Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)
Page contents not supported in other languages.
Archives |
| 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20 21,22,23,24 |
This page has archives. Sections older than180 days may be auto-archived byLowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 7. |
The result of the discussion isconsensus in support of the proposal to update the guideline to explicitly endorse the use of shorter titles where no disambiguation is needed.
Discussion focused around article titleWP:CRITERIA and current practices.
Based on the strength of argument from existing policy, and existing practices amongst editors, as well as the preponderance of opinions, there is a strong consensus to adopt the proposal.
I will point out that based on points raised in this discussion, the proposal is very much in line with existing policy, namelyWP:CRITERIA. My own opinion is that it may benefit editors to have this guideline updated to better reflect that policy, rather than be laid out as "exceptions to exceptions" to that policy. It could be an opportunity to simplify the guideline. However that note is explicitly not an outcome of the discussion and just my own interpretation of the state of the guideline with respect to the discussion.(non-admin closure) —siroχo09:46, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For over a decade now the titles of articles about British monarchs have been atElizabeth II,George VI,Edward VIII, etc. Likewise it has been 13 years sinceMaria Theresa of Austria was moved toMaria Theresa(discussion) andLouis-Philippe I of France toLouis-Philippe I(discussion), longer still sinceNapoleon I of France was abandoned forNapoleon. Three years ago the country qualifiers were dropped for titles such asJuan Carlos I and others(discussion),Carl XVI Gustaf and others(discussion),Elizabeth I(discussion) and others,Louis XIV and others(discussion), etc.
This year multiple attempts to move articles back to the Name Number of Country format failed:Alfonso XIII toAlfonso XIII of Spain and similar(discussion),Napoleon III toNapoleon III of France and similar(discussion),Elizabeth II toElizabeth II of the United Kingdom and similar(discussion)
Should a point be added toWP:SOVEREIGNS to reflect these changes and explicitly endorse the use of shorter titles where no disambiguation is needed?Surtsicna (talk)Surtsicna (talk)07:50, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
normally have article titles in the form"{Monarch's first name and ordinal} of {Country}") is misleading by omission. The community has upheld "{Monarch's first name and ordinal}" across a range of articles, a pattern which cannot be swept under the rug as exceptions. Even something as simple as, "in most cases, they have article titles of the form '{Monarch's first name and ordinal} of {Country}'...; in other cases, they have article titles of the form '{First name and ordinal}' (examples:Elizabeth II,Napoleon III)", would be a helpful start. I'm not proposing to bring back the overly rigid-sounding prescriptive language ("ifxyz is unambiguous, usexyz") from 2–3 years ago. Rather, the problem is that the guideline should be more accurately descriptive of actual practice. Spending some words on this is not unnecessary creep; it's a significant point that has naturally arisen repeatedly.Adumbrativus (talk)11:27, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the worst being that non-regnant queens are given more formality than regnant queens; why is that bad? I don’t understand your third sentence.Aaron Liu (talk)13:35, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Article titles should be recognizable, concise, natural, precise, and consistent, with "recognizable" defined as recognizable to people familiar with the subject. On preciseness it explicitly says
Saint Teresa of Calcutta is too precise, as Mother Teresa is precise enough to indicate exactly the same topic.So according to that policy we should just drop the origin unless there is a clear need to disambiguate, which I don't see with Queen Victoria. The other three are way less well-known than the one of the UK.Aaron Liu (talk)23:17, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is a real world convention, historically, for royalty to be suffixed “of country”. No there isn't. That's just an unsupported assertion. "George V of the United Kingdom". Nope. What you're missing is the regnal number doesall the heavy lifting where there's no need for disambiguation. (Lack of a regnal number may be one of the circumstances where more is needed egJohn, King of England.) Otherwise it's just clunky and pointless.DeCausa (talk)22:30, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
endorse the use of shorter titleswhere no disambiguation is needed(emphasis added). The arguments in favor seem to citeWP:CONSISTENT, which explicitly says
Wikipedians have consistently shown that consistency doesnot control: Disambiguation. For instance, just becauseGeorgia (country) exists, there is no reason to have articles titled, for instance,Azerbaijan (country),Armenia (country), etc. This applies to natural disambiguation, as well; the existence ofQuerétaro City andChihuahua City does not mean we have to retitleGuadalajara toGuadalajara City(emphasis in original).WP:CONCISEandWP:CONSISTENT say we should avoid unnecessary "of Country" disambiguation.HouseBlastertalk20:11, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE A: This is my first time participating in an RfC. I apologize if I have done anything improperly, andI especially apologize if posting a rationale in this format is inappropriate. However, I amvery passionate about the issue at hand, and I want to make my stance as clear and unambiguous as possible. NOTE B: The following argument is intended to speak only for my viewpoint on the subject of this RfC. I recognize that this issue isvery contentious, and I have taken a stance on this matter, as I explain below. However, I will accept the outcome of this RfC, even if it is not my preferred one. In addition, I am aware that there are some other editors that agree with the opinions expressed below. However, I would like for these contributors to speak on their own behalf.HurricaneAndrew (444)00:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
AndrewPeterT’s attempt to neutrally summarize the issue[edit]As the nominator noted, there has been disagreement about what the appropriate title should be for certain European monarchs that have reigned since the end of the Middle Ages. At the core of this debate is an argument over whetherWP:PRIMARYTOPIC andWP:COMMONNAME orWP:NCROY andWP:CONSISTENT should take precedence when naming articles on European royalty and nobility. As illustrated in the RMs linked in the next section, both sides of the involved parties have cited WP:PRIMARYTOPIC/WP:COMMONNAME or WP:NCROY/WP:CONSISTENT to justify their reasonings to support their viewpoints.HurricaneAndrew (444)00:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply] Evidence to illustrate that the RfC issue raised has indeed been contentious[edit]
As I will elaborate on later, the linked RMs show thatneither the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC/WP:COMMONNAME camp nor the WP:NCROY/WP:CONSISTENT camp in this argument have a monopoly on article title naming for European sovereigns, other royals, and nobles.HurricaneAndrew (444)00:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply] AndrewPeterT’s concise opinion on the RfC matter[edit]No, titles such asElizabeth II andCarl XVI Gustaf are unacceptable for English Wikipedia purposes and should not be explicitly accepted. These titles violate the spirit of WP:NCROY, WP:CONSISTENT, and all of the four other goals of WP:TITLE. Also, as I will argue later, even WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:COMMONNAME make a case for alternative names such asElizabeth II of the United Kingdom andCarl XVI Gustaf of Sweden.Furthermore, given the contentiousness of this RfC matter,WP:IAR should be invoked so that WP:NCROY and WP:CONSISTENT takes precedence when titling articles covered by the scope of WP:NCROY.If an arguable “primary topic” or “common name” exists for a given post-classical European royal or noble, that title can exist as a redirect to the given individual’s article. This practice has precedence on Wikipedia, as I will illustrate in a later section.HurricaneAndrew (444)00:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply] Concessions to the opposition that AndrewPeterT will make[edit]
Therefore, for the following groups of royals and nobles,I will accept WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:COMMONNAME taking precedence over WP:NCROY in titling their articles, regardless of what is decided in this RfC:
However, once again, I donot accept WP:PRIMARYTOPIC or WP:COMMONNAME taking precedence over WP:NCROY or WP:CONSISTENT for post-classical European sovereigns, royals, or nobles for reasons that I will elaborate on in subsequent sections.HurricaneAndrew (444)00:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply] WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NCROY, and WP:CONSISTENT are all guidelines,not rigid rules[edit]On multiple occasions,WP:PRINCIPLE makes the case that the four guidelines in the previous header arenot Wikipedia laws:
With these quotes in mind, neither camp in this RfC debate, including my own side, can use our policy preferences to claim a monopoly on how article titles for European royals and noblesshould be called. That being said, with certain accommodations, I will argue how WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:COMMONNAME cannot objectively “cover the context” that WP:NCROY describes.HurricaneAndrew (444)00:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:COMMONNAME do not have the best interest of (European) royal and noble article titles in mind[edit]AsWP:PGE explains, a common misconception that Wikipedia users have is that a sitewide guideline takes precedence over a local one: (Emphasis mine) WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:COMMONNAME are both examples of a
HurricaneAndrew (444)00:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply] There is no uniform way to adhere to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in general, and this is especially problematic for WP:NCROY[edit]Simply stated,WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, as written, will never be conclusive when it comes to European royalty. This is supported by the fact that the guideline page mentions (at least) three times that no uniform definition of aprimary topic exists:
In addition, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, viaWP:DPT, lists several ways to determine a “primary topic”. However, all of these tools involve Internet resources, which is especially restrictive in the context of royalty and nobility. Even when only considering a European context, many sovereigns and nobles ruled before the advent of the Internet.There are likely lost written or verbal manuscripts, speeches, and other primary/secondary sources over the centuries that may indicate a “primary” term could have referred to a different ruler than what Internet results may indicate. Moreover, in the spirit ofWP:BIAS, the tools listed in WP:DPT exclude the perspectives of people that do not have access to Internet and can preclude users from checking online documents that have apaywall. Consequently, entire groups of individuals’ “primary” usage of a term are disregarded via these resources, and this is against the mission of Wikipedia. Given that monarchs and their royal relatives are especially pertinent symbols of unity for a nation or sovereign state,every perspective should be brought to the table,especially of those without Internet. In other words, namely for monarchs that share regnal names and numbers,we should not be omitting country names from article titles until those without Internet and otherwise excluded by WP:DPT’s resources have equitable access to voice their opinions on primary topics on Wikipedia to get a truly conclusive debate.HurricaneAndrew (444)00:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply] Example of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC being (very) inconclusive: The simultaneous case of Albert II To make it extremely clear how WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is flawed in the realm of WP:NCROY, consider the following situation. At the start of the 2010s,Monaco andBelgium were both ruled by monarchs namedAlbert II. Suppose that Wikipedia community tried to determine a “primary topic” forAlbert II. There are useful arguments that could be made for either Albert II taking that article titleper se. On one hand,
On the other hand,
Evidently, in this situation, the Wikipedia community could choose a legitimate primary topic forAlbert II for either sovereign.However, for the bolded reasons for each monarch, Wikipedia could perceived as beingnationalistic toward either Belgium or Monaco by the opposing parties. Again, given how prominent European royals are to national unity, Wikipedia runs the same risk of nationalist accusations when moving any article title on a monarch so that a country name is excluded.HurricaneAndrew (444)00:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It’s not just about WP:CONSISTENT, it’s about all of the other goals of WP:TITLE[edit]When I requested that Elizabeth II’s article title be moved toElizabeth II of the United Kingdom, I made the following argument in my rationale:
Simply stated, consistency sets the tone for all other goals of WP:TITLE to be met. For example, If a reader has just read Wikipedia’s article onMargrethe II of Denmark and knows that her first cousin, Carl XVI Gustaf, rules over Sweden,would they not type inCarl XVI Gustaf of Sweden into the search bar next per Criterion 5 of WP:TITLE? (In any case, in the spirit of Criterion 2 of WP:TITLE, “Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden” was more natural for me to type than “Carl XVI Gustaf”, and this will likely be the case for at least some other readers.)Moreover, I hope that we can all agree that titles like “Margrethe II of Denmark” and “Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden” unambiguously define who those monarchs are, per Criterion 3 of WP:TITLE. Furthermore, reflecting Criterion 4 of WP:TITLE, there should be agreement that “Margrethe II” and “Carl XVI Gustaf” do not tell the reader anything about the realms these cousins ruled over. Finally, per Criterion 1 of WP:TITLE, “Margrethe II of Denmark” and “Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden” should tell readers that they are about to read about some royaljust as effectively as “Margrethe II” and “Carl XVI Gustaf” would.HurricaneAndrew (444)00:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence of omitting a monarch’s country from the article title being challenged by the community[edit]For this section, I would like to direct readers’ attention to what happened after the community moved George III (of the United Kingdom)’s article to its current target (I also cited this RM in my RM for Elizabeth II’s article title).Multiple policy-based oppositions quickly emerged. Although I did not participate in this move discussion, I completely agree with the sentiments of the users that challenged the move for George III. Moreover,the opposition expressed on George III’s article talk was a key reason I initiated the RM for Elizabeth II and the other deceased British monarchs’ articles last July.HurricaneAndrew (444)00:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply] Evidence of WP:TITLE itself deferring to WP:NCROY[edit]If it is not convincing enough that WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC either do not take a stance or even overtly discourage this new trend in titling European monarchs’ articles, perhaps these four quotes from WP:TITLE should settle some concerns:
HurricaneAndrew (444)00:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply] Final thoughts by AndrewPeterT[edit]
Side issues that AndrewPeterT believes the community also needs to address[edit]
These are simply the top three concerns I personally have about WP:NCROY. For the sake of everyone’s focus, I will refrain from commenting on more matters until this RfC is resolved.HurricaneAndrew (444)00:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply] APPENDIX A: Evidence of omitting a monarch’s country from the article title violating the spirit of WP:CONSISTENT, and by extension, WP:TITLE[edit]I respect that multiple users believe that article title formats likeElizabeth II is more in the spirit of WP:COMMONNAME.However, WP:COMMONNAME must be balanced against WP:CONSISTENT,WP:PRECISION, andWP:NPOVTITLE. An analysis of the titles of various sovereigns of current European monarchs shows howWP:CONSISTENT and WP:PRECISION are being disregarded for the sake of adhering to WP:COMMONNAME: NOTES: First, to avoid overwhelming readers not familiar with European royalty, rulers of former monarchies are excluded. Also, as alluded to previously, sovereigns of the Vatican City are excluded because they are popes instead covered byWP:NCCL. Furthermore, the Presidents of France and Bishops of Urgell, the Co-Princes of Andorra, are excluded because they are instead subjected toWP:NCP and WP:NCCL, respectively. Monarchs of Belgium All sovereigns that have reigned since Belgium’s independence from the Netherlands in 1830 are included.
Monarchs of Denmark All sovereigns that have reigned since the establishment of the Danish House of Glücksburg in 1863 are included.
Monarchs of the Netherlands All sovereigns that have reigned since the establishment of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in 1815 are included.
Monarchs of Norway All sovereigns that have reigned since the dissolution of thepersonal union of Norway with Sweden in 1905 are included.
Monarchs of Spain All sovereigns that have reigned in Spain since the establishment of the House of Bourbon-Anjou in 1700 are included, excluding monarchs from other royal houses.
Monarchs of Sweden All sovereigns that have reigned in Sweden since the establishment of the House of Bernadotte in 1818 are included.
Monarchs of Great Britain or the United Kingdom All sovereigns that have reigned since the unification of the Kingdoms of England and Scotland in 1707 are included.
Monarchs of Luxembourg All sovereigns that have reigned since the dissolution of thepersonal union of Luxembourg with the Netherlands in 1890 are included.
Sovereign Princes of Liechtenstein
Rulers of Monaco Sovereigns since Monaco became a principality in 1633 are listed, excluding periods of occupation.
HurricaneAndrew (444)00:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply] APPENDIX B: Evidence of WP:COMMONNAME already being disregarded for multiple European royals (and WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT being used)[edit]As I have mentioned, some users have argued WP:COMMONNAME. However, as I will demonstrate in this section,it is already a precedent that WP:NCROY supersedes WP:COMMONNAME when it comes to naming English Wikipedia articles on royals.Below, I have listed select princes and princesses from five current European monarchies. Moreover, using Google search results,I show that each of their Wikipedia article titles are less common than some alternatives but are still used regardless. I see no reason why monarchs’ titles should not follow the same trend in the spirit of WP:CONSISTENT:
|
Well, the RMs are popping up & a few unilatteral page moves have begun, in these last few weeks.GoodDay (talk)19:13, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they have. And quite frankly, this is becoming a matter beyond which an RfC at this time can resolve.HurricaneAndrew (444)19:36, 25 November 2023 (UTC), last edited 18:33, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since this section has not been archived yet, I would like to write the following for future records:
AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs)18:33, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In light of the RfC about changing this guideline to endorse concise titles such asElizabeth II, I have proposed several moves regarding articles about English kings (fromEdward I toEdward V). Please seeTalk:Edward I#Requested move 5 November 2023.Surtsicna (talk)19:47, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are invited to join the discussion atWikipedia:Requests for comment/Titles of European monarchs. Although previous participants in related discussions have been pinged, others who watch these guidelines may also be interested.Rosbif73 (talk)07:06, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DrKay: Thank you for your contribution to the article. I noticed that you have reverted my edit regarding the title of the baronage section. I'd like to understand your reasoning for not following the general article titling policy in this case.
Could you please explain why you believe the baronage titles should not adhere to the standard titling conventions used throughout the rest of the article? I'm happy to discuss this further so we can reach an agreement.Daniel Plumber (talk)20:41, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The suggested text says "The title Baron of X becomes part of the legal name as a title of nobility and is included in British passports for official documents." but the source given to support this[2], section "Scottish feudal baronies" doesn't support this: their legal name will change from "John Smith" to "John Smith of Glenfiddich", not "John Smith, Baron of Glenfiddich" ("Surname: (surname) of (territorial designation) Forename: (forenames)"), and the "baron of" part is only in the observations, not in the name.Fram (talk)10:57, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You insist on the legality of these titles, which I don't believe anyone has disputed. Discussion are about how we should title these, about the exact text of the potential section included for these, and more in general about the importance of the current ones and their status compared to the older ones. Perhaps it would be helpful if we had 5 or so current articles and a discussion about what the name would be in these cases. Looking atBaronage of Scotland, it seems we have very, very few articles which would be affected by this proposal, so perhaps nothing needs to be done anyway perWP:CREEP.Fram (talk)15:12, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whatobjective rationale is there for Wikipedia to bestow on, out of all the people from all countries on the planet, members of the nobility of exactly one country, the most magnanimous honor of including their honorific after their name in the titles of articles about them, regardless of any need to disambiguate them? If not British monarchs, or Danish nobility, or people with PhDs, then why, of all the groups there are in the world, people who've been accorded a particular type of honor in one country?Largoplazo (talk)16:16, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To answer the OP - there is none. It's a silly practice, that should never have been introduced or entertained.WP:COMMONNAME.BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!11:21, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can anyone explain to me how the "Joe Bloggs, Baron Bloggs" format for politically appointed life peers can be justified A) at all, when used without need for disambiguation, and B) in preference over the contracted "Lord Bloggs" or literally any other form of disambiguation? The "Joe Bloggs, Baron Bloggs" format appears to be not only tautologous and unnatural, but also a Wikipedia contrivance. I've checked several examples where the only other sites that I could find using the format for the given name were other wikis or Wikipedia mirrors. And not surprisingly, because it's daft – in normal speech you'd obviously just use "Baron Joe Bloggs", or other. The format has all the intrinsic naturalness of "Joe Bloggs, Mr Bloggs". It meanwhile lacks the same justification as complex hereditary peerages where you frequently get both duplicated base names and titles, so where "Joe Bloggs (Jr), 2nd Baron of Bloggland" usefully and naturally distinguishes from "Joe Bloggs (Sr), 1st Baron of Bloggland". Is there something that I'm missing here?Iskandar323 (talk)16:32, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Although not strictly a question of article title, there is some discussion atTalk:Prince Andrew (disambiguation)#Primary topic redirect about the best way to present the former prince on the disambiguation page.older ≠wiser18:04, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
