable fact pertains to Nicholas' coronation. What happened was that people were trampled to death when souvenirs were being distributed at a mass gathering in a field on the outskirts of Moscow. The stmapede was not ordered by anyone and the resulting deaths were an unfortunate accident. - Item 2 referring to Bloody Sunday is also more accurately explained above when it is noted that Nicholas wasn't even in St. Petersburg at the time of the demonstration and personally couldn't have and didn't give any orders to open fire on the demonstrators.- Item 3 has absolutely ZERO basis in any fact. Certainly it would have been invented as part of Bolshevik/Communist propaganda - as were any number of seemingly "glorious" revolutionary events, including the "storming of the Winter Palace" which never occurred but was staged for Eisenstein's film on the Revolution.We currently live in a time when truth appears to be whatever is believed. Unfortunately, it has become all too easy to believe what you wish - but that does not make it true.Moryak (talk)17:23, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator note Ok, we are going in circles here. If someone has some specific proposals to make regarding edits to the article, backed by reliable sources, those would be welcome. Otherwise this is veering intoWP:FORUM territory and it's time to move on. -Ad Orientem (talk)22:16, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m surprised that there is no mention in this article of the fact that Masonic rituals were performed over the bodies of the Romanovs after their death.Swehlam (talk)01:26, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Swehlam: Adding in the relevant information with a source is more effective than a talk page comment. Although I don't see anything special about that information.Jon698 (talk)01:48, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think this recording should be replaced by the confirmed1902 French speech, if the general feeling is that a voice recording should be included. This Russian speech is a bit problematic—the description of the Wikimedia file even says as much:
"Сотрудники Российского государственного архива фонодокументов (РГАФД) высказывают сомнение, что голос в данной записи принадлежит именно Николаю II, а не, например, командующему парадом."
"Employees of the Russian State Archive of Phonodocuments (RGAFD) express doubt that the voice in this recording belongs to Nicholas II, and not, for example, a commander of the parade."
Apologies if this comes across as rude, but it feels somewhat below standards to include something like this as though it's fact.Zinalova (talk)23:09, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following is a closed discussion of arequested move.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider amove review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was:Moved - whilst numerically this is a wash, the move !voters have a firm basis in their arguments based inWP:NCROY andWP:PRIMARYTOPIC. That Nicholas II already redirects here, and has for a long time without major controversy, was a very strong argument that this page is the primary topic.
Oppose !voters failed to counter this sufficiently. A number of them pointed to the existence of other Nicholas II's but it was taken as read in their arguments that the mere existence of other notable Nicholas II's was sufficient to block the move without regard to whether this Nicholas II was the primary topic. What was needed was a showing that Nicholas II was not the primary topic but instead e.g., Pope Nicholas II was (or nobody was), or otherwise a reason why we should ignoreWP:PRIMARYTOPIC in this case. Even anWP:IAR argument needs a reason toWP:IAR to be given. None was forthcoming.
Other oppose !voters based their arguments on consistency. However, consensus can change and it clearly did change as a result of the discussion aboutWP:NCROY. Consistency cannot be used as a reason to prevent changes that will necessarily have to be done one-by-one.
Strong oppose. Too many Nicolas II's. Doesn't meet criteria. Russia does not have primacy over other countries. Not an improvement, not helpful to readers.Walrasiad (talk)11:03, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bizarre non-sequitur. You said you'd oppose if the shortened form did not redirect here. But shortened forms often redirect to articles with longer names. Einstein was just an example.Walrasiad (talk)15:02, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yet the shortened form,Nicholas II, does direct here and not to the disamb page, and has without controversy since mid-2007, so in this case brevity of title does merit consideration and attention.Randy Kryn (talk)15:42, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And the shortened fromEinstein directs to "Albert Einstein", and not to a disambiguation page. Also without controversy. By your logic that article title should also be abbreviated then?Walrasiad (talk)16:13, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No.WP:SINGLENAME tells usUsing the last name as the page title for a person, when the first name is also known and used, is discouraged, even if that name would be unambiguous, and even if it consists of more than one word. Unambiguous last names are usually redirects: for example, Ludwig van Beethoven is the title of an article, while Van Beethoven and Beethoven redirect to that article.
In the case at hand, the applicable guideline isWP:NCROY, and specifically point 3 which tells us not to use "of country" when the shorter form is either unambiguous (not the case here) or is the primary meaning (whichis the case here).Rosbif73 (talk)16:19, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In what way is "Nicholas II" his common name? How often do you see him referred to by that name out of context? It's almost always "Tsar Nicholas II". And it's people who are reading a name out of context that we should be thinking of, not people who already have an encyclopedic knowledge of Russian history.Deb (talk)09:55, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid people are hidebound by the "COMMONNAME" mantra (sorry about the mixed metaphor) and hold a mistaken belief that this is a hard and fast rule, rather than a guideline written by fallible human beings. But if you don't give your opinion, they won't begin to understand.Deb (talk)09:53, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As noted above, the key difference isWP:SINGLENAME:Using the last name as the page title for a person, when the first name is also known and used, is discouraged, even if that name would be unambiguous, and even if it consists of more than one word.WP:SOVEREIGNexplicitly says we shouldOnly use a territorial designation (e.g. country) whendisambiguation is needed (emphasis mine).HouseBlaster (talk · he/him)01:03, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's part of the main article titling policy. SeeWP:CONCISE:Exceptions exist for biographical articles. It then gives exaples of the SINGLENAME variety, but nothing suggests that exceptions of the "Nicholas II of Russia" type are out of step with it.Srnec (talk)21:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As the person who nominated this, I am a little taken aback thatyou are accusing me of filing an RM without justification. The first sentence in the RM was
WP:SOVEREIGN says we shouldonly use a territorial designation (e.g. country) when disambiguation is needed.
Disambiguationclearly is needed in this case. If you walked down any street and asked someone who "Nicholas II" was, you'd almost certainly get a blank look. But ask them who "Nicholas II of Russia" is, and they might well say "Oh, wasn't he the emperor who got shot?"Deb (talk)09:46, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you asked them about Pope Nicholas II or these obscure noblemen you'd get another blank look, so just goes to show who the primary topic is. It's an easy enough experiment to leave the ''thought experiment'' realm into the practical real. Random people you'd meet on the street are likely not Wikipedians.Killuminator (talk)13:12, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like this is a fair point for some of the lesser known monarchs likeGustaf IV Adolf, or evenFerdinand VII, but I feel like if you were to walk down the street and ask someone who "Nicholas II" was, you'd problem get a vaguely correct answer, just as would happen if you asked this hypothetical person whoElizabeth II was. Plus,WP:RECOGNIZABILITY doesn't even require a title be sufficiently recognizable for an average person on a street, but rather forsomeone familiar with, though not necessarily an expert in, the subject area…estar8806 (talk)★16:33, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No it’s not a reason against moving them. This apparent inconsistency in related titles is a necessary and unavoidable result of disambiguating only when necessary in accordance with CRITERIA, particularly CONCISE snd PRECISE (but no more precise than necessary). In fact, this exception is explicitly noted atWP:CONSISTENT and is not contrary to policy. —В²C☎20:49, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to be fair in the case of George II vs George III the names of the realms changed. It was during George III's reign that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was formed. I don't think any such changes in names occurred when the Russian emperors were ruling (?).Keivan.fTalk21:03, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter how many other Nicholas IIs there are, as this one is the clear primary topic and has been a primary redirect since 2007.Rosbif73 (talk)17:44, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Opposition is completely ignoring PRIMARYTOPIC. My goodness.Nicholas II has redirected here for almost 20 years without dispute. That establishes this Nicholas II is the PT no matter how many others are listed on the dab page. Even if that was an error, then opposers have the burden to show this one is not primary. Pointlessly noting the undisputed ambiguity as if that’s relevant here is unhelpful. The closer is required to discount these !votes accordingly. The only substantive opposition is based on COMMONNAME, holding that the proposed title is not sufficiently recognizable. But NCROY flies in the face of this position when it says “ofcountry” is to be included only when necessary for disambiguation. So per NCROY, CONCISE, PRECISE, COMMONNAME, and PRIMARYTOPIC, not to mention a dearth of any opposition that holds up to scrutiny, this article must be moved as proposed. —В²C☎20:36, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Albert Einstein is the name of the article perWP:NCP. As a recognised naming convention, there is some primacy given toWP:CONSISTENTcy. AtWP:CONCISE (part of the policy,WP:AT) we are also told:... given names and family names are usually not omitted or abbreviated for the purposes of concision (with a specific link toWP:NCP) In the case ofNicholas II,WP:NCROY permits the proposed move in the circumstances that apply.WP:P&G does not supportEinstein being the article title. The argument being made is afalse analogyCinderella157 (talk)04:25, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that prior to the change to NCROY, the current title was as supported as Albert Einstein. In other words, it has nothing to do with CONCISE, PRECISE, COMMONNAME, and PRIMARYTOPIC and everything to do with NCROY—a recenty and highly disputed change. I oppose the move because I oppose the chaneg to NCROY. The current title is as compliant with CONCISE, PRECISE, COMMONNAME, and PRIMARYTOPIC as Albert Einstein is.Srnec (talk)16:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. AsCinderella157 noted, support for titles likeAlbert Einstein is explicitly baked intoWP:CRITERIA atWP:AT. Support for the current title here is not. The current title was never compliant; even with the former guidance at NCROY it was a begrudgingly tolerated exception thatcontradicted policy. If fact, that's why it was fixed, with a strong consensus, by the way. --В²C☎21:22, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean is that CRITERIA, more preciselyWP:CONCISION, explicitly specifies guidance for titles likeAlbert Einstein: “given names and family names are usually not omitted or abbreviated for the purposes of concision”, as noted byCinderella157. Your contention that CRITERIA support Einstein over Albert Einstein is incorrect. However, there is no guidance allowing for “ofcountry” contravening CONCISE there, or anywhere atWP:AT, unless needed for disambiguation.
Support In these circumstances, the prevailingWP:P&G is quite clear. This article is theWP:PRIMARYTOPIC for Nicholas II andNicholas II is currently a redirect to this article. Theof Russia in the present title is therefore redundant.WP:TITLEDAB would tell us to prefer concision over unnecessary precision. While there may be articles for others called Nicholas II, there is noactual conflict in article titlesneeding to be resolved by a more precise name. The move is also consistent withWP:NCROY. There is no conflict withWP:COMMONNAME. Nicholas IIis his commonly used name, not something else likePeter the Great. Whether it is sometimes preceded byTsar or succeeded byof Russia is immaterial. The use ofTsar would be deprecated byWP:NCROY save in exceptional circumstances and theof Russia is unnecessary precision for the same reasonKing Louis XVI of France is a redirect and not the article name.Cinderella157 (talk)00:23, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This seems to be another in a series of requests triggered by a contentious change to NCROY. While I agree it's generally best to apply a guideline consistently once it's established, not every change to every guideline actually works out — and one of the ways we determine whether itis working out is by observing RMs like these. From what I can see, they've been uniformly contentious with the community widely split on whether the proposed titles are actually better than the existing ones, with policy-based arguments both ways. Given that some such RMs have failed entirely (theEdwards, Richards,Christians, etc.), I think the signs strongly point to revisiting NCROY (and it looks like that discussion may already be starting there).
A misleading argument I see from supporters is that if a more concise form redirects to a less concise one — in this caseNicholas II redirecting toNicholas II of Russia — then the more concise form must necessarily be the preferable title, butpolicy does not assert that.Cézanne, for instance, is more concise thanPaul Cézanne;110th Congress is more concise than110th United States Congress;Missoula is more concise thanMissoula, Montana; andUS andUK are more concise thanUnited States andUnited Kingdom. In innumerable cases Wikipedia redirects shorter forms to longer or more descriptive titles,because there are other relevant factors that policy insists we consider. These sometimes make the less concise form the better/preferable one, and this applies to articles on nobility.
PerWP:CRITERIA,"the choice of article titles should put the interests of readers before those of editors, and those of a general audience before those of specialists." No one has made the case that removing the nation from this title actually serves the reader in any way or improves their experience; including it, though, provides context helpful to the reader and improves recognizability. Also, sinceWP:COMMONNAME directs us to seek titles "in an encyclopedic register", it's useful to see thattheBritannica article includes the clarifier "Tsar of Russia" with the title, again presumably in the interests of their readers. Put simply, and NCROY notwithstanding, I just don't see any benefits to these changes that outweigh the cons.╠╣uw[talk]17:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So many words to say so little. The underlying issue is about category-specific guidelines merely supplementing CRITERIA (particularly with respect to disambiguation guidance when necessary), or whether it’s acceptable to contravene CRITERIA, and if so, under what conditions. More and more we seem to be moving towards the former view, which basically means disambiguate only when necessary. Regarding benefiting readers, readers benefit the same regardless of what the title is. —В²C☎17:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's demonstrably false and doesn't address the relevant issues, but at least it's concise, which I guess is all that matters.╠╣uw[talk]21:36, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please demonstrate that readers benefit from "Nicholas II of Russia"as a title more than they benefit more from "Nicholas II" as a title. Please account for the fact that when the article is at "Nicholas II", "Nicholas II of Russia" redirects to this article (and vice versa), and the article's lead sentence specifies the subject is "of Russia". --В²C☎02:17, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to your claim that"readers benefit the same regardless of what the title is." That's false. There's no technical reason we couldn't title our articles usingGUIDs, but doing so would (among other things) make it impossible to search for articles by title, which would worsen readers' experience.
As for royal naming conventions, considerCharles X andCharles XI. Is it sufficiently clear to whom those titles refer? And is it clear that they're monarchs oftwo entirely different nations? Even as someone familiar with royalty, I'd say no. The titlesCharles X of France andCharles XI of Sweden, however,do indicate the subject with sufficient clarity. Including the nation adds important context that helps readers better recognize what the article is about. That other important encyclopedias likeBritannica also include such clarifiers with their titles is another good indication that it's beneficial, desirable, and serves an important purpose. (AndWP:COMMONNAME specifically encourages us to make such comparisons.)
The same applies to the article we're considering here: simply put,Nicholas II of Russia better meets our standards for a good title thanNicholas II. In part this is because including the nation better serves the interests of our readers, as shown — something thatWP:CRITERIA specifically instructs us to consider. In part it's also because doing otherwise failsWP:CONSISTENT, given that we'll apparently be keeping his predecessor atNicholas I of Russia. Will readers appreciate why they follow different patterns? Unlikely. The reason is a specialist concern of importance only to editors, and (again) policy is clear that that's not our priority.╠╣uw[talk]13:40, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CONSISTENT tells us thatjust becauseGeorgia (country) exists, there is no reason to have articles titled, for instance,Azerbaijan (country),Armenia (country), etc.. Exactly the same logic applies to sovereigns and "of country" descriptors. Readers don't need to appreciate the reasons behind the different patterns, any more than they need to worry about the internal workings of Wikipedia, because the entire system is designed with readers in mind (in particular with redirects and short descriptions to help guide them to the article they are looking for).Rosbif73 (talk)14:17, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That passage notes specifically that parenthetical disambiguators required for one article don’t need to be applied to all others that are not ambiguous. I agree with that — but that’s not the situation here.Nicholas II, after all, is technically unambiguous (just asUK orCézanne or103rd Congress are). The “of country” clarifiers for royal articles exist to help us best meet ourgood title criteria, and to best serve the interests of our readers — and as such they should be applied consistently. As the policy notes, “we follow patterns from article titles for similar topics to the extent that this is practical.” It’s clearly not impractical to consistently include the country, particularly if doing so serves a beneficial purpose — and as I and others contend, it does.╠╣uw[talk]14:53, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see parenthetical disambiguators and "of country" disambiguators as totally analogous; both can be omitted except when needed to resolve ambiguity. I guess we'll have to agree to differ on that, and on whether including the country consistently would serve a beneficial purpose.Rosbif73 (talk)15:47, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it would be impossible to search for articles by title if we used GUIDs for titles, but it wouldn’t worsen reader experiences, at least not in terms of searching. Because redirects. The only advantage of using the recognizable COMMONNAME for the title rather than a GUID is to inform the reader what the COMMONNAME is for the subject once they land there. In fact, for all intents and purposes for most readers our FLORA articles use GUIDs for their titles, except of course they’re not really GUIDs; they’re the scientific names. But for most of us they’re just as obscure, random and arbitrary as GUID titles would be, EXCEPT, they inform us of the scientific name. Try looking upJoshua Tree,Redwood orMilkweed by their actual titles instead of by these redirects. Good luck. So when you land atAsclepias by searching with “milkweed” does it really matter that the title isAsclepias since it’s in the lead sentence also? In that case I submit the article would be no less helpful with a random meaningless GUID title. However, I still wouldn’t support using GUIDs because for many articles, likeJohn Wayne, the COMMONNAME isn’t as obviously specified in the lead sentence.
The main purpose of a title is to be a unique identifier for the article.
The secondary purpose of the title is to definitively specify the COMMONNAME to the reader.
A bonus function of titles is they inform the reader not only of what the COMMONNAME is, but also if whether it’s primary (or unambiguous), or whether it’s ambiguous and not primary.
Nothing meaningful in a title serves any purpose in searching. Just being the redirect target of any likely search term fulfills all search requirements.
Due to technical requirements the COMMONNAME may need to be disambiguated
If not for #2 and #3, titles could be random unique GUIDs.
#2 is also why it’s critical that titles reflect the COMMONNAME per CRITERIA, disambiguated only if necessary.
It’s important to only disambiguate when necessary consistently so that our #3 is reliably conveyed to our readers. The current title, “Nicholas II of Russia” is misleading with respect to 3: it wrongly implies this Nicholas II is not the primary topic for this name, and requires disambiguation.
Because the only purposes/functions of titles are #1-3, adding “clarity” or any additional information to a title besides COMMONNAME and necessary disambiguation is a disservice to our readers.
Addressing the argument made in opposition by the OP of this sub-thread:
No one has made the case that removing the nation from this title actually serves the reader in any way or improves their experience; including it, though, provides context helpful to the reader and improves recognizability. The relevant question is whether it (significantly) decreases the reader experience and conversely, whether it (significantly) increases the reader experience. TheWP:CRITERIA must be balanced and not every criterion necessarily carries equal weight. If the title is sufficiently recognisable, then additional precision toimprove recognisability is unnecessary and to be balanced againstWP:CONCISION Given thatNicholas II is the primary topic, it is sufficiently recognisable forsomeone familiar with ... the subject area will recognize.
it's useful to see that the Britannica article includes the clarifier "Tsar of Russia" with the title, again presumably in the interests of their readers Thispresumption is unsubstantiated opinion. Britannica is but one encyclopedia. There are few online encyclopedias that would be consideredWP:RSs butOxford Reference would useNicholas II (1868–1918) in four English language publications.Encyclopedia.comhere, would similarly give an additional three English language publications. For whatever reasons,of Russia is not considered as necessary. FromWP:AT:Other encyclopedias are among the sources that may be helpful in deciding what titles are in an encyclopedic register, as well as what names are most frequently used. These other encyclopedic publications do not support the additional precision in the titleNicholas II of Russia.
An argument falling toother stuff would cite exceptions to using the shorter titles:US,UK,Cézanne,Missoula and110th Congress.Other stuff arguments lack validity unless such examples aredirectly analogous and reflectbest practice. Simply presenting these examples, as done, is not a cogent argument. On the use of abbreviations as article titles,WP:AT would specifically refer toWP:Manual of Style/Abbreviations § Acronyms in page titles which states:In general, if readers somewhat familiar with the subject are likely to only recognise the name by its acronym, then the acronym should be used as a title - ie, we are being told byWP:P&G that we generally prefer the expanded names as article titles over abbreviations. For the names of people,WP:CONCISE (atWP:AT) would state:... given names and family names are usually not omitted or abbreviated for the purposes of concision (with a specific link toWP:NCP). We are told byWP:P&G that we generally use both the given name and surname of a person in an article title.Missoula, Montana is preferred by the naming conventionWP:USPLACE atWikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), which is specifically recognised byWP:AT.110th United States Congress is a numeric sequence consistent with the parent articleUnited States Congress, whereCongress is another topic and, while there may not be a need to disambiguate the110th Congress, there is a need to disambiguate other congresses (eg1st Congress). There is, therefore, a strong logical argument to maintain consistency across the numeric series of titles. For one reason, a common pattern facilitates the infobox template coding to link to preceding and succeeding congresses in the infobox.
Theseother stuff examples are a fallacious argument byfalse analogy.
A misleading argument I see from supporters is that if a more concise form redirects to a less concise one — in this case Nicholas II redirecting to Nicholas II of Russia — then the more concise form must necessarily be the preferable title, but policy does not assert that. AtWP:TITLEDAB (part ofWP:AT):According to the above-mentionedprecision criterion, when a more detailed title is necessary to distinguish an article topic from another, use only as much additional detail as necessary.WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is specifically referred to atWP:PRECISION (part ofWP:AT). It would tell us that while a term preferred for a title may be ambiguous, if there is a primary target for this otherwise ambiguous term, then the preferred term should nonetheless be used for the article which is the primary target. The arguments being made here are that these shorter titles are either unambiguous or that they are reasonably the primary target.WP:OVERPRECISION is an alternative shortcut forWP:PRECISION atWP:AT. It gives the example,...Saint Teresa of Calcutta is too precise, asMother Teresa is precise enough ...Nicholas II of Russia is a very similar form toSaint Teresa of Calcutta. Just asMother Teresa is precise enough,Nicholas II is also precise enough because these titles are the primary topics.WP:ATis clearly asserting that we should only apply sufficient precision to resolve ambiguity between titles of other articles, notwithstanding some exceptions that are given atWP:AT or acknowledged naming conventions and like. Names such as this with the patternX of Y exist because of a somewhatmandatory naming pattern thatexisted atWP:NCROY which was in conflict with the policy atWP:AT and actual practice. This inconsistency has now been remedied bythis RfC.
Further, encyclopedia.com references theEncyclopedia of Modern Europe which includes with the title the clarifier “emperor of Russia”. And theEncyclopedia of Russian History which it also references would not note the country because it's explicitly Russian.
The most concise unambiguous form is indeed preferred, but policy does not require it if an alternative better meets our criteria. Again, WP practice abundantly affirms this.
Your comments about PT make my point: in many areas we do indeed follow patterns that redirect more concise unambiguous terms to longer ones because doing so can help us achieve the best and most encyclopedic titles, or achieve sets of titles that are more consistent than they would be otherwise. We refine and adjust these guidelines as needs are identified... and my sense from RMs like this one and others is that NCROY needs such revision.
Finally: it's fine for editors to weight criteria and interpret policies differently, and I appreciate that you and B2C share a different opinion than mine. My posts here are replies to my own !vote, and I have no interest in bludgeoning others. Please show the same courtesy. Cheers,╠╣uw[talk]00:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
oppose It makes no sense - but then the naming of monarchs and spouses of monarchs all over Wikipedia are a mess, as are the ridiculous rules which are dismissed as amateurish by historians.FearÉIREANN\(caint)19:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi, there. I am just wondering, is there a reason the infobox doesn't give his title as "Emperor of all the Russias"? From my understanding, the article title normally says "of [country]", but the infobox gives the title in its full. What I mean, for example, seeConstantine II of Greece. The article title says "of Greece" and the infobox gives his proper title, "King of the Hellenes" (as perWP:COGNOMEN). So, yeah, if anyone knows how come the Russian emperors' pages don't follow this, please let me know! Thanks. -Therealscorp1an (talk)22:11, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because "Emperor of Russia", is more common. If we use the Greek example? the infobox would have "Emperor and Autocrat of all the Russias", "King of Poland" & "Grand Duke of Finland".GoodDay (talk)08:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-4 vital article is ratedC-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale.
Administrator note Ok, we are going in circles here. If someone has some specific proposals to make regarding edits to the article, backed by reliable sources, those would be welcome. Otherwise this is veering intoWP:FORUM territory and it's time to move on. -Ad Orientem (talk)22:16, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a"change X to Y" format and provide areliable source if appropriate.Day Creature (talk)15:49, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
%2c_Emblem_of_the_Russian_Federation_(1991%25E2%2580%25931992).svg)
