Talk:Charles XI of Sweden

older comments
Removed: "His cruelty earned him the name of Charles the Peoplemurderer in Scania." What is the source of this statement, which I never have heard of? Den fjättrade ankan 23:10, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

Removed: "Charles XI was however very harsh to the local population of occupied Scania, only 20 years earlier a Danish heartland, and in his diary it can be read that he had plans on deporting the population to Balticum." What is the source of this statement? Den fjättrade ankan 23:20, 26 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I put those sentences there, and my source was susning.nu. I can understand that you want a more reliable source; I'll try to see if I can find one. That statement needs a better and larger context anyway. &#9999; Sverdrup 10:55, 27 May 2004 (UTC)


 * an addition:
 * I do however defend the inclusion of this information, since we have a policy of NPOV. Still today swedish history classes and textbooks are very POV, and not a good single source for a NPOV Wikipedia article. &#9999; Sverdrup 11:03, 27 May 2004 (UTC)


 * NPOV does not mean presenting myths or factoids as facts. I don't agree that "swedish history classes and textbooks are very POV", at least not in a Swedish nationalist way, on the contrary, they are mostly NPOV, especially regarding nationalism. Most current Swedish historians are Marxists, anti-nationalistic, and anti-royalistics, and does not try to conceal cruelties of Swedish kings, on the contrary they try to exaggerate them. This talk about "Charles the Peoplemurderer" is never heard of. To me it sounds very much like the myth about Christian the Good. Den fjättrade ankan 18:50, 27 May 2004 (UTC) (Som finner det mycket märkligt att diskutera svenska förhållanden med en annan svensk på engelska. Jag tror knappast att någon annan än svenskar bryr sig om denna artikel. Men det är ju på engelska Wikipedia, så då måste man ju skriva på engelska.)


 * Danes and Skåninge might. Eradicating all mentions of the genocides Karl XI performed in Skåne (ordering every man between 16 and 60 killed, for example) is history revision that still seems to be taught in Swedish schools.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.38.109.246 (talk) 18:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The statement has been reinserted, only high swedes from Stockholm or other northern parts try to deny the true history of Charles XI, the man hailed wrongfully as a hero up north is most certainly not down south, last evidence of this statement is the Scanian objections to the Swedish 500kr bill which had Charles XI's picture portrayed, calling him ' Charles Peoplemurderer'

Gentlemen, I do not believe "peoplemurderer" is a proper English word. I have failed to find it in any dictionary I own. The English word for "folkmord" is "genocide". Presumably, you can indicate the person making it by calling him "genocider". Concerning Charles XI's treatment of rebels supporting the Danish king in Nothern Skåne, he acted with very harsh, even terroristic counter-guerilla methods (such as holding entire villages responsible for acts of rebels in the vicinity and executing captured rebels in cruel ways). However, as far as I can make out this was entirely within the conventions of warfare at that time. As far as Charles XI was concerned, nominally Swedish people working for the Danish king were rebels and traitors and did not even enjoy the limited right granted to prisoners of war at that time. Most monarchs of this era facing a peasant rebellion would have used methods fairly similar to the ones used by Charles XI during the Danish war. -Sensemaker
 * A remarc: I think very few monarchs of this period can avoid being kalled massmurderers, if we use the modern definition. --85.226.44.74 (talk) 11:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Charles XI and domestication of moose
Long ago in various UseNet threads a few people came forward with the information that this king had sponsored an effort to domesticate moose for military use, presumably as attack cavalry - with sharpened horns, good for pack burdens, and potentially aggressive in the field; also twice the size of a war horse). Apparently they turned out to be useful for messengers only, and the project fell through because there weren't enough of them, and they're hard to breed in captivity...and according to the trivia section of the Moose article there were worries that they'd allow thieves and other criminals to outrun law enforcement types using only horses.  Does anyone here know where a cite or further details for this would be found?Skookum1 02:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

I am going to review this article. Kensplanet (talk) 17:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Checkout the Good article criteria here.

(1). Well written: '''1 (a). the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; and''' '''1 (b). it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.'''

(2). Factually accurate and verifiable:  '''2 (a). it provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout;''' '''2 (b). at minimum, it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons; and''' '''2 (c). it contains no original research.'''

(3). Broad in its coverage:  '''3 (a). it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and''' '''3 (b). it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail'''

'''(4). Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias. '''

(5). Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

(6). Illustrated, if possible, by images: 6 (a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and  '''6 (b). images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions'''

Comments

LEAD
 * Charles XI (Karl XI, 24 November 1655old style – 5 April 1697old style
 * It's a bit difficult for a user like me to understand what old style means. Instead of old style, wh don't you directly put Julian Calender. Anyway, not a major problem since that is indicated by the footnote.


 * Charles XI was succeeded by the only son that reached adulthood, Charles XII, who made use of the well-trained army in battles throughout Europe.
 * Please copyedit this sentence.

I think the article satisfies good article criteria. The article will have to be more comprehensive for FA status. Good work for GA. I'll gladly promote this article. Thanks, Kensplanet (talk) 06:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is not a proper method to maintain the old style of date as its current date. While as a writer of history, one would want to include a referral to it, it should not be maintained as the actual date for the occurrence. So, I am noting here that it should be retained in the article but not in the format that it currently is. I am going to change this to reflect a more responsible presentation. Stevenmitchell (talk) 11:31, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * It is certainly standard to use the Julian calendar for times when it was in use. Cervantes and Shakespeare both died on April 23 1616, but over a week apart. As both England and Sweden were still using the Julian calendar during his lifetime, it is the appropriate calendar to use here. Compare e.g. his contemporary William III of England.
 * Andejons (talk) 14:50, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

His Mother
There should be a least something in the article about the fact that he was deply devoted to his mother his entire life: this was the reason to why his wife was put below his mother at court. It need only be one sentence. And here is one anecdote: During his first appearances in parliament, he talked only to the members of the government through her; he would whisper the questions he had to the parliament to her, and she would ask them loud and clear. reference: * Herman Lindqvist, Historien om Sverige: Storhet och Fall (History of Sweden; Greatness and fall) This is a charming anecdote, which gives a personal and authentic feeling to it!--85.226.44.74 (talk) 15:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course, this is an important thing to mention, as it describes their relationship and her influence and position. I have reintroduced it. h--85.226.42.57 (talk) 10:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

No mention of the Skåne genocides?
I find it odd that a lengthy article about Karl XI has no mention whatsoever about the ethnic cleansing that was executed by Karl during the Scanian Wars? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.38.109.246 (talk) 18:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Harly ethnic; the Swedish and Danes were of the same ethnicity. That was hardly unusual during that age, but should of course be mentioned in the article of the Scanian war. --85.226.44.74 (talk) 11:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Numeral, fluff etc
I had tightened up a paragraph about this king's numeral (XI) and removed such peacock/exaggerated words as "highly" and an irrelevant king's name and an unprecise term "in the line", and Swenglish such as "took their numbers" etc. This was reversed today with this summary: (Rv. Some of the early Swedish kings that carried names later kings also do are semi-mythological at best, that is). I have no idea what that means. Am reverting back to what I did on the 9th and ask that any further revisions of these details be explained clearly here. SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I consider Serge's version to be slightly better. However, I consider these long details on monarchs "real" number to often be superfluous, more so when it is put in the lead section.
 * Personally I wouldn't care if the king was, quote, "actually the 5th King Charles", or not. I think it would be worthy of a footnote and maybe a simple sentence in the lead...
 * Fred-J 20:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Appreciate your comment - thank you! - and your opinions. That's why I tried to shorten that a bit anyway. My experience is that many people wonder why some numberings do not jive, so to speak, and that some explanation is necessary. Especially when they ask who all those 16 were, based on the current king's unusually high numeral. Regards, SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

War of Devolution
There's no mention of Sweden entering the Triple Alliance during Charles' reign. It happened during the regency of Hedvig Eleonora but Hedvig's article doesn't mention it either.

Top.Squark (talk) 18:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Assimilation of the newest dominions
On the map it states Finland 1581. The treaty of Nöteborg is from 1323 when the border zone was demarcated from the Karelian Isthmus to the Gulf of Bothnia. In treaty of Teusina 1595, Sweden incorporated the modern day North-Savo, Kainuu, Northern Ostrobotnia, and the rest of Lapland. The map seems to be at least from a Finnish point of view severly out of place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.64.5.173 (talk) 07:23, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Charles XI of Sweden. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130527050236/http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Charles to http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Charles
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130701191531/http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Charles_XI to http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Charles_XI

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 11:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Charles XI of Sweden. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080408230813/http://www.riksbank.se:80/templates/Page.aspx?id=9100 to http://www.riksbank.se/templates/Page.aspx?id=9100

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:54, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

State of the corpse and lack of sainthood
The incorruptibility of corpes of Christian saints originated some centuries before the Middle Age. This free article testifies it was a living belief even in the 18th-century Protestant Sweden. Subject of king Charles XI asked themselves why their sovereign had been recognized in a physiological state opposite to the one pertaining Christian saints. 1719 was the year of the crisis of European absolutism.

If it seems not to be an useful end of the WP article, then the section can be eventually moved to the previous paragraph related to the king's death.

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Eric XIV of Sweden which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:47, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 13 January 2024

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested 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 a move 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: No consensus. Discussion was extensive and at times below the standards one should expect of a collegiate discussion, and there was far too much repetition and IDHT - Born2Cycle was not the only one engaging in this but they are the worst offender. There was no disagreement that the proposed titles were more concise, but there was disagreement on how much weight it was appropriate to give that relative to other policy considerations such as recognisability and consistency. Ultimately both sides were equally well supported by policy (despite some assertions to the contrary by very involved editors) and reference to other reliable sources and neither convinced the other nor had an overwhelming majority of supporters so there is no option to me other than to call this no consensus. I'm sure this will please neither side, and I will not be in the least bit surprised if this is taken to move review (in exactly the same way a close of "moved" or "not moved" would be) so if anyone feels like that would be beneficial just take it straight there without waiting for me to respond on my talk page. Thryduulf (talk) 17:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC) Thryduulf (talk) 17:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

– There are no Charles XIs and Charles XIIs as kings of countries other than Sweden. 176.33.241.125 (talk) 08:19, 13 January 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. FOARP (talk) 14:32, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Charles XI of Sweden → Charles XI
 * Charles XII of Sweden → Charles XII
 * Support, per WP:AT policy ("titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that") and WP:NCROY guideline ("only use a territorial designation (e.g. country) when disambiguation is needed") as well as consistency with other unambiguously named Swedish kings (Carl XVI Gustaf, Gustaf VI Adolf, Gustaf V, etc). Surtsicna (talk) 09:46, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support as per nom.--SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:31, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * oppose 'Name number country' is still the best title in terms of clarity and recognizabllity, especially when getting high number monarchs where readers won't know when the numbers stop applying to a given country—blindlynx 18:01, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support, and I'll add that we can move Charles X Gustav of Sweden → Charles X Gustav by the same reasoning. 162 etc. (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. Unambiguous numbering. Also support the proposal by @162 etc.. estar8806 (talk) ★ 22:11, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not an improvement. Not sufficiently recognizable, per WP:COMMONAME. Most English language general works refer to him as "of Sweden" or "King of Sweden" e.g. it is informative to look at indexes of general works (where a name must stand alone and be concise); indexes almost never refer to him as "Charles XI" by itself, but almost always include "of Sweden" :, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,  etc.  Walrasiad (talk) 22:36, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Indexes commonly use descriptive terms. For example, your number 7 uses Cyclades (island) whereas Wikipedia uses just Cyclades and even England, Britain instead of just England. Wikipedia is a digital encyclopedia and is thus able to do things differently, more efficiently. Its policy is to not define the subject in the article title. Surtsicna (talk) 14:56, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. Almost all indexes above are perfectly concise.  They are clear evidence of recognizability and WP:COMMONNAME in general English-language works.  All indexes treat "of Sweden" as essential for recognition by readers. Walrasiad (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You may call it nonsense but it's plain to see: one says England, Britain instead of England; one says Cyclades (island) instead of Cyclades; one says Childebert I (Frankish king) whereas we say just Childebert I; one says Demetrius of Pharos (ruler of Illyria) whereas Wikipedia says simply Demetrius of Pharos; one says Isaac II Angelus (Byzantine emperor) whereas we say simply Isaac II Angelos, etc. The description found in indexes is, as we can see, not essential to have in Wikipedia article titles; Wikipedia puts such descriptions in short descriptions rather than in article titles. Surtsicna (talk) 17:14, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There are loads of Charles, with numbers largely unmemorable. As indexes show, "of Sweden" disambiguates and makes them more recognizable. This proposal is not an improvement, but detriment to readers. Walrasiad (talk) 17:35, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are loads of Charles, but the proposal is not to move to Charles. It is to move to Charles XI, which is unambiguous and therefore requires no disambiguation. Everyone who is familiar with Charles XI will recognize that the article named Charles XI is about Charles XI; therefore the proposed title satisfies WP:RECOGNIZABILITY. Surtsicna (talk) 17:43, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Not a household name to English-speaking readers to be on first name basis only. This is not Cher.  Ordinals are not very memorable - whether he is XI or IX or Xi Jinping's cousin is hardly memorable.  That's why of "of Sweden" improves recognizability. It effectively serves as a surname. That's why "of Sweden" is included in indexes - recognizability.  It's their WP:COMMONNAME.  Walrasiad (talk) 18:11, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "Household name" and "memorability" are not naming criteria. Félix Faure is not a household name to English-speaking readers either, yet we do not have him under Félix Faure of France. And while SergeWoodzing is far better versed in Swedish royal surnames, I can assure you that "of Sweden" is not, cannot, and should not be seen as a surname or anything of the sort. Surtsicna (talk) 18:24, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree 100%. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Felix Faure has a surname. Dropping "Faure" and reducing him to "Felix Francois" would reduce recognizability. Which is what you're proposing here. Walrasiad (talk) 18:32, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly! Calling him "Felix Francois" instead of "Félix Faure" would be against WP:RECOGNIZABILITY because people familiar with Faure would not recognize it. Meanwhile people familiar with Charles XI will recognize that the article titled Charles XI is about Charles XI. Finally we are dealing with the term recognizability as defined at WP:RECOGNIZABILITY. Surtsicna (talk) 18:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * And "of Sweden" is his surname here. His middle name "Xi" is not so memorable or recognizable. His daughters are "Hedvig Sophia of Sweden" and "Ulrika Eleonora of Sweden".  They get to keep their surnames, their father's house, "of Sweden".  So should he.  Walrasiad (talk) 18:53, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No, "of Sweden" is not a surname. And "XI" is not a middle name. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Serves the same functional purpose as a surname. Just like your surname or mine - it identifies their father's house. Walrasiad (talk) 22:55, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If anyone sees "of Sweden" as being anything like a surname, it is all the more reason to move these articles. Surtsicna (talk) 11:22, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * As shown above in indexes for RSs, they all think it is necessary. It is part of their WP:COMMONNAME. Walrasiad (talk) 11:56, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No, indexes show no such thing. Firstly, they do not call them "of Sweden" but "(king of Sweden)"; secondly, indexes do the same for topics like England, which, in a case you showed up there, they call England, Britain. Wikipedia has short descriptions for those purposes. Surtsicna (talk) 12:20, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter. "of Sweden" in some form or other is part of his WP:COMMONNAME not only in general works, as proved in the indexes above, but also the article titles in works of encyclopedic reference (the Wikipedia standard) e.g. Britannica, Columbia, etc.  Walrasiad (talk) 02:16, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The vast majority of sources refer to him as "Charles XI", as they do with all monarchs. Introductions often specify "of Sweden", but then drop it immediately and stick with either "Charles XI" or simply "Charles". Same thing in Swedish sources, I should add.
 * Note that both of the works you've linked very explicitly refer to "Charles XI", both in-line and in the title. The added "of Sweden" is added to clarify his royal title, just like with Elizabeth II and Napoleon. Peter Isotalo 12:19, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Napoleon & Elizabeth II are household names to general English-speaking audiences - that is, Wikipedia readers - and consequently more easily WP:RECOGNIZABLE. "Charles XI" is not. Article titles have to stand alone and without context. Article titles are not running text - they are the moment of introduction of a name.  Works that refer to Bill Clinton, start by introducing him as "Bill Clinton" before they move on to refer to him simply as "Bill" or "Clinton" thereafter alone.  So "Bill Clinton", not simply Bill, is his WP:COMMONNAME. As provided by evidence given above, demonstrated aplenty in works above - English-language works of general reference, both in articles and indexes, which are concise, "Charles XI" never stands alone, but always includes "of Sweden" in the title.  That's his WP:COMMONNAME.  Walrasiad (talk) 14:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You are actively misrepresenting your "evidence" as far as I can tell. Peter Isotalo 20:12, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Misinterpreting how? You admit it yourself, that when he's introduced it is always "of Sweden". He is not recognizable without it. I provided evidence of that. Walrasiad (talk) 11:17, 23 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose It should be standard to always include the country in the titles of Monarchs. --Marbe166 (talk) 00:17, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This was discussed in September (See above), and the result was not moved. --Marbe166 (talk) 11:42, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * In the September discussion WP:NCROY was cited against the move. But in November there was "a strong consensus" to change WP:NCROY because it did not match WP:Article title policy. The move as proposed now matches both WP:NCROY and WP:AT policy. Surtsicna (talk) 15:03, 14 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support As per nom.  Robertus Pius  (Talk • Contribs) 16:48, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not an improvement. Dimadick (talk) 17:30, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment - I've asked this at WP:NCROY but got little response, so I'll ask it here. Are consorts & heirs apparent/presumptive next? Will Queen Silvia of Sweden be moved to Queen Silvia or Silvia? Will Victoria, Crown Princess of Sweden be re-named Crown Princess Victoria? GoodDay (talk) 19:48, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Silvia is a page for the name in general, with a rather large list of people with that name, so the odds of the Queen's page being moved to that is highly unlikely. The argument you're making is a bit of a slippery slope fallacy. 2601:249:9301:D570:64DF:D866:61C7:7E28 (talk) 21:55, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * None of those individuals have unambiguous regnal names, so I don't think a move is likely. It may only happen in cases where the name 'and' title is unique. In the cases of Queen Silvia and Queen Letizia, there have been no queens with those names so it is possible to drop the territorial designations. I'm not saying that I would necessarily support such a move but rather making an observation. Keivan.f  Talk 02:33, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Well it may not be the biggest problem on Wikipedia, but I still think we should stick to pre-emptive disambiguation in cases like this. PatGallacher (talk) 22:54, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Treating "Charles X" and "Charles XI" as both unambiguous but for different kingdoms strikes me as a reductio of this approach. Srnec (talk) 21:17, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This seems a lot like WP:OTHERSTUFF. I'm also very skeptical about calling Charles X unambiguous since Charles X Gustav is most commonly known as just "Charles X" or "Karl X". I'm not sure exactly why Swedish kings got the added "Gustav" moniker, but it has no relevance to the numbering and is usually excluded when referring to them, both in Swedish and English. Peter Isotalo 12:10, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose - discussed before and rejected. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 21:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose It would seem strange for "Charles X" to be used solely for the French king, but "Charles XI" to be used solely for the Swedish king. UmbrellaTheLeef (talk) 14:47, 19 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support If there are no other "Charles XI", the disambiguation is just pointless filler. No different than Elizabeth II, really. Peter Isotalo 12:07, 21 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support. the proposed titles are not ambiguous. I do think that perhaps Charles X ought to be at Charles X of France but that is outside the scope of this RM. Bensci54 (talk) 17:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support no other ambiguous titles and satisfies both WP:CONCISE and WP:COMMONNAME. No legitimate opposition really. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 19:58, 21 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support. Sufficient and recognizable. Also consistent with Charles X Gustav, Charles XIII, Charles XIV John and Charles XV. Andejons (talk) 06:25, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per UmbrellaTheLeef. The Swedish royal line is definitely not the most notable on the planet, the detailing is essential for those who are not used to monarchies. Svartner (talk) 01:26, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support removing unnecessary disambiguation, in line with applicable policy and guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosbif73 (talk • contribs) 08:23, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support per nom and all the arguments, points, and retorts made by, which are among the strongest I’ve ever seen in any RM discussion. But they’re really shooting fish in a barrel, because Opposition has no policy basis here. We have no mandate to make our topics recognizable from titles to all users; only to users familiar with the topic; a requirement which the proposed title meets. RECOGNIZABLE ✅, CONCISE ✅, COMMONNAME ✅, CONSISTENCY ✅. The current title is unnecessary disambiguation. No contest. —-В²C ☎ 07:25, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. For CONSISTENCY and RECOGNISABILITY, all non-English kings should use “of ”.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:32, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * On what grounds do you believe we should ignore WP:SOVEREIGN for non-English kings only? Surely that would raise huge WP:WORLDVIEW and WP:NPOV issues? Rosbif73 (talk) 07:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * NOTE TO CLOSER: All opposition citing “recognizability” here is not policy-based. The WP:RECOGNIZABILITY guideline is met when the title is recognizable to someone familiar with the subject. The proposed title meets this requirement. Opposers like cite RECOGNISABILITY as if titles should be recognizable to all users. That’s not a policy-based argument. It’s WP:JDLI. Please weigh it accordingly. — В²C ☎ 18:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. I am familiar with the topic, and it would not be recognizable to me.  And as demonstrated in RS index evidence provided above, reliable sources include "of Sweden" in some form, demonstrating RS's agree it is essential for recognizability.  I'd hope the closer would discount assertions made by supporters above who have not provided any evidence whatsoever for their claims. Walrasiad (talk) 05:11, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Talk about nonsense. Anyone familiar with Charles XI would recognize Charles XI from Charles XI. What’s next, you can’t recognize Tom Cruise from Tom Cruise so we have to move it to Tom Cruise (actor)? You know, to be helpful to readers and ensure it’s RECOGNIZABLE? After all, there are other Tom Cruises. How are readers to know Tom Cruise doesn’t refer to one of them? (/sarcasm) Please! Besides, Ngrams show that “of Sweden” is obscure. — В²C ☎ 06:49, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Without the "of Sweden" prompt, I have no idea who you're talking about. There are Charlies with ordinals all over the place. You're not merely requiring people who know (and remember the number of) this Swedish king, you're requiring people to also know  there isn't a Charles XI in Latvia, Estonia, Poland, Pomerania, Saxony, etc.  The information requirement is enormous.  I write a lot of history, but I don't have numerals of every monarch in every country, duchy and county in Europe memorized.  And I expect Wikipedia readers are not better versed than me. "Of Sweden" improves it instantly.  Which is why RS's use it, as shown in the evidence given above. Sarcasm and "Please" is not evidence. Walrasiad (talk) 10:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You’re entitled to your opinion. But consensus established at NCROY is clear: “Only use a territorial designation (e.g. country) when disambiguation is needed.” The fact that Charles XI redirects here establishes that the disambiguation with territorial designation is not needed. Your opinion is out of line with community consensus, and repeatedly presenting it otherwise is bordering on disruption. — В²C ☎ 14:58, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The dismbiguation is needed, because Charles X refers solely to the French king, despite there being a Swedish king with the same name. It is therefore, unhelpful to refer to "Charles XI" without a disambiguator, because it makes it seems like Charles X and Charles XI were monarchs of the same country. UmbrellaTheLeef (talk) 00:35, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * B2C: No, that's not correct. Per policy, recognizability is not determined by someone familiar with the article's specific subject, it's "someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area"; this is reiterated in the WP:CONCISE criterion, which requires that the title be identifiable to someone "familiar with the general subject area." (Emphasis mine.) As such, the proposed titles fail to meet the criteria. I myself am familiar with, but no expert in, the general subject area and would not have known prior to these discussions that (say) Charles X and Charles XI are monarchs of two entirely different nations. It's worth noting too that Charles X just got moved to Charles X of France. ╠╣uw [ talk ] 18:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Walrasiad et al. One of the main problems I'm seeing in this and other similarly contentious recent RMs is the suggestion that the most concise title must be the best title, but that's not consistent with WP:AT. As others have already noted here and elsewhere, Cézanne is more concise than Paul Cézanne; 110th Congress is more concise than 110th United States Congress; Missoula is more concise than Missoula, Montana. Yet in innumerable cases Wikipedia uses a less concise alternative because there are other relevant factors that policy insists we consider which make the less concise form the better/preferable one. This case seems no different. Charles XI is certainly more concise than Charles XI of Sweden, but removing the clarifier leaves a title that’s insufficiently precise and recognizable. Speaking for myself as someone who’s familiar with (but certainly no expert in) European royalty, I would know the title refers to a monarch but would not know which one. Nor if I see Charles X and Charles XI would I recognize that these are monarchs of entirely different countries — and I don't see that introducing that confusion and uncertainty helps our readers in any way. Further, a quick search suggests the country is indeed often included when referencing the monarch. Per Wikipedia policy, "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." I see nothing to suggest that the proposed title does this. ╠╣uw [ talk ]  16:16, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Like, you’re entitled to your opinion, but you present an argument and perspective here that was soundly rejected by a strong consensus at NCROY. That is, the proposed title is consistent with AT, and it neither favors nor disfavors anyone. Readers, editors and specialists are all equally totally unaffected by which of these titles prevails, except in one way: bringing titles better in line with CRITERIA including CONCISE and PRECISE (only as precise as necessary) stabilizes our titles so more time can be spent on matters that do improve the encyclopedia, for everyone. Having outliers like NCROY used to be, and USPLACE still is, where titles are unnecessarily disambiguated, is contrary to title stabilization. Your use of Missoula, Montana as a precedent that applies here for justifying unnecessary disambiguation exemplifies why USPLACE is problematic. That said, at least there they can argue (weakly imho) that including the state is not disambiguation but is part of the COMMONNAME. But for “of country” in NCROY titles that excuse for inclusion has been explicitly rejected by community consensus. —В²C ☎ 17:00, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The sharp uptick in contentious or failed RMs related to the change to NCROY doesn’t suggest to me that the articles are becoming more stable, or more consistent, or less time-consuming. It also doesn't suggest that the consensus for the change is as strongly embraced by the community as you claim. When RMs seek to apply a guideline but can’t garner sufficient consensus for it (as in recent NCROY-related RMs for Edwards, Christians, etc.), that's a useful form of feedback that can prompt a reappraisal of the guideline itself. As you recently said, “often the only way to gain consensus for a guideline change is to establish precedent showing consensus for contradicting the existing guideline at least in some particular cases.” ╠╣uw [ talk ] 18:56, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Where have recent RMs related to complying with last year’s NCROY changes failed? —В²C ☎ 19:51, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The RMs cited failed primarily because they bundled 7 and 14 monarchs, respectively, in single discussions despite some being unambiguous and others primary topics. A WP:TRAINWRECK was no surprise. Several of the articles concerned have since been moved in smaller RMs. Rosbif73 (talk) 19:54, 9 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that’s what I thought. So the claim for lack of consensus about using “of country” only when necessary for disambiguation is without basis. — В²C ☎ 19:57, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * ...except for all the basis. Quite seriously, you can see for yourself (as I also encourage others to) that the objections in failed RMs for royal names like Edward, Richard, or Christian were much the same as those being raised here -- insufficient recognizability, insufficient precision, the commonness of attaching the country, unhelpfulness for the reader, etc. -- and the result was quite clearly no consensus for those changes, NCROY notwithstanding. This is why we've retained Edward I of England, Edward II of England, Edward III of England, Richard II of England, Edward IV of England, Edward V of England, Richard III of England, Christian I of Denmark, Christian II of Denmark, Christian III of Denmark, Christian IV of Denmark, Christian V of Denmark, Christian VI of Denmark, Christian VII of Denmark, Christian VIII of Denmark, Christian IX of Denmark, and Christian X of Denmark. As the Edward closer notes, "proponents of both viewpoints correctly marshal points of policy in favor of their preference". Some wrongly suggest that there's only one correct understanding of how to weight and apply our WP:CRITERIA or interpret policy, but that's clearly not so, as these discussions make clear. ╠╣uw [ talk ] 20:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * explained why those failed. —В²C ☎ 22:45, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Incorrectly. The discussions and closure are quite clear. ╠╣uw [ talk ] 02:15, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Ludovico III Gonzaga, Marquis of Mantua and Amadeo I of Spain also failed. Then there's the RMs that succeeded but are currently at move review (Cosimo III de' Medici) or which didn't have the !votes and succeeded only after move review (Ferdinand VI and Peter Krešimir IV). You can't just ignore the latter when the question is about community views of policy. Clearly RMs that succeed over and against the !votes because of an existing guideline suggest that the guideline may not have actual consensus. Srnec (talk) 02:16, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * To the above may now be added Isabella II of Spain. —Srnec (talk) 02:32, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Srnec, @Huwmanbeing It seems evident the recent RFC does not have wider community consensus. I've asked for the RFC to be reopened at WT:NCROY  and come up with better guidelines. The data you've gathered above would probably be informative. I am not sure that is the right venue for it, given how few people that monitor that page. But the situation seems untenable and the arguments are getting repetitive and scattered across multiple individual pages. Guidelines that better reflect the community consensus need to be written. Walrasiad (talk) 05:05, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Srnec apples and oranges. Isabella needed disambiguation vs. the queen of the same name of Jerusalem. There is no such ambiguity here. Bensci54 (talk) 03:03, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * And yet Isabella II still redirects to Isabella II of Spain. Clearly it didn't fail because it needed disambiguation. UmbrellaTheLeef (talk) 00:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Huwmanbeing the Edward and Christian RMs were classic WP:TRAINWRECKs that failed because they included ambiguous names. Even the closers agreed in both cases that RMs limited to the unambiguous later numbers would be more likely to be sucessfull. Bensci54 (talk) 03:14, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * While in the Edward closure the closer did indeed mention that nominations for two specific ones might be "more fruitful", they were quite clear why the RM failed, and it was not because of that. Here is the rationale they gave, with my own emphasis added: "There is a clear absence of consensus for a move at this time. Like the discussion two years ago, there is almost an exactly even split among participants, with proponents of both viewpoints correctly marshalling points of policy in favor of their preference. Throughout this encyclopedia there are instances of English monarchs whose titles include "of England" and monarchs whose titles do not, so it is apparent that both formulations are permissible in appropriate conditions. This, therefore, boils down to a question of preference as to which conditions suffice for this purpose, a question to which this discussion has yielded no clear answer." That sounds familiar: both in the earlier discussions for Edwards and Richards and Christians, and in this discussion here, neither side is a slam-dunk policy-wise, NCROY notwithstanding. As such, we just have to see if there's a clear consensus for one particular approach over another, and I really don't see that there is. In fact, this discussion seems to be about as split as it's possible to be. That there's so much contentiousness and lack of consensus in the various RMs spawned by the recent change to NCROY strongly suggests to me that the change is not working and needs to be reconsidered (and I see another editor is already working to get that started). ╠╣uw [ talk ]  12:21, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, and it's also worth noting that the 2021 discussion mentioned by the Edward closer was a much narrower one that applied to only three Edwards — and it also failed for much the same reasons. ╠╣uw [ talk ] 12:27, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * In both of those Edward closings the respective closer found no consensus, and that was due to a misunderstanding of policy as well as over-weighting of non-policy-based !votes. In the more recent Talk:Ferdinand VI, closer, once asked to take a closer look, found in favor of Support despite an 8 to 3 Opposition majority because “none of the Oppose votes are actually based in policy”. Just like here. And that Ferdinand VI close was strongly endorsed at MR. Citing a policy doesn’t necessarily mean your position is based in policy. —В²C ☎ 13:38, 11 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Support per Britannica these don't appear even to be ambiguous but anyway are primary at least as the titles already redirect here.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 17:51, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The Britannica article you linked to is titled "Charles XII, King of Sweden". That would be evidence against the proposal. Walrasiad (talk) 19:24, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * An obvious typo is evidence against the proposal? 🙄 fixed. The same typo can be made just as easily if your unnecessary disambiguation is included in the title. — В²C ☎ 19:41, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That was reference for the 2nd page namely Charles XII of Sweden. I didn't find the one for Charles XI (this page) but B2C has now provided it. The "King of Sweden" appears to be a subtitle much like our short descriptions so still supports the article title should use the shorter form.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 20:03, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * No, a lede is a lede, it is not an article title nor subtitle. Britannica also has a lede with descriptions.  Wikipedia articles don't have the benefit of subtitles. Which is why "of Sweden" has to serve that function here. You have provided definite evidence confirming that "Charles XI" is not recognizable by itself. Walrasiad (talk) 20:38, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Your desperation to defend opposition is now descended to utter nonsense. Brittanica uses subtitles on all their articles, including for all the ones where our corresponding articles don’t have disambiguated titles, like Elizabeth I/Elizabeth I. A subtitle in a Brittanica article is zero basis for including that, or anything else, as disambiguation in our corresponding article title. Didn’t you learn from the Ferdinand I RM experience which I just became aware of? In that case the closer found consensus to move even though 8 of the 11 participants, including you, opposed. Why? Because opposition had no argument, none!, based on policy. Just like here. And, yes, it went to MR where the valid close was endorsed, and soundly. And yet you persist with the same vacuous position here and similar RMs. You are aware of what is said about “doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result”, I trust. — В²C ☎ 22:11, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * When a Wikipedia editor references a work, I expect them to have read it. If he misquotes what it says, then it should be pointed out, and give him a chance to correct himself - whether it is revising his statement, or finding another source.  The article title in Britannica is clearly and unambiguously "Charles XI, King of Sweden".  That is not about feelings or opinions, it is a fact.  Not sure what you're on about.  Walrasiad (talk) 23:25, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The title of the Brittanica article is “Charles XI”. The subtitle is “King of Sweden”. We do not include subtitles in our titles on WP; we include them in the lede, unless needed for disambiguation. For example, the famous subtitle of Twelfth Night is “or What You Will”, and we include it only in the lede. —В²C ☎ 00:32, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, per MOS:LEADSENTENCE, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence except disambiguators should be excluded. The subject of the first sentence in this article is Charles XI, not Charles XI of Sweden, and it’s been that way since March 16, 2003, reinforcing the Support contention that “of Sweden” is disambiguation, and not part of the topic’s name. — В²C ☎ 01:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * A subtitle is part of a title. The title of Shakespeare's work is "Twelfth Night, or What you Will".  Wikipedia may choose to omit subtitles in Wikipedia articles, but the decisions of Wikipedia editors does not implicate the title in the original work.  Just as in the Britannica article, the original title is "Charles XI, King of Sweden".  That's all that is being pointed out. It is necessary to be honest in reporting how the original article is actually titled, and not deceptively pretend it says otherwise. Walrasiad (talk) 01:46, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * More nonsense. WP title policy tends to render titles in line with Britannica’s corresponding title (i.e., not including their descriptive subtitle), unless disambiguation is required. For example, for Twelfth Night, Britannica’s main title matches ours, and their subtitle is “play by Shakespeare”. The title of their article is Twelfth Night, not Twelfth Night play by Shakespeare. Similarly, their title for Clint Eastwood also matches ours, and is not Clint Eastwood AMERICAN ACTOR AND DIRECTOR as your argument would suggest. — В²C ☎ 14:00, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I am not talking about Wikipedia titles. I am talking about correctly reporting information from sources that are cited, and not lying about what they say. Walrasiad (talk) 21:57, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Your contention that information from other sources was not reported correctly is based on your claim that titles of Brittanica articles include their subtitle; i.e. Their title is not “Charles XII” but is “Charles XII king of Sweden”. I just refuted the claim that is the basis of your contention. Again, if your claim that Brittanica subtitles are part of their titles was valid then their title for Clint Eastwood would be Clint Eastwood AMERICAN ACTOR AND DIRECTOR. That’s nonsense. —В²C ☎ 18:29, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * A refutation? What are you talking about? If that's the article title in Britannica, that is the article title in Britannica. Report it correctly. That is all.  Walrasiad (talk) 19:35, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes. Refutation. I refuted your claim: The article title in Britannica is clearly and unambiguously "Charles XI, King of Sweden". For the third time. If that were true then their title for their Clint Eastwood article would be Clint Eastwood AMERICAN ACTOR AND DIRECTOR. But it’s not. The title for that article is Clint Eastwood. And the title for their Charles XI article is Charles XI. Report titles correctly, please. —В²C ☎ 00:59, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Evidently we're having a communication problem. I don't know if English is not your first language, or perhaps my wording is just not clear enough, but apparently I am failing to reach you. That is unfortunate.  Walrasiad (talk) 05:16, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * , care to weigh in here? Any issues understanding what's going on here? My take is  has accused you of:
 * not reading the Britannica article you cited,
 * not correctly reporting information from that article,
 * misquoted what it said,
 * deceptively pretended it says the title is "Charles XII" when the title is "Charles XII, King of Sweden", and
 * lied about what it says.
 * I contend they are wrong on all counts.
 * I have no idea if you read the article, but I'm sure you looked at the title, which is all that is relevant here.
 * Everything you reported about the article—which was just "The 'King of Sweden' appears to be a subtitle"—is correct.
 * You did not misquote anything it said.
 * Implying the title of the Britannica article is "Charles XII" is a clear and obvious fact; you're not pretending about anything. The subtitle is "king of Sweden", but that's not part of the title; it's the subtitle, as you noted.
 * You did not lie about anything.
 * I think Walsrasiad owes you a big apology for all of these false accusations. --В²C ☎ 07:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks В²C I agree with what you have said, I'm indeed not sure why these came about, indeed I did read the article and was making reference to the actual title not sub title as I later explained.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 08:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * B2C: I believe the point of the Britannica article is that it specifically includes a clarifier with the title that identifies Charles XI as the king of Sweden. Since WP policy at WP:COMMONNAME encourages us to look to other reputable encyclopedias for comparison, it's an entirely pertinent point, so please stop bludgeoning it. ╠╣uw [ talk ] 13:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Pertinent to what, though? For the fourth time, Britannica’s article about Clint Eastwood has a subtitle that says, “American actor and director”. I agree their subtitles are pertinent. Pertinent to deciding what to use for disambiguation, but only when necessary, and what to put into our ledes. What does that have to do with what we’re doing here? More importantly, how does anything Crouch, Swale said warrant any of what Walsrasiad said about them? Claiming another editor lied (etc.) without basis is a serious violation of WP:NPA. I was hoping Walsrariad would clarify and apologize, but they haven’t so far. —В²C ☎ 14:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Pertinent to this discussion. If you’ve already made the same point four times over, it's probably time to drop that stick. ╠╣uw [ talk ] 15:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It is interesting and revealing that Britannica sees the need to include a clarifier with its title. Looking a bit further, things like their "Mercury" articles suggest that it serves much the same purpose as our own parenthetical disambiguators or similar clarifiers, since (for example) the articles of both the planet and the element are titled "Mercury" but with differing clarifiers. Interesting too to see that they tend to keep them for readers' benefit even on uniquely-titled articles like Charles XI. Definitely seems like a good source to consider. ╠╣uw [ talk ] 02:03, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, it’s similar to the function served by the first sentence of our lede. We’ve got it covered. Efforts to move that functionality into the title are misguided. —В²C ☎ 03:53, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia doesn't distinguish between articles like Mercury and Mercury only in the lede — and the same is true for the Britannica. Likewise, we don't clarify that Charles XI was king of Sweden only in the lede — and the same is true for the Britannica. Whether here or there, the practice clearly serves a useful purpose, and no one has yet explained how doing away with it would serve the interests of our readers (which per policy is our priority). ╠╣uw [ talk ] 10:34, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Is "national capital, United Kingdom" a part of the name of London? . The subheader in Britannica is most akin to a Short description, not a part of the page title.
 * Andejons (talk) 11:00, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Whatever term we use, the point is simply that Britannica chooses to include that clarifier before the lead. You're right that WP's short description serves a very similar purpose, and if we could rely on our readers consistently seeing it then I'd be less opposed... but we can't. If we change the titles of these articles as proposed, the result would be to show no clarifier of any kind for many readers, and I don't see that that serves their interests. ╠╣uw [ talk ] 14:15, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Huwmanbeing
 * WP mobile places the short description in a similar location, size, and relative font styling as Brittanica places their subtitle (below, slightly smaller, unbolded). They are essentially the same thing. In this context, keeping the country in the article title is redundant and uncessary, it is a step beyond what is done at Britannica. Is there a highly used skin of WP desktop which omits the short description? Bensci54 (talk) 15:41, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Many of our readers don't see the short description placed by WP mobile because many of our users (~85%) are not using WP mobile. As for desktop, WP:SHORTDESC states that "short descriptions do not appear by default when viewing an article in desktop view, but logged-in users who wish to see and edit them can do so easily by enabling the Shortdesc helper in their Preferences "gadgets". As such, if we remove the country from the title of this article as proposed, then many users will not get any clarifier at all, be it in the title or via the short description. Since I and others consider that having the clarifier is beneficial for our readers (as apparently Britannica does for theirs), I don't see that removing it is desirable. ╠╣uw [ talk ] 16:17, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Huwmanbeing
 * Huh, genuinely surprised that the % is that high. Also strange design choice to have it hidden by default on desktop. I will concede that you have a valid point, but for me it's still not enough to change my !vote, as we already have a clear guideline at WP:NCROY supported by RFC, and none of this amounts to an explanation of why an exception to WP:NCROY is warranted. The question asked by the guideline is "Is there another Charles XI which he could be confused with?" and if the answer is no, the guideline directs us not to have the country. Bensci54 (talk) 16:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Understood. I imagine we all have somewhat different thresholds where we consider the cons of applying a guideline to outweigh the benefits of following it. Hopefully discussions like these will help clarify whether the guideline change should be retained or reworked. ╠╣uw [ talk ] 17:29, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Clarifying what the subject is is not a function of a title on Wikipedia. Sometimes we add clarifying information to a title for disambiguation, but the purpose is never for clarifying what the subject; it's for distinguishing it from topics with the same name. If clarifying what the subject is was a function of a title on Wikipedia, then almost every title would have to be changed, and we'd have to develop new guidelines on how to determine how much clarification is the right amount of clarification. Without such a clarification policy, there is no policy basis to leave unnecessary disambiguation in a title. --В²C ☎ 18:10, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * What is the Pablo in front of Picasso doing the title Pablo Picasso? Srnec (talk) 20:34, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It is complying with a guideline, namely WP:SINGLENAME which tells us to avoid using a last name on its own, even if unambiguous, if the first name is known and used. Rosbif73 (talk) 21:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That doesn't answer the question. Since Pablo is not necessary to clarify who the page is about, because its subject is the primary topic for Picasso (which redirects there and is sufficient for identification), what is its purpose? In other words, what is the justification for WP:SINGLENAME in light of WP:AT (as interpreted by some)? If we have no more need for "Pablo" in that case than for "of Sweden" in this case, why is the first one recommended and the latter discouraged? What is the basis for the differing guidelines? Srnec (talk) 22:13, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You are correct. It's a special case with an explicit exception at WP:CONCISE: Exceptions exist for biographical articles. For example, given names and family names are usually not omitted or abbreviated for the purposes of concision. Thus Oprah Winfrey (not Oprah) and Jean-Paul Sartre (not J. P. Sartre). See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people).
 * Royalty has no such exception. --В²C ☎ 06:08, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It should if doing so yields better titles. It's also important to recognize that the practice is anything but rare: it applies to innumerable articles spanning all of Wikipedia, with more concise and unambiguous terms often redirecting to less concise or more descriptive ones. For example:
 * The unambiguous US and UK redirect to United States and United Kingdom
 * The unambiguous 103rd Congress redirects to 103rd United States Congress
 * The unambiguous Rockies and Pacific redirect to Rocky Mountains and Pacific Ocean
 * The unambiguous Bothell redirects to Bothell, Washington
 * The unambiguous AI redirects to artificial intelligence
 * Put simply, the most concise unambiguous title isn't always the best or most desirable for an encyclopedia article. We instead look for ones that best balance all title criteria — and many see the proposed change as not achieving that. ╠╣uw [ talk ] 11:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * All those examples are in line with the corresponding policy and guidelines. This proposed move is also in line with policy and with the applicable guideline as amended recently with strong consensus (to quote the closer). Strong consensus is not the same as unanimity, sure, but it's the best we have on Wikipedia. A !vote against this move is a !vote against that consensus, which boils down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT in the absence of strong policy-based rationale or a good reason to invoke WP:IAR. Rosbif73 (talk) 12:42, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Exactly. And continuing this JDLI argumentation demonstrates at least Disruptuve Editing Signs 1 (tendentious) and 5 (pursuing a point despite opposing consensus). —В²C ☎ 18:29, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The reasons and rationales have been given at length. If you don't agree with them, that's fine. Please understand, though, there is not only one valid weighting of our criteria or interpretation of policy, and branding all opposing views as mere JDLI/IAR/IDONTLIKEIT when they're clearly not borders on the tendentious. ╠╣uw [ talk ] 18:49, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, your argument has been presented at length. And the only policy basis it has is a tenuous and highly subjective claim that additional clarifying information in a title, a.k.a. unnecessary disambiguation, benefits readers, which, if true, would mean changing almost every title on WP by adding some undefined level of additional clarifying information to each. That’s not policy basis. That’s fantasy basis. And it’s disruptive. Enough. —В²C ☎ 19:40, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * No, the argument is that the only actual policy basis that unambiguously favours this move (and the related ones) is the recently revised WP:NCROY. Thus, opposers argue that that change (1) did not reflect actual consensus and (2) was bad on its merits. I concede that NCROY as currently written favours this move. I think NCROY should be changed. Just as you think that USPLACE is problematic, I think the current NCROY is problematic.
 * You have misinterpreted WP:CONCISE. You quote the guideline—Exceptions exist for biographical articles. For example...—and take its sole proffered example as the only exception. That's not how examples work. You say Royalty has no such exception, but that's only because we (wrongly, IMO) changed NCROY back in November. In other words, the situation is as if WP:SINGLENAME were changed to prefer titles like Vasari, Malenkov, Saddam and Gandhi. So the question we should be asking is, why do we have SINGLENAME? What is the basis for preferring first and last names even in cases where one or the other is unambiguous or has a primary topic? Does this reasoning apply in other cases? Srnec (talk) 21:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I see. You're arguing CONCISE says exceptions exist for all biographical articles, not just for biographical articles using standard Given Family names in the title. That's a reasonable point, but I don't think that is the intent of that statement. It may not be perfectly worded, but I think the intent is that the exception is only for biographical articles using Given Family names in the title. We could have an RFC at WP:AT to clarify, I suppose. But let's say, for the sake of argument, that Exceptions exist for biographical articles is intended to apply to NCROY article titles too. And the details are left to WP:NCROY? I follow the logic, but I honestly don't think that was the intent. Nobody brought this up at the RfC that changed NCROY, by the way. That suggests few, if anyone besides you, interprets it that way. But I see your point. But even with your interpretation, CONCISE is still a policy basis for not including "of country" because, though NCROY has the option to be an exception to CONCISE per your interpretation, consensus is to not take that option, which means CONCISE applies. --В²C ☎ 06:41, 14 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Relist Comment - I was leaning hard toward closing this as no consensus, however I see discussion is still ongoing, so I think a final opportunity for uninvolved commentators to come in to the discussion is in order. It really feels, though, to me like a simple matter of personal preference that has gotten way out of control - there are dozens of RM discussion open on the RM closure backlog just like this one, most of them also WP:TL;DR. FOARP (talk) 14:32, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Whilst I appreciate that quite a few of these royalty name RMs have gotten TL;DR, I think they can all be summed up very simply: supporters essentially wanting to apply the WP:NCROY guideline as it stands today, and opponents either essentially repeating the oppose arguments from the November 2023 WP:NCROY RfC or actively wanting to overturn that RfC.
 * (Full disclosure: I'm firmly on the support side, but I think the above is a fair characterisation of both sides' arguments). Rosbif73 (talk) 15:13, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I’m troubled that you’re seeing no consensus here. One side is based in policy. The other isn’t. We’ve had a closer find consensus to move in an RM with practically identical arguments as the ones presented here despite 8 opposers and only 3 supporters because opposition had no basis in policy. And this close was endorsed at MR because the closer followed RMCI instructions to weigh arguments based on their basis in policy. Do that here and you will also find strong consensus to move. —- В²C ☎ 17:23, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree it's clearly a no-consensus situation as it stands, boiling down to different weightings of criteria and interpretations of policy, much like the recent Edward/Richard or Christian/Frederick RMs. The points raised so far have already been pretty thoroughly expressed and explored, but certainly no harm in waiting a bit longer. ╠╣uw [ talk ] 18:27, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Results of two cherry-picked recent NCROY-related WP:TRAINWRECK multi-move RM proposals are not comparable to this one. The two I cited that went to MR (Move review and Move review) are comparable. The results in these two comparable recent RMs have been respectively endorsed as, or overturned to, consensus to move. —В²C ☎ 19:07, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * By the way, there was also another similar RM with practically identical arguments as here and it was closed as no consensus. Wanna guess what happened at MR to that one?
 * If this one is closed no consensus I guarantee it will go to MR and will almost certainly be overturned. Ignoring consensus-supported policy and guidelines so blatantly is getting little tolerance lately, thankfully. —-В²C ☎ 18:56, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Threatening MRs if a still-active RM doesn't go your way serves no good purpose whatsoever. You've advanced your interpretation of policy and weighting of criteria, and that's fine. Others have advanced theirs, and that's fine too. I strongly suggest we just step back and wait for this to be closed on its merits. ╠╣uw [ talk ] 19:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh please. It’s a prediction not a threat. В²C ☎ 21:45, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think we've all said more than enough on this RM and both sides' viewpoints are clear. We're not going to persuade any of the !voters to change their minds; @FOARP noted that this RM is already getting too long for closers to reasonably read everything that has been said. I for one will be leaving this to run its course, in the hope that relisting will attract some uninvolved editors. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Support, per all WP naming conventions & guidelines. An emperor ✖ 18:08, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose I continue to support pre-emptive disambiguation. PatGallacher (talk) 01:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - Per nomination. Durchbruchmüller (talk) 22:08, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Best that are readers know which country these monarchs are reigning over, as soon as possible. GoodDay (talk) 02:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose I agree with GoodDay. All monarch should have the country as part of the title. Dimadick (talk) 18:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I've requested closure for this at Closure requests. Natg 19 (talk) 21:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

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.
 * Oppose per GoodDay. I think it's best to err on the side of more information in the case of monarchs. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 02:23, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. I'm genuinely baffled by the supposed recognizability problem. There is no Charles XI (disambiguation) or Charles XII (disambiguation). Anyone generally familiar with the subject area (European kings) will immediately recognize what Charles XI and Charles XII refer to because there is only one possible option for each. "of Sweden" is just unnecessary disambiguation. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. WP:NCROY is clear that we don't use the country name unless it's needed for disambiguation. A local consensus cannot override this. Jessintime (talk) 14:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)