Talk:List of medieval Bosnian consorts

Requested move 13 July 2023

 * 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: Moved to List of medieval Bosnian consorts. (non-admin closure) &#123;&#123;replyto&#124;SilverLocust&#125;&#125; (talk) 08:38, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

List of banesses and queens of Bosnia → List of banesses and queens consort of Bosnia – To make clear we are talking about banesses and queens consort, not banesses and queens regnant. Follow-up to Category:Bosnian queens being Renamed to Category:Queens consort of Bosnia. See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility/Archive 10 and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bosnia and Herzegovina for related discussions. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Move to List of medieval Bosnian consorts (or somethings similar) - The proposed title is too long and not WP:CONCISE. I also agree with the rationale that moved the article her as "List of consorts of Bosnia" could be confusing to some (though I find that highly unlikely). I think it's best to alight the title with the List of rulers of medieval Bosnia. estar8806 (talk) ★ 19:55, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I support this alternative proposal. Killuminator (talk) 08:19, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The proposed title is not too long (see Talk:List of rulers of Thuringia for examples of much longer article titles).
 * The Alt proposal does not solve the issues identified at the CfR and the two WikiProjects, namely that saying "consort of Bosnia" implies "someone who was married to the country of Bosnia". We need to add banesses and queens consort to clarify what we're talking about. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:29, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Except, that's not how it works. How does changing it to "banesses and queens consort of Bosnia" make it any different. If "consort of Bosnia" implies someone who is/was married to Bosnia, then how does "baness/queen consort of Bosnia" not imply a baness/queen who is/was married to Bosnia?
 * And to go further, Queen Camilla was referred to as "The Queen Consort" and the National Portrait Gallery page for her says Camilla is the Queen Consort of the United Kingdom and Commonwealth realms And yet we know that this is not saying she is married to the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth realms. estar8806 (talk) ★ 23:39, 15 July 2023 (UTC)


 * The proposed title is rather wordy. And for what? To clarify that they were consorts? I used to hate the "consorts of" titles for the same reason the nom explains elsewhere (they weren't married to Bosnia!), but then there's Lancaster's chevauchée of 1346 and the way Shakespeare uses "Lennox" and "Ross" in Macbeth. That is, we often use the names of places as stand-ins for full titles and thus for the people who bear them. I am neutral between the current title, the old title and all the proposals. Srnec (talk) 16:21, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the only queen regnant in medieval Bosnia was Helen. So to some extent I understand why the nominator might feel the addition of the word "consort" to the title is necessary. However, the proposed title is rather too long. I prefer List of medieval Bosnian consorts, which is more similar to List of rulers of medieval Bosnia and avoids the issue of ambiguity surrounding the word "consort" were it to be used in a title such as "List of consorts of medieval Bosnia" (which could falsely imply that these people were married to Bosnia rather than their spouses!). Keivan.f  Talk 07:08, 16 July 2023 (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.