Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)

RfC: Should the guideline explicitly accept Elizabeth II, Carl XVI Gustaf, etc titles?
For over a decade now the titles of articles about British monarchs have been at Elizabeth II, George VI, Edward VIII, etc. Likewise it has been 13 years since Maria Theresa of Austria was moved to Maria Theresa (discussion) and Louis-Philippe I of France to Louis-Philippe I (discussion), longer still since Napoleon I of France was abandoned for Napoleon. Three years ago the country qualifiers were dropped for titles such as Juan 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 to Alfonso XIII of Spain and similar (discussion), Napoleon III to Napoleon III of France and similar (discussion) , Elizabeth II to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom and similar (discussion)

Should a point be added to WP: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)
 * Query. Just to be clear: is the proposal to set out a list of articles where this exception applies or is it a statement added explicitly accepting that exceptions can be agreed locally at each article (without listing the articles). The former would be quite unusual, I think. DeCausa (talk) 08:10, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * DeCausa: it is an open proposal, where hopefully we can hammer out the best course of action in a joint effort. I am not fond of the former option you listed; it does not help make the guideline relevant again. See my comment below for my idea on how to approach this. Surtsicna (talk)
 * DeCausa: I have now included an explicit proposal of action in the opening for clarity and simplicity. I still invite everyone to share alternative ideas. Surtsicna (talk) 09:30, 5 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, I believe the guideline should be updated to reflect the present (and long-standing) reality. As it stands now, NCROY is out of touch and consequently largely irrelevant. The change could be as simple as listing some of the examples under point 2 of the Sovereigns section; alternatively (and preferably), we could add a new point explicitly endorsing the disambiguation-less format for subjects with unambiguous or primary-usage names. Surtsicna (talk) 08:23, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Query I was bought here by a notification at an article I watch. Please be more specific about which part of WP:NCROY is under review and the specific text that might be changed. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:48, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:SOVEREIGN; the question is whether the guideline should be modified to take into account the apparent preference for shortening the biography titles over the past decade. What specific text could/should be changed is open for discussion; see my idea above. Surtsicna (talk)
 * Cinderella157: I have now included an explicit proposal of action in the opening for clarity and simplicity. I still invite everyone to share alternative ideas. Surtsicna (talk) 09:29, 5 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes but where there needs to be distinguishing, then you could use the longer terms unless there is a clear WP:PRIMARY case for leaving it alone (like Charles III).  The C of E God Save the King!  ( talk ) 09:17, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The C of E: I have now included an explicit proposal of action in the opening for clarity and simplicity. I still invite everyone to share alternative ideas. Surtsicna (talk) 09:29, 5 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Already the guideline says "If there is an overwhelmingly common name, use it: William the Conqueror, John Balliol, Peter the Great, Henry the Fowler, Mary, Queen of Scots, Gustavus Adolphus, Eric of Pomerania, Charlemagne. This is in line with WP:COMMONNAME." So, maybe all that's needed is to expand on the treatment of British monarchs in this way, such as Queen Victoria. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:22, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Andrew Davidson: I have now included an explicit proposal of action in the opening for clarity and simplicity. I still invite everyone to share alternative ideas. Surtsicna (talk) 09:29, 5 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, omit the country name in general, with two exceptions that I can think of. The first, already mentioned above, would be where the use of the country name or the like would be necessary for disambiguation, e.g., with all the various ones named Charles IV. The second would be where someone is overwhelmingly known by such a name, and such would therefore clearly constitute the common name. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:57, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, but per Seraphimblade's suggestion. The addition of the country is often clunky and unnecessary. It should be added "when neccessary" (per Seraphimblade) rather than the default with permitted exceptions. DeCausa (talk) 10:25, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes Project naming conventions should provide context specific guidance but remain consistent with the superior WP:P&G (WP:AT). Disambiguation is only required when there is an actual conflict in titles. Concision is preferred over unnecessary precision. When there is more than one fourth (IV) Henry, we have WP:PRIMARYTARGET. A preferred pattern of disambiguation ("{Monarch's first name and ordinal} of {Country}") should only be applied when necessary. The guidance at WP:SOVEREIGN should be amended such that it is in harmony with WP:AT in every respect. By my reading, this is more than just a simple copy-edit but a general review. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:22, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. Current guideline language (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 ("if xyz is unambiguous, use xyz") 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)
 * Yes. As said above, it’s already the precedent without disambiguation. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:10, 5 September 2023 (UTC)


 * No. It’s a slippery path to the worse outcome.  The expense is poor adherence to CONSISTENCY and RECOGNIZABILITY. The loss of “King”, “Queen”, and “of ” hurts RECOGNIZABILITY, and has created frequent conundrums of inconsistency, the worst being that non-regnant queens are given more formality than regnant queens.  This path was, is, tempting, because sources tend to use shortforms.  However, sources, whether primary cotemporary sources, or modern biographies, are written from a perspective of high familiarity.  Unfortunately, the real world sources do not have consistency in referring to royalty, and so this is an unusual case of Wikipedia having to choose a consistent style. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:21, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Talk:Elizabeth II/Archive 48 is an interesting discussion. I haven’t read it thoroughly, but I believe it does make the case that there is a problem, even if the solution was rejected.  I don’t know the solution, but I suspect that “of ” should be for non anglophone countries.  For the Anglophone countries, the country could be assumed to be of the language of this Wikipedia, and the anglophone country name changes too often, over centuries. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:31, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I don’t see why we need “formality” from spelling out everything in the title. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:37, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * We don’t. Is that the slippery slope fallacy you’re applying. If it’s not minimalist, it’s ridiculously long? SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:05, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * How is this a slippery slope? I’m simply responding to 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)
 * You used the construction “spelling out everything”, which sounds like going to an extreme. Some princesses have many names and titles.  It sounded like you equate putting in anything unnecessary means putting everything in the title and making it ridiculously long.
 * Maybe I misunderstand you. What do you mean by “formality”.  For me, formality for title for royalty is something that contributes consistency and connection to reliable source usage.
 * On non-regnant queens getting more “formality” than regnant queens, I am referring to how a non-regnant queen is more likely to be titled with her title, and worse he childhood title, than is a Queen regnant. For example, I think the comparison of Matilda of Flanders and Empress Matilda is confusing.  Which one would you guess was queen of England?  Which one would a reader not encultured to Wikipedia guess? SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:54, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You are not supposed to guess which one was queen of England from the article title. That is what the lead sentence is for. Recognizability means that a reader familiar with the subject would recognize that they arrived at the correct article upon seeing the title. Someone familiar with Matilda of Flanders would know that they are at the right place because that is her common name. Ditto for Olav V, Louis XVI, Edward III, etc. Surtsicna (talk) 17:32, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree you are not supposed to guess.
 * Someone familiar with Queens of England might be hindered in Matilda being titled by origin not highest notable rank.
 * I know the purpose of a lead sentence. Can you state the purpose of an article title? SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:01, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Article titles: 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)
 * Extreme cases make bad law. Mother Theresa and King Carl XVI are extreme at the end of extremely notable.  I don’t think there is serious disagreement on Mother Theresa or Carl XVI, unless someone argues that there can be only on e suitable article title.
 * Matilda of Flanders is a more middle of the road example. Obscure to most readers, passingly familiar to many English historians, familiar to very few. Is there a kernel of agreement between us that her article title is non-ideal? Someone bluelinked Matilda, Queen Consort of William I of England.  I suggest Matilda, queen consort of William the Conqueror might be the best title, by using the current Wikipedia article title of her husband king.  Put into the title text her substantive highest position, in a way that might be suitable for consistency and easy recognisability with all other historical Queen consorts. There are a number of other possibilities, all with pros and cons, but all are non-minimalist. To note one piece of annoying noise, her COMMONNAME probably uses “Maud”. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:24, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, I get what you were saying in the reply right below this one now. However, none of the royal consorts mention that they are a consort in their article title, partly because "you are not supposed to guess". For someone familiar to queen consorts Matilda should also be recognizable. I have no clue on English royal history so would you kindly enlighten me on why COMMONNAME would be Maud? Aaron Liu (talk) 01:18, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Maud is the diminutive form for Matilda. She seems to have been actually called Maud.  It’s like Harry for Henry. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:58, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * COMMONNAME is not about arbitrary nicknames, it’s about what most modern people known the subject as. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:18, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn’t mean to suggest otherwise. I noted that it looked like in her time she was actually called Maud, but you’re right, modern sources overwhelmingly call her Matilda. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:04, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Additionally, I didn’t mean absolutely everything; I think adding title, position and origin is already “spelling out everything”. Wikipedia prioritizes COMMONNAME way over formality. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:03, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Title, position, and origin, agree that would be too much.
 * Carl XVI is minimal, unambiguous, but it is too little.
 * Prominent cases should set good example. Minimal titles are unworkable for the general case, the work for unusual names, which tend to be obscure cases.
 * Queen Victoria is an excellent example. England/Britain/UK/Empress of India can be assumed, for the English Wikipedia.
 * Queen Victoria of Sweden would be a good future title. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:58, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * What I do not understand is why Carl XVI Gustaf should need "of Sweden" appended to his name for recognizability if Park Geun-hye, for example, does not need "of South Korea" appended to hers. Surtsicna (talk) 12:54, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You do not understand why there is a separate guideline for royalty and nobility? Or you don’t understand why a national President is not considered royalty?  I don’t think you are being genuine here.
 * The question you appear to be alluding to is whether the style of titling should indicate royalty.
 * Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden looks reasonable. I think King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden has a strong line of merit.  But why not Kung Carl XVI Gustaf?
 * President Park Geun-hye of South Korea? I agree, Park Geun-hye of South Korea looks wrong, unlike Carl of Sweden, but both are shorthand, hurting recognisability, and making it really hard to have consistency between well known cases and obscure cases.
 * I submit that title RECOGNISABILITY and CONSISTENCY are much more valuable to readers than brevity, and have no pretence that there is an easy answer to this persistent problem. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:25, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Fairly obviously, Surtsicna isn't raising either of the 2 questions you pose. The question is why should a monarch have a country designation and a non-royal head of state should not? The answer is they shouldn't - unless disambiguation is needed. It's unnecessary otherwise. DeCausa (talk) 13:59, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Fuzzy — I prefer to add the title first (especially for Queen Victoria as vs. Victoria — what if someone seeks a London train station, a Canadian provincial capital, or an Australian state?); and retaining it for the article title (Queen Elizabeth II) even when relatively unambiguous (as in Elizabeth II).
 * On the other hand, adding the country name where one rulet is overwhelmingly sought is just clumsy (to non-enthusiasts). When someone outside the Wikiverse seeks King Henry VIII or Tsar Nicholas II she or he normallly wouldn't think to add "of England" or "of Russia". There was a long drawn-out debate before "of the United Kingdom" was dropped from Queen Victoria.
 * —— Shakescene (talk) 14:16, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * We don't currently add King or Queen except in rare circumstances like Queen Victoria - it's not part of the existing guideline. DeCausa (talk) 14:19, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * For royalty and nobility, titling is a confusing mess. COMMONNAME does not align with cases where there is no COMMONNAME.  This is a problem to be solved. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:07, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, and not just heads of state. If we argue that Carl XVI Gustaf needs "of Sweden" for recognizability while a simple personal name (e.g. Björn Ulvaeus) suffices for all other unambiguously named Swedes (so no Björn Ulvaeus of Sweden or Björn Ulvaeus of ABBA), we come to the absurd yet inevitable conclusion that the king of Sweden is the least recognizable Swede on Wikipedia. Surtsicna (talk) 14:49, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * We're discussing the existing guideline, so that's hardly a reason it itself to stop proposing changes. —— Shakescene (talk) 15:36, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Surtsicna, you appear to be operating under the assumption that a short Wikipedia title implies an important subject, and a long Wikipedia title implies an obscure subject. Is that right?  What makes you think readers understand this convention? SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:09, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The simple logic that titles are usually made longer only to disambiguate from more well-known subjects. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:20, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * “simple logic” is a term usually indicating a starting point for analysis, not the end point.
 * It seems to me that an awful lot of backroom Wikipedians, as soon as “disambiguate” is mentioned, abandon consideration of the balancing of the five titling criteria.
 * Titles should be made longer as required to better fit a balance of the five titling criteria, and the simple logic explanation does not align with the five titling criteria.
 * - SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:30, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It's either precise or natural, and precise is the more likely of the two unless there are other reasons you'd like to mention. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:13, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * DeCausa, there is a real world convention, historically, for royalty to be suffixed “of country”, but not for civilian leaders. That’s a reason to do it. There are reasons to not do it.  Why do you say it shouldn’t?  What are your working assumptions?
 * Unless disambiguation is needed it is unnecessary. Those are commonly repeatedly words, but a lot of good things are unnecessary. Is necessity a criterion?  What about CONSISTENCY and RECOGNIZABILITY?  A few more words in short titles, like Edward VIII could dramatically improve CONSISTENCY and ROCOGNIZABILITY.  “of the United Kingdom” is problematic due to the country having several different names over the course of the multiple King Edwards, which means CONSISTENCY is lost, for that suffix. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:05, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * 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 does all 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 eg John, King of England.) Otherwise it's just clunky and pointless. DeCausa (talk) 22:30, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Unsupported assertion? Do you read history?
 * eg “Queen Mary of Scotland and Prince Francis of France”
 * eg “Mary of Teck”
 * Are you really denying familiarity with this convention, it’s existence?
 * Regnal number is another convention, with its own pros and cons.
 * Clunky, an aesthetic quality, yes, avoid clunky. Carl XVI of Sweden is not clunky.
 * Pointless? No, “of country”, you may dislike it, is but “pointless” really your claim? SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:47, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That is not just because it's their origin country, it's because it's their house. Teck is not the country (which is Germany), but the house name is the Duke of Teck. An equivalent for King Carl would be "Carl XVI of 	Bernadotte" which doesn't disambiguate or add to recognizability much. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:24, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:RECOGNIZABILITY says the article title should be the name which someone familiar with the subject will recognize. Someone familiar with Louis XIV will recognize the title Louis XIV. Recognizability is not a factor here. Surtsicna (talk) 22:55, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Title policy as written today may not be the font of all wisdom.
 * Louis XIV is an extraordinarily notable example.
 * What about King Louis X? There is only one.  I am familiar with the Kings of France, and I find King Louis X ambiguous because I don’t know all other Louis X were not king.
 * I think the prominent examples should align with obscure examples, and minimalism can’t do that. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:11, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * On review, I’d like to alter my “no” to “tentatively only”.
 * My problems with this guideline is almost entirely with consorts, and I’m not seeing this proposal apply to consorts.
 * I think with all the examples of shortened Tes to be noted, there was a good COMMONNAME justification. It doesn’t follow that all titles should be shorted where disambiguation is not needed.
 * explicitly endorse the use of shorter titles where there is a COMMONNAME justification . no disambiguation is needed
 * SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:20, 14 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I think there are two scenarios where no disambiguation might not be needed. In some cases the name is unique and there have been no other monarchs with that name (ex. Louis XVI). In other cases there have been rulers with a similar name but one subject is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (ex. Henry VIII). I think we should definitely cover this matter in some form in NCROY guidelines because the issue has been raised multiple times recently. I'm just not sure how it can be worded. But overall I agree with the nominator's proposal. Keivan.f  Talk 14:56, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * No "explicitly endorse the use of shorter titles" No the shorter title are highlyy problematic, since they do not mention either the country or the person's title. Dimadick (talk) 17:59, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Name # of country- Is the style I have & continue to support, for all the monarch bios titles. GoodDay (talk) 22:34, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes "a point [should] be added to WP:SOVEREIGNS to ... endorse the use of shorter titles where no disambiguation is needed", since that is the proper kind of titling to use per WP:DAB and WP:CONCISE. This rarely consulted guideline page should not be confusing anyone to the contrary.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:23, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes we should definitely update this naming convention to align with actual practice, which tends (quite rightly) to be much closer to WP:AT. As points out, this will entail a general review of the guideline, not just a simple copyedit. Rosbif73 (talk) 17:05, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Hard no - these titles should not be endorsed. They are abhorrent. They explicitly went against the existing guildeline, and should not be the norm, not be an exception and should not be encouraged. Some article titles have become worryingly western-centric and systematically biased, which is not something I wish to enshrine into a guideline which really needs to be shown a bit more respect, and not stamped on by the ever-irrelevant WP:COMMONNAME. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 21:16, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * And why is the existing guideline better? Titles only have to be recognizable to those in their field, they don't have to be recognizable to everyone. The bias argument only applies when it is prioritized over other similar titles, which the proposed also avoids. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:39, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The field of kings and queens, nobles and royalty, is extensively familiar, I don’t think restricting the scope of relevant readers works here.
 * I think Anglophone bias on en.wiki is ok.
 * I think “abhorrent” is extreme exaggeration, but agree that the trend, to case by case minimalism, is not beautiful. Technically, it is to completely abandon consistency as a criterion, it is unbalanced, which is ugly if not quite abhorrent. Consistency in the reader-facing result should not be confused with a simple consistent rule.
 * No one need argue that the existing (the old) guideline is better. The old guideline did not work well. The reason, I submit, is that it was based on mixing primary source usage with expert jargon (or “shorthand”).
 * I think a changed guideline is needed. Ideas include: different rules for anglophone vs nonanglophone; use of King Queen etc for regnants; use of native language titles for foreign monarchs and nobles; something, I make no claim that the answer is obvious. Perhaps a tertiary work on global royalty and nobility should be studied for style possibilities. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:37, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * For current regnants, sure, and these already usually have COMMONNAMEs. For past ones they are likely to be not familiar to non-historians, so I still think no additional dab is better. Probably add country to each one if a past anglophone name conflicts with another one. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:16, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I honestly do not understand this reasoning. The community has been consistently rejecting the superfluous disambiguation preached by this guideline for over a decade. Do you think that this guideline burying its head in the sand will do anything to restore in practice the format that you like? The allegations of bias are just preposterous. Surtsicna (talk) 09:31, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That's not true. A recent RM for George I and George II of GB failed. An RM for Victor Emmanuel III of Italy failed. How much more unambiguous can you get than "Victor Emmanuel III"? Franz Joseph I of Austria has failed twice in RMs. Vasilis I, II and III of Moscow all failed. Eystein I was moved to Eystein I of Norway. Haakon IV and Haakon V were moved without discussion, but Haakon II of Norway and Haakon III of Norway were left alone. Charles X is a French king, but Charles XI is a redirect to a Swedish king and Charles IX is a dab page. Srnec (talk) 05:49, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * RMs that are half and half split between "remove disambiguation" and "keep disambiguation" indicate that a guideline is unnecessary. See the bigger number of RMs in the opening statement. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:19, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, the guideline should reflect how articles are actually named, and not omit examples because they don't fit with some editors' ideas of how they should be named. Andejons (talk) 06:14, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * No, these titles should not be accepted. I thank the nominator for opening this RfC, as I have also noticed how problematic this issue has become. I am in a hurry right now, so my response will be brief for the time being. However, when I have a spare moment, I will present a detailed argument with plenty of policy-based and discussion evidence to substantiate my answer. Hurricane Andrew (444) 16:53, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I have posted my detailed rationale at the bottom of this discussion. Hurricane Andrew (444) 00:04, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is clearly a consensus that monarch article titles that are the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for their WP:COMMONNAME do not need the "of country" natural disambiguator in the article title. This consensus has become well established in many WP:REQUESTED MOVES discussions over the past 13+ years, and this guideline should explicitly acknowledge that community consensus. The "of country" designation is a perfectly good use of WP:NATURALDISAMBIGUATION, but it should only be used when it is needed (i.e. when there is no primary topic for a certain monarchical name). Rreagan007 (talk) 03:11, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * No, or at least not as specifically proposed. While I prefer "Name # of country" for all monarchs as it improves WP:RECOGNIZABILITY. And while I agree that articles like Carl XVI Gustaf and Alfonso XIII are WP:PRIMARYTOPICS and do unambiguously define their scope, I fear that those could not as easily be recognized without "of Sweden" or "of Spain". At the same time, I also understand that Elizabeth II, Louis XIV, Napoleon, and Maria Theresa are all relatively well-known figures and I am comfortable with those being exceptions to a rule. I would even be comfortable with moving some articles at the "Name of # country" format, such as Nicholas II of Russia, where Nicholas II accomplishes the same task. But will readers be able to understand who Gustav III was.
 * In general, I don't think we should encourage shorter titles as that could harm RECOGNIZABILITY. For me, its comparable to the idea that Obama, for example, is a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to Barak Obama, but we wouldn't entertain the idea that his article should just be "Obama" because it harms RECOGNIZABILITY, even if it is WP:CONCISE and WP:PRECISE.
 * In short, I don't think a point saying to use the most concise possible title should be added, but I wouldn't be so opposed if we better ensured that concision was balanced with RECOGNIZABILITY. That also being said, a large number of the present exceptions come from Britain, and I cannot say as of now how I would feel about a blanket proposal covering them. estar8806 (talk) ★ 20:14, 19 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Agnetha Fältskog is just as much "of Sweden" as Gustav III is. This argument is based on an incorrect understanding of the recognizability criterion. This criterion does not mean defining the subject in the title. It means, by the definition of it, that the person familiar with Gustav III will recognize that "Gustav III" refers to Gustav III; and they will because that is what Gustav III is called and there is no other. Surtsicna (talk) 17:51, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * No. It's sheer laziness. The whole change to the conventions was flawed and still is. Deb (talk) 10:38, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Which change? Aaron Liu (talk) 14:41, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The one that removed the need to differentiate between countries. Deb (talk) 14:54, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 1. You're talking as if it has been implemented. 2. It seems like this RfC has expired already. I'll be filing a closure request soon. Edit: Someone has already filed one... Aaron Liu (talk) 15:17, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understand. There was a convention, as in Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, but the common namers managed to get it overturned. This was years before your arrival on Wikipedia. Deb (talk) 17:07, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The guideline has not changed since September 5, and even those changes were just changing examples and capitalization of explaining the guideline, not the rules. If we ignore these, the guideline hasn't changed since . Aaron Liu (talk) 17:34, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes in the case of Elizabeth II, because the disambiguation page shows there is little scope for confusion, it mainly referring to things named after her. Other cases will need to be judged on their merits, according to how much scope there is for ambiguity.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:16, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes per WP:CONCISE. Note that the proposal is to endorse the use of shorter titles where no disambiguation is needed (emphasis added). The arguments in favor seem to cite WP:CONSISTENT, which explicitly says Wikipedians have consistently shown that consistency does not control: Disambiguation. For instance, just because Georgia (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 of Querétaro City and Chihuahua City does not mean we have to retitle Guadalajara to Guadalajara City (emphasis in original). WP:CONCISE and WP:CONSISTENT say we should avoid unnecessary "of Country" disambiguation. HouseBlastertalk 20:11, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Statement by AndrewPeterT
'''NOTE A: This is my first time participating in an RfC. I apologize if I have done anything improperly, and I especially apologize if posting a rationale in this format is inappropriate. However, I am very 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 is very 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.''' Hurricane Andrew (444) 00:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)


 * @AndrewPeterT, I think the main issue with your extensive "statement" is summed up by WP:WALLOFTEXT. However well thought out such a contribution is, few people will read it in full. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:34, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Wow, so you’re why I suddenly got a notification for 21 17 messages. As Rosbif73 said, this is not ARBCOM and you don’t need to be so formal. Most of your excessive length comes from quotes; you should probably summarize it unless you can’t make it shorter. Summarizing the issue and pointing out the issue is sort of the RfC starter person’s job, but in the end we do appreciate your input. <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 11:36, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

AndrewPeterT’s attempt to neutrally summarize the issue
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 whether WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:COMMONNAME or WP:NCROY and WP: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. Hurricane Andrew (444) 00:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Evidence to illustrate that the RfC issue raised has indeed been contentious

 * 1) All of the RMs that the nominator has mentioned (In the interest of full disclosure, I opened the Elizabeth II RM that is linked in the explanation. I will return to this matter later.)
 * 2) An RM was initiated on Charles III’s article on July 23, 2023 that was unsuccessful

As I will elaborate on later, the linked RMs show that neither 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. Hurricane Andrew (444) 00:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) An RM was initiated on George I of Great Britain’s article on July 30, 2023 that was unsuccessful
 * 2) An RM was initiated on Victor Emmanuel III of Italy’s article on August 4, 2023 that was unsuccessful
 * 3) An RM was initiated on Oscar I of Sweden’s article on August 17, 2023 that was unsuccessful

AndrewPeterT’s concise opinion on the RfC matter
No, titles such as Elizabeth II and Carl 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 as Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom and Carl 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'''. Hurricane Andrew (444) 00:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Concessions to the opposition that AndrewPeterT will make

 * 1) I accept that this RfC only pertains to WP:NCROY. I will not comment on the appropriateness of article titles in other subject areas here, such as the pages under the scope of WikiProject Tropical cyclones. If another editor wants to debate the merits of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC or WP:COMMONNAME in that field (which I would welcome), this discussion will need to take place in another RfC.
 * WP:NCROY itself does not apply to the entire scope of royalty and nobility, as the guideline page explains in multiple locations:
 * (Emphasis mine)
 * (Bolded emphasis mine)
 * (Emphasis mine)
 * (Emphasis mine)

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:
 * Any European monarch/royal or noble that primarily reigned/lived before the fall of the Western Roman Empire
 * Any European monarch whose realm does not use regnal numbers as differentiation as WP:NCROY mentions, and the royals or nobles of these realms
 * Any pope (i.e. sovereign of the Vatican City)
 * Any Byzantine royal or noble
 * Any Middle Eastern/North African royal or noble
 * Any Central Asian royal or noble
 * Any Far Eastern (i.e. East, Southeast, or South Asian) royal or noble
 * Any Sub-Saharan African royal or noble
 * Any indigenous Oceanian royal or noble
 * Any indigenous North or South American royal or noble

However, once again, I do not 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. Hurricane Andrew (444) 00:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NCROY, and WP:CONSISTENT are all guidelines, not rigid rules
On multiple occasions, WP:PRINCIPLE makes the case that the four guidelines in the previous header are not 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 nobles should 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. Hurricane Andrew (444) 00:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) (Underlined emphasis mine)
 * 2) (Underlined emphasis mine)
 * 3) (Underlined emphasis mine)
 * 4) (Underlined emphasis mine)
 * Just saying “WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NCROY, and WP:CONSISTENT are all guidelines, not rigid rules” would’ve been enough. <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 11:55, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:COMMONNAME do not have the best interest of (European) royal and noble article titles in mind
As WP: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. I concede that these pages provide advice that can provide useful considerations in some contexts outside of royalty. However, neither WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:COMMONNAME offer any explicit guidance on a preferred way to refer to European royals and nobles via article titles. In contrast, the local guideline WP:NCROY, among other things, provides a preferred template on titling European sovereigns whose realms use regnal numbers for differentiation and explicitly states how princes with territorial suffixes should be called on Wikipedia. In addition, WP:COMMONNAME itself concedes that the most “common” name of a subject is not always acceptable for a Wikipedia article title, namely that (Emphasis mine). As I demonstrate below, formats such as Elizabeth II are ambiguous and therefore do not adhere to this guidance from WP:COMMONNAME when for royals and nobles that share the same name: Hurricane Andrew (444) 00:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Charles III can refer to either Charles III of Spain or Charles III of the United Kingdom,
 * 2) Elizabeth I can refer to either Elizabeth I of England or Elizabeth I of Russia,
 * 3) Elizabeth II can refer to either Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom or Elisabeth II, Abbess of Quedlinburg, and
 * 4) Maria Theresa can refer to, among even other people, Maria Theresa, Queen of Hungary, Maria Theresa of Spain, and Maria Theresa of Naples and Sicily.

There is no uniform way to adhere to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in general, and this is especially problematic for WP:NCROY
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 a primary topic exists:


 * 1) (Underlined emphasis mine)
 * 2) (Emphasis mine)
 * 3) (Emphasis mine)

In addition, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, via WP: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 of WP: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 a paywall. 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. Hurricane Andrew (444) 00:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

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 and Belgium were both ruled by monarchs named Albert II. Suppose that Wikipedia community tried to determine a “primary topic” for Albert II. There are useful arguments that could be made for either Albert II taking that article title per se. On one hand,
 * Albert II of Belgium reigned for a longer period than Albert II, Prince of Monaco has.
 * Albert II of Belgium was a king, a higher societal rank than being “just” a sovereign prince like Albert II of Monaco.
 * Belgians are more likely to be familiar with Albert II of Belgium.

On the other hand,
 * Albert II, Prince of Monaco is an executive constitutional monarch, whereas Albert II of Belgium was “just” a a ceremonial constitutional monarch.
 * Albert II, Prince of Monaco is the daughter of a well-known Hollywood actress. In contrast, Albert II’s mother lived a comparatively unremarkable childhood life as a Swedish princess.
 * Monacans are more likely to be familiar with Albert II, Prince of Monaco.

Evidently, in this situation, the Wikipedia community could choose a legitimate primary topic for Albert II for either sovereign. However, for the bolded reasons for each monarch, Wikipedia could perceived as being nationalistic 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. Hurricane Andrew (444) 00:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Most material under a paywall can be accessed and searched through WP:TWL. If one doesn’t have access to Wikipedia, then they would not use it or need to have naming conventions make sense to them.Under this guideline we could still just add countries to both since they’re both reigning. <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 12:30, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

It’s not just about WP:CONSISTENT, it’s about all of the other goals of WP:TITLE
When I requested that Elizabeth II’s article title be moved to Elizabeth 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 on Margrethe II of Denmark and knows that her first cousin, Carl XVI Gustaf, rules over Sweden, would they not type in Carl 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 royal just as effectively as “Margrethe II” and “Carl XVI Gustaf” would. Hurricane Andrew (444) 00:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I think Talk:Elizabeth II/Archive 48 can summarize my opposition to this argument. <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 13:05, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Evidence of omitting a monarch’s country from the article title being challenged by the community
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. Hurricane Andrew (444) 00:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Evidence of WP:TITLE itself deferring to WP:NCROY
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:

Hurricane Andrew (444) 00:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) (Underlined emphasis mine)
 * 2) (Emphasis mine)
 * 3) (Emphasis mine)
 * 4) (Emphasis mine)
 * 5) (Underlined emphasis mine)

Final thoughts by AndrewPeterT

 * In the spirit of WP:IAR, I would like for WP:SOVEREIGN Guidelines 3 and 5 to take precedence over WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC when titling pertinent articles, as I have elaborated on. Moreover, WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT should be invoked if necessary.
 * I have accepted by now that my opinion is in the minority. However, I ask that everyone who disagrees with me adhere to WP:5P4 when making counterarguments to my rationale.
 * I encourage all editors who have been citing WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:COMMONNAME to read the fine print of each guideline in addition to considering their spirit. Neither WP:PRIMARYTOPIC nor WP:COMMONNAME (and for that matter, WP:NCROY and WP:CONSISTENT) have unilateral authority on titling Wikipedia articles.
 * Regardless of where we stand on this issue, I hope that we can all agree that this RfC should bring closure to a debate that has been in the making for the years. I will respect the final decision and will offer my services to amend WP:NCROY as appropriate depending on what the community agrees to . Hurricane Andrew (444) 00:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * We’re trying to change NCROY and you can’t argue for NCROY with NCROY. Nobody’s objecting that topic specific are usually better, but the current consensus runs afoul to the guideline. Guidelines and policies are not supposed to regulate consensus but to reflect existing consensus, which is usually based on existing, broad guidelines. IMO You have not made the case of what the spirit of NCROY is or why this should be an exception to the parent guidelines. <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 14:22, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Side issues that AndrewPeterT believes the community also needs to address
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. Hurricane Andrew (444) 00:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Moratorium on all RMs for articles under scope of WP:NCROY - At this point, the community needs to establish a clear consensus on what this guideline states in writing. Any active RMs in this field will only detract from this goal. If possible, could an administrator close any RMs that are ongoing regarding article titles for European monarchs, royals, and nobles?
 * Amending Guideline I of WP:SOVEREIGN - I also have taken issue with the vague language of this guideline: What is considered “overwhelmingly” more common? Is a difference of two Google hits enough to keep Mary, Queen of Scots at that title as opposed to Mary I of Scotland? Is being mentioned by 150% more primary sources the threshold for not renaming William the Conqueror to William I of England? I recommend that another RfC be opened after this one elapses to settle this ambiguity.
 * The matter of personal unions in general - When I opened the RM for Elizabeth II’s article, some users opposed the move on the basis that Elizabeth reigned over a multitude of realms. However, she is far from the only monarch to have done so. Are we, as Wikipedians, going to remove the country names from every monarch that ruled over two or more countries? If so, how are we going to determine the primary regnal number? This debacle is a major reason I oppose amending Guideline 3 of WP:SOVEREIGN whatsoever.

APPENDIX A: Evidence of omitting a monarch’s country from the article title violating the spirit of WP:CONSISTENT, and by extension, WP:TITLE
I respect that multiple users believe that article title formats like Elizabeth II is more in the spirit of WP:COMMONNAME. However, WP:COMMONNAME must be balanced against WP:CONSISTENT, WP:PRECISION, and WP:NPOVTITLE. An analysis of the titles of various sovereigns of current European monarchs shows how WP: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 by WP:NCCL. Furthermore, the Presidents of France and Bishops of Urgell, the Co-Princes of Andorra, are excluded because they are instead subjected to WP: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 the personal 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 the personal 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. Hurricane Andrew (444) 00:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

APPENDIX B: Evidence of WP:COMMONNAME already being disregarded for multiple European royals (and WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT being used)
''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:'' Hurricane Andrew (444) 00:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

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)


 * Yes, they have. And quite frankly, this is becoming a matter beyond which an RfC at this time can resolve. Hurricane Andrew (444) 19:36, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Requested moves to shorter titles
In light of the RfC about changing this guideline to endorse concise titles such as Elizabeth II, I have proposed several moves regarding articles about English kings (from Edward I to Edward V). Please see Talk:Edward I. Surtsicna (talk) 19:47, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Well this push to eliminate "of country" from monarch bios page titles, is certainly in full swing. I'm guessing, heirs-apparent/presumptive & others in line of succession, will be next. GoodDay (talk) 19:20, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That seems like a bit of a slippery slope. 2601:249:9301:D570:8D44:DAF4:3F4B:EDC7 (talk) 21:07, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Then there's the consorts. GoodDay (talk) 15:15, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Then there's dukes, counts et al. When are they going to be trimmed?  But apparently those titles can stay, unless they're Italian for some reason?
 * I regret not realizing this RFC was on at the time. I would have opposed it vigorously.  What a disaster it is wreaking. Walrasiad (talk) 09:38, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * User:GoodDay - I think the moral shown is ‘Do not discard long-embedded practices.’ It just winds up being an incomplete change and directly degrades respect for the guidelines.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Re-open the RFC
There is a plethora of monarchical names being closed over the strong opposition of the community, citing the recently-changed RFC above. This is causing severe disruption of long-stable article titles across Wikipedia.

The recent closure of the RM on Ferdinand VI of Spain over vigorous and overwhelming opposition seems to indicate that wider community opinion is not in line with the recently-changed guidelines. Neither I, nor many others, were aware nor participated in this RFC.

Most of these pages has been stable for 20 years - never proposed to move. That is an indicator of wider community consensus than the few people that happen to monitor the NCROY page. The RfC change slipped through on a 12-8 vote. The Ferdinand VI of Spain was opposed on 8-3, a bigger margin. It seems to me anomalous that a small group can engineer and overturn a long-term wider community consensus by ramming through a change in a guideline page, that affects a massive amount of pages, destabilizing Wikipedia and overriding long-standing community consensus. The wider community's opinion should not be treated as irrelevant because it was not expressed in the right location and right time.

It has been recommended that I should take this up here. So I would request the RFC be re-opened, and the matter revisited, so the wider community can participate. Walrasiad (talk) 06:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Anyone is welcome to open a new RfC at any time. I would however note that RfCs and RMs are not about counting votes but weighing up policy-based arguments, as exemplified in the closer's rationale: Based on the strength of argument from existing policy [...] there is a strong consensus to adopt the proposal. Likewise, for the specific example you mention (Ferdinand VI), the closer noted that none of the Oppose votes are actually based in policy.
 * The fact that the majority of recent RMs to remove "of country" have passed is itself a strong indicator of community consensus, opposition notwithstanding. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:06, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Where did the last RfC take place? Here? Then, I think any new RfCs should be opened at a place when the wider community can contribute, not just people who are interested in WP:NCROY guidelines. This new set of guidelines is affecting WP:TITLECON in many instances, which is a policy. Keivan.f  Talk 14:52, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced a new RfC is justified, but agree that if one is held, it should be notified to relevant prominent places such as WT:AT or WT:BIOG to get wider input. I also agree with User:Srnec below that a pre-RfC discussion would be highly advisable before embarking on a widely publicised RfC.
 * Incidentally, WP:TITLECON is an essay, not a policy. Did you perhaps mean WP:CONSISTENT? Rosbif73 (talk) 13:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree we need to reconsider the NCROY change, particularly given the contentiousness and lack of consensus apparent in the spate of RMs it's prompted. I also agree that greater participation would be extremely helpful, since (again as the RMs suggest) the wider community doesn't seem to be nearly as on-board. Though a bit cumbersome, mass pings to the participants of RMs associated with the change might be good. ╠╣uw [ talk ] 12:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I support a new RFC, but I think we should have a pre-RFC discussion to identify the issues that need sorting and if there is perhaps a middle ground position, since I doubt there is community support for moving, e.g., Elizabeth II anywhere. Srnec (talk) 04:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This is one of those situations where neither extreme — nation on all or nation on none that are unambiguous — will give us the optimal results. The former would mean moving Liz, and you’re right that that’s probably a non-starter; the latter would mean keeping the nation off of even lesser-known monarchs, which the contentiousness and only scattershot success of recent RMs shows is also not working. The most successful path is probably going to be a compromise somewhere in the middle. ╠╣uw [ talk ] 14:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC)


 * The RFC should be reopened. There's no shame in RFCs that make the wrong call due to an accidentally skewed turnout or the like, but when an RFC maybe made the wrong call, then a reconfirmation RFC is merited.  I don't really want to be the one to spearhead it myself.  But this is something where the needs of readers needs to come first and requires wide input, so should probably be advertised on CENT.
 * As a side procedural comment,, the whole point of RFCs is indeed to change policy. So an argument of "it's against policy" is meaningless here - RFCs are how policy is set, reflecting community consensus.  And I'd argue it can hardly be argued the old RFC showed great consensus behind it, as its RMs have been radioactively controversial every time.  I'm not saying whether this is right or wrong, just the sheer raw fact that it created this has to be acknowledged, which doesn't happen for truly non-controversial changes. SnowFire (talk) 22:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Regarding the procedural comment: NCROY is not a policy, it is a guideline, supposed to set out best practices for applying policy. A guideline must comply with policy, and an RfC about a guideline must take policy into account. Rosbif73 (talk) 20:16, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Going through the post-RFC multiple RMs in progress & closed. It appears the RFC-in-question's decision, isn't proving to be easily applied. GoodDay (talk) 00:08, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose further discussion of this matter - I will defer readers to what I have written on what I have posted on the WP:ROYALTY talk page. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 17:33, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @AndrewPeterT I am going to reply here. You quote WP:COI: ".  It is the interest of readers that is precisely what is driving the concerns about this.  Because most do not see this change as beneficial to readers, but rather as detrimental to them. This RFC was driven through by a handful of royal enthusiasts who happen to watch this page.  It ignored the wider Wikipedia community, and did not take the interests of readers into consideration.  That is what needs to be addressed.
 * I should also remind that this concern and a revision of NCROY was recommended by those who upheld the Ferdinand VII closure. Walrasiad (talk) 05:09, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The inconsistencies among the monarch pages, continues to grow. Isabella II of Spain got moved to Isabella II & now is about to be moved to Isabel II. At the moment we've got Ferdinand VII (which was previously Ferdinand VII of Spain). Will that page 'next' be moved to Fernando VII? -- GoodDay (talk) 16:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Of course it won't. Monarch's names were systematically translated until the mid-to-late 19th century, but rarely thereafter. Reliable English-language sources continue to refer to him as Ferdinand, so no change is needed. Rosbif73 (talk) 16:42, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Of course it will. Nationalism is a perennial poison in Wikipedia history articles, and should never be underestimated. It has only been by watchfulness and strenuous effort that it has been prevented to nativize all monarchical names, and keep their recognizable English translations.  Defenders of readers and accessibility will eventually be worn down by dogged nationalists eager to propound their unique spellings of "their" monarchs. Walrasiad (talk) 17:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm still at loss as well, concerning intros to current queens consort. Most use just the one name, except for the current queen consort of Spain. But that's another 'inconsistency' topic. GoodDay (talk) 17:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I am getting extremely fed up of articles on the ENGLISH Wikipedia getting moved to non-English names. Royalty and nobility articles are extremely inconsistent in the titling of their pages. On Wikipedia, the title of all monarchs' articles used to be "Name of [country]". Nowadays, different articles, very particularly those of the Spanish and Danish monarchs, have dropped the "of [country]". Why? The reason that "of the United Kingdom" is not included after British monarchs is because this is the English Wikipedia and for much of the English-speaking world (the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc.), the British monarchs are the monarchs! Not Isabella II or Frederik X. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 22:35, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * What a UK centric point of view you have! This is English language Wikipedia yes but it's not UK or Commonwealth Wikipedia. The reason Elizabeth II for example doesn't have "of the United Kingdom" is because there is only one primary article, there's no need for a disambiguator - not because "the British monarchs are the monarchs". You'll notice for example the article for Henry I is Henry I of England because there is Henry I of Austria, Henry I of France, Henry I of Cyprus etc.
 * Regarding the "non-English names", people do have names that aren't English. Names aren't typically translated and Wikipedia should not be assigning people new names based on an arbitrary translation. D1551D3N7 (talk) 00:58, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * He's right though. The only reason Elizabeth II is shortened is because of British nationalism (or rather Canadian nationalism - this whole mess started because of a dumb quarrel a couple of years ago between British & Canadian editors, the latter of whom took umbrage at the suggestion that Canada was being subordinated by having the title "of the United Kingdom".  So their only resolution was to omit it entirely).    Walrasiad (talk) 18:28, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That is hardly a fair summary of the RfC that led to Elizabeth II's article title being shortened. The fact that she was queen of other realms was indeed raised, but what you are calling "nationalism" was actually based in policy, namely compliance with WP:NPOV. Other policy-based rationale also contributed to the decision to override the guideline as it stood at the time.
 * Similarly, the question of whether monarch's names should be translated is nothing to do with nationalism. Modern practice in general is to keep the "native" spelling of given names, but not to change the spelling of names that entered the English-language history books in translated form. Wikipedia follows that practice by referring to people by the name under which they are commonly known in reliable English-language sources. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that is not her common name. Nobody calls her simply "Elizabeth II" (certainly not outside of Britain). She is at the very least "Queen Elizabeth II" (even if that is also the name of a ship), and Britain is almost always mentioned (if not in context). So by the common name criteria she should be at least "Queen Elizabeth II", not "Elizabeth II", just like we have "Pope John Paul II" not "John Paul II".
 * But early on, Wikipedia NCROY decided to not include titles like "king" and "queen" in article titles (unless they're solo, e.g. "John, King of England"). Instead, we decided that we can omit king/queen and leave only "of country" in the NCROY, feeling that is sufficient to identify the royal in the article title. That has been the norm for the past 20 years. And that worked very well for readers for the past 20 years.
 * This recent shortening change started as nationalism and has been driven by nationalism, joined by royalist aficionados and aesthetic minimalists, with little or no regard for Wikipedia readers, whose needs are being disregarded and left in the dust.
 * None of these shortenings are helpful to readers, but all are to serve the agendas of editors. That is the unfortunate reality of Wikipedia articles - and especially marring in history articles. If we have to pretend the British "Charles III" is somehow special because it satisfies the self-regard of British nationalists or royalist geeks, then we'll have to figure out a way to work with that.  If that is necessary to contain the damage being done across Wikipedia, it is a compromise we'll have to consider. Walrasiad (talk) 09:44, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Spitballing a compromise:
 * If the title is completely unambiguous (e.g. Edward V, because there are zero articles titled Edward V of <Different Country>), we drop the <Country>.
 * If the title is utterly primary, use the shortened form (e.g. someone at Nicholas II is not looking for Nicholas II of Saint-Omer, someone at Charles III is not looking for Charles III of Anjou; and people are almost certainly not looking for something named after the monarch).
 * Otherwise, use {Name} {Number} of {Country}.
 * I think we should explicitly note that this is preemptive disambiguation, and thus WP:CONSISTENT does not control (just because Georgia (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 of Querétaro City and Chihuahua City does not mean we have to retitle Guadalajara to Guadalajara City). For example, Jimbo II should not be at Jimbo II of Wikipedia solely because of how Jimbo I of Wikipedia is titled. <b style="font-family:Courier New;">House Blaster </b> (talk · he/him) 15:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * How is this a compromise? That seems just like a restatement of the currently modified NCROY? Walrasiad (talk) 16:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The intended difference is the "utterly" part. Namely, it would need to be more than "merely" a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (and the burden would be on people dropping the country to show it is unnecessary).<span id="HouseBlaster:1709310299465:Wikipedia_talkFTTCLNNaming_conventions_(royalty_and_nobility)" class="FTTCmt"> <b style="font-family:Courier New;">House Blaster </b> (talk · he/him) 16:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * And how would they do that? What exactly is the difference between "utterly" and "non-utterly"? Walrasiad (talk) 17:29, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It is really a I know it when I see it thing (and I would be interested to see if you have a bright-line rule in mind?). Probably not for even Mary I of England. What I am trying to get at is the difference between cases like Mary and Elizabeth II.<span id="HouseBlaster:1709314776566:Wikipedia_talkFTTCLNNaming_conventions_(royalty_and_nobility)" class="FTTCmt"> <b style="font-family:Courier New;">House Blaster </b> (talk · he/him) 17:39, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * FWIW - "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom" was moved to "Elizabeth II" a few years ago, due to some editors not liking the UK getting top billing over their own countries. It was like the umpteenth RM held on that matter, until they got their own way. GoodDay (talk) 17:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah, the joys of relentless nationalism. Walrasiad (talk) 17:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Edit-conflict: A bright-line rule I'd prefer is dropping country only for popular household names. So that would fit Louis XIV of France, but not Edward V of England. (with the stipulation that it includes households "outside of the country of origin" - so a Romanian monarch which may be a household name in Romania but not outside of Romania wouldn't cut it.) Walrasiad (talk) 17:52, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I could live with that replacing my "utterly" suggestion. I still think there is no reason for completely unambiguous (not just a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, but when e.g. Edward V (disambiguation) is a redlink) to use of {Country}.<span id="HouseBlaster:1709315863062:Wikipedia_talkFTTCLNNaming_conventions_(royalty_and_nobility)" class="FTTCmt"> <b style="font-family:Courier New;">House Blaster </b> (talk · he/him) 17:57, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The trouble is that "utterly primary" and "popular household name" are both somewhat subjective, and the latter is also likely to raise worldview issues. Many readers will be utterly familiar with British monarchs and see them as household names going back centuries, whereas many other readers won't have a clue who the same monarchs are. Rosbif73 (talk) 18:08, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That's why I included the stipulation "outside of country of origin". British monarchs may be familiar to British households, but not necessarily to non-British. The burden of proof would be to show it used that way in non-British sources. Walrasiad (talk) 18:18, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Well the mess gets worse. This RFC is proving inoperable.  "Necessary disambiguation" is apparently in the eye of the beholder.  We now have an eager editor spamming RMs, declaring French kings are "primary topic" over Swedish kings.  Big countries are "more important" than small countries. So France doesn't need disambiguation, only Sweden does.  And why not?  Who cares about Sweden? It has only 10 million people, France has 70 million.  And a lot more people are interested in French history than Swedish history. Swedes don't really matter.
 * This NCROY shortening nonsense is asking Wikipedia editors to pick which countries are "important" and which are "not important", it is introducing prejudices of "big countries" over "small countries". This is not something Wikipedia should be doing. This NCROY is not only opening the door to nationalist POVs, now we are now adding imperialist POVs into the mix. A curious but inevitable result of a poorly-thought out NCROY.  This really needs to revised.
 * Deciding which country is or is not important is not the kind of judgment calls we should be making. Indeed, one of the great benefits of retaining "of country" in the titles in NCROY was precisely that it puts all on an equal neutral NPOV level. We won't get drawn into the unsavory nationalist-imperialist games of deciding whether France is more important than Sweden, whether Britain more important than Georgia, whether Russia more important than Ukraine. Walrasiad (talk) 18:51, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * At least personally, I don't see it as a question of which countries have primacy over others. I see it as a question of which individuals are most commonly known by a given name, in line with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.<span id="HouseBlaster:1709579978323:Wikipedia_talkFTTCLNNaming_conventions_(royalty_and_nobility)" class="FTTCmt"> <b style="font-family:Courier New;">House Blaster </b> (talk · he/him) 19:19, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It is effectively the same thing. "Charles IX of France" is much better known than "Charles IX of Sweden", simply because France (and French history) is bigger. So it is asking us to pick countries, giving bigger ones primacy over small ones.  Walrasiad (talk) 19:36, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no question of making judgement calls about monarchs or countries. Whether or not a primary topic exists for a given name, and if so which one, are determined based on objective criteria set out and agreed by the community at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Different countries are often primary for different ordinals, e.g. the UK is for Charles III, France for Charles X, Sweden for Charles XI... Rosbif73 (talk) 19:49, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * What "objective" criteria? Its all contextual. In books on Swedish history, Charles IX of Sweden is primary, in books on French history, Charles IX of France is primary.  There happen to be far more books on French history than Swedish history because France is a much bigger country. So your "objectivity" is merely appealing to (and reinforcing) POV prejudices about certain countries being more important than others.  This is not something Wikipedia should be doing. Walrasiad (talk) 19:59, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I guess Paris should be moved to Paris, France? Because it's discriminatory to prioritise the French city over the countless other places with the name Paris or the mythological figure? UmbrellaTheLeef (talk) 17:09, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I totally support re-opening the RfC. Too many of these controversial moves have been closed by non-admins who have claimed they are enforcing the guidelines whilst ignoring the guideline that says they shouldn't be closing controversial discussions. Then they can expect support from other non-admins and this is apparently enough to overcome the real consensus in the actual discussion. It should be obvious that there is more than one guideline involved and one such guideline shouldn't take precedence over all others. Otherwise it would be a policy, not a guideline. Deb (talk) 17:16, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Correct article title for Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex
A summary of Talk:Prince_Harry,_Duke_of_Sussex,
 * In 2018, "Prince Harry thus becomes His Royal Highness The Duke of Sussex" on the royal.uk site
 * He has continued to be called Duke of Sussex on the royal.uk since then royal family, the duke of sussex
 * Based upon Naming conventions (royalty and nobility), it seems the correct title for him now is "Harry, Duke of Sussex" (styled similar to his brother's article William, Prince of Wales.

It is confused by Official names, since he continues to be called "Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex" or "Prince Harry": ''Newsweek, CNN, Royal Observer.

Would you please help us sort out the correct article title for Harry?–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:07, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the WP:RM route, is what you're looking for. GoodDay (talk) 20:11, 28 February 2024 (UTC)


 * FWIW - We have Prince Andrew, Duke of York, Prince Edward, Duke of Edinburgh, Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester, Prince Edward, Duke of Kent, for sons & sons of sons of British monarchs, with ducal titles. GoodDay (talk) 20:15, 28 February 2024 (UTC)


 * What is your suggestion for the requested move? Based upon your examples, it sounds as if you are suggesting "Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex" which would not require a move. And, don't we need consensus - or a decision here - before requesting a move?–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:23, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * IMHO, the page title should not be changed. He's still a British prince, as he's a legitimate child of the British monarch & previously a male-line grandchild of a British monarch. As for his older brother? William already has "Prince" in his page title, though albeit in the same style as his paternal aunt - i.e William, Prince of Wales & Anne, Princess Royal. -- GoodDay (talk) 20:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Excellent! Thank you!–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Fine as it is. He is still overwhelmingly referred to as Prince Harry. As pointed out above, Prince William, Prince of Wales, is unnecessary and weird duplication, hence the difference. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Exactly. We don't need to have the word "prince/princess" repeated twice. Other examples are Leonor, Princess of Asturias, Catharina-Amalia, Princess of Orange, etc.
 * With regards to Harry not being "Prince Harry" anymore, I have already given references from the London Gazette, dated after his marriage, at Talk:Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex. Examples were also given on other sons of British monarchs, including Harry's father and uncles. The whole thread over there was started by an IP without any solid evidence. Keivan.f  Talk 23:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC)


 * After 's response, it is my understanding that
 * William, Prince of Wales is correct, because he is a prince, son of a British monarch, and not a duke
 * Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex is correct for sons & sons of sons of British monarchs, with ducal titles, like one of the four examples provided, Prince Edward, Duke of Kent
 * Does that make sense?–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Trust me. There'll be no consensus to rename Harry's page. GoodDay (talk) 00:31, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. If there is a consensus on the article talk page, the issue would need to be brought up here again. And, it would seem to me that the guideline would need to be changed to rename the article title - with that logic applicable to other similarly-situated royal family members - likely requiring other moves / renaming.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Before his elevation, William, Prince of Wales was Prince William, Duke of Cambridge. He is still colloquially referred to as Prince William (just as his father was colloquially referred to as Prince Charles before he became King). "Prince Foo" is usually correct (e.g. Prince Michael of Kent, who is also a prince but not a duke or holder of any other title), but Prince William, Prince of Wales would just look weird. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:01, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Question on naming convention in regards to Polish sovereigns
During the Middle Ages, many Polish sovereigns were never crowned, and as such only used the title of "duke" or "high duke" for their entire reign. However these rulers still ruled over the Kingdom of Poland, just without the title of king. For these rulers, which format should be used: X, Duke of Poland" or X of Poland? UmbrellaTheLeef (talk) 07:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)


 * How are they most commonly referred to in English language reliable sources. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Title of the guideline
As the guideline is biased towards Europe as is most of Wikipedia, and restricts its coverage of non-European monarchs to a few bullet points essentially saying "there is no convention, look at WP:AT", I think this guideline's title should be changed to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (European royalty and nobility). Thoughts? &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:56, 2 April 2024 (UTC)


 * As a note for the record, I have responded to this proposal here: diff AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 18:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

SOVEREIGN point 3 contradicts point 2
SOVEREIGN point 2 says "Use the most common, unambiguous name," and point 3 says "Only use a territorial designation (e.g. country) when disambiguation is needed." Sometimes, the most common name in English sources uses a territorial designation. Point 3 should be changed to "Only use a territorial designation (e.g. country) when disambiguation is needed or the name with the territorial designation is the most commonly recognizable name in line with WP:COMMONNAME. --JFHutson (talk) 16:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Of course it contradicts. Because the November RfC that changed the wording was a poorly-thought-through disaster.  And needs to be revised. Walrasiad (talk) 12:06, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * BOLDly addressed. Good? —В²C ☎ 23:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I fear that this change leaves SOVEREIGN even more open to interpretation and dispute. Do we have any actual examples of sovereigns whose regnal name would be unambiguous without a territorial designation but whose common name unequivocally includes one? Rosbif73 (talk) 07:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Not offhand, but I don’t see why that’s relevant. With or without the clarification I added, and you reverted, the same WP:CRITERIA apply, just as they do for any other titles:
 * If the subject’s most common name is unique, or is ambiguous but for which the subject is primary, then that’s the title. Otherwise we disambiguate.
 * That applies equally regardless of what the COMMONNAME is, including whether it includes “of country”.
 * Let’s not get confused by the fact that adding “of country” is often how we disambiguate these titles, when disambiguation is necessary.
 * None of this is affected at all by whether “we have any actual examples of sovereigns whose regnal name would be unambiguous without a territorial designation but whose common name unequivocally includes one”. So why are you asking for such examples? And why does the ability to produce such have anything to do with the clarification I added and you reverted? In other words:
 * If a sovereign’s most common name includes a territorial designation,
 * then that would be the title, even if their regnal name without such designation is unique.
 * Otherwise, territorial designation is included only if needed for disambiguation.
 * Whether there are any actual examples of sovereign’s with most common names that include territorial designations is besides the point. Maybe there are none… then we always use territorial designation only for disambiguation. Maybe there are a few… then we include the territorial designation in those titles respectively. 🤷‍♂️ Either way the same language is just as effective. В²C ☎ 12:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The problem, as I see it, is that people will then argue (and indeed already have attempted to argue in some recent RMs) over whether the common name of a particular monarch includes the "of country" or not. In other words, your bold change merely diluted the general "use the territorial designation only for disambiguation" intent of last November's RfC. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It’s not dilution. It’s clarification. After all, “use the territorial designation only for disambiguation" means “use the territorial designation only for disambiguation of the subject’s COMMONNAME when disambiguation is necessary because the COMMONNAME is ambiguous and this use is not primary for it.”
 * Regarding the need to argue about which is the COMMONNAME, good. That’s what title decision-making should be focused on: determining which is the COMMONNAME based on usage in RS. And the CONCISION razor settles any ties. —В²C ☎ 19:51, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves § Adding hyphens to French personal names
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves § Adding hyphens to French personal names. Ham II (talk) 05:37, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Policy clarification/ change for WP:NCBRITPEER Should the policy for WP:NCBRITPEER be clarified/ changed? UnicornSherbert (talk) 13:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * In what manner? GoodDay (talk) 13:54, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I was literally just typing a paragraph which your edit disrupted and now which I have got to rewrite all again... UnicornSherbert (talk) 14:01, 5 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Support as the current policy is both incoherent, inconsistent and refers to peers incorrectly at times. The current policy has proliferated these inconsistencies and there has been significant disputes at times both on peer's articles as well as on job articles. This would be a prime time to finally address this and correct the wrongs in the policy. For instance: David Cameron, Bertrand Russell and Margaret Thatcher are referred to by their personal names but then Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma and Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington have their titles included. This is compounded by peer's lesser titles being wrongly used such as William Petty, 2nd Earl of Shelburne when in fact he is 1st Marquess of Lansdowne, or where courtesy titles have been wrongly used such as Frederick North, Lord North when he is in fact 2nd Earl of Guilford. This RfC could address these persistent errors and save users time from significant disputes, some which take weeks, months or years. UnicornSherbert (talk) 14:11, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * What change are you supporting? Deb (talk) 14:18, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I am proposing the entire policy be rewritten so that peers are correctly referred to, which would create a clear, coherent and consistent Wikipedia, and would prevent heavy discussions over something as simple as a peer's name. UnicornSherbert (talk) 14:21, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I would oppose this. The current guideline essentially states that articles about peers should include their peerage in the title except where it is not part of their common name. Lord North, for example, is at 'Frederick North, Lord North' rather than 'Frederick North, 2nd Earl of Guildford' because he is far better known by the courtesy title he used during his premiership than by the peerage he inherited two years before his death. A.D.Hope (talk) 14:30, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, are you aware of WP:COMMONNAME? Deb (talk) 14:19, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Of course I am, but this should not apply to peers for obvious reasons. UnicornSherbert (talk) 14:20, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * What obvious reasons? A.D.Hope (talk) 14:23, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The most obvious is that they are a peer... UnicornSherbert (talk) 14:25, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You'll have to explain to me why someone should be exempted from WP:COMMONNAME just because they hold a peerage. A.D.Hope (talk) 14:31, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That's not obvious to me at all. Thryduulf (talk) 14:40, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I do not propose to entertain the last two points and refer them to my message timed at 14:25 UTC. UnicornSherbert (talk) 14:53, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * They are not obviously a peer? —Tamfang (talk) 04:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't that only fortify the case for the policy to be amended, to distinguish between someone who is a peer and someone who is not? UnicornSherbert (talk) 11:22, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The most important of the article titling criteria are to define the subject recognisably (i.e. by the name they are most commonly referred to in reliable sources) and in a way that readers will naturally use to search for the subject. Being a peer is not an exception to that. If titles were supposed to systematically include all the distinguishing characteristics of article subjects, we'd end up with titles like Barack Obama, 44th President of the United States of America. Rosbif73 (talk) 11:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This solely concerns British peers and the policy pertaining to them. Moreover, some peers, as I have said, are referred to by their number in the peerage as well as their title: for example Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston. Your point is not of assistance. UnicornSherbert (talk) 20:19, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This solely concern British peers and the naming guidelines pertaining to them, which are subservient to the article titling policy and must remain consistent with that policy. So COMMONNAME still applies and quite correctly orients how the naming guidelines are written. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:13, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * So basically, you want the article title to match the article intro. GoodDay (talk) 14:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I propose for the entire policy to be rewritten for the reasons I have given above. Far too much time is spent by users wrangling over someone's title and whether to include it. Surely this time would be better spent on providing quality edits... I think I have made the case that the policy is not fit for purpose and requires to be significantly rewritten. I would propose that a peers correct title be included in the lead as it currently is, in the infobox, and in the heading. I would further propose that for their job articles, their proper title be used. WP:COMMONNAME does not assist the submission made by the above editors as this is overtaken by the fact that they are peers. If it was the case that a peerage does not change this, why would there be two separate policies for people and then for peers? The policy also conflicts with WP:CONSISTENT. These too are yet other reasons why the policy is not fit for purpose. Where a peer is better known by a different name or title, they could have the resolution like in the article for Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston which says his name and correct title but then says "known as Lord Palmerston". UnicornSherbert (talk) 14:58, 5 May 2024 (UTC)


 * (Summoned by bot) Oppose. No clear proposal, no clear rationale. It is not "obvious" why being a peer should be more important than WP:COMMONNAME and it wouldn't be a good rationale even if it were. No prejudice against a new proposal that has been clearly thought out and clearly articulated if presented alongside a clear rationale for change and evidence of WP:RFCBEFORE. Thryduulf (talk) 14:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. To be fair to the proposer, s/he probably isn't aware of the long debates that have gone into the formulating of the present policy, but without any kind of firm proposal or rational explanation, of course no one can be expected to support it. Deb (talk) 16:17, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Previous discussions have resulted in this position we are in today, which is untenable. The proposal and the rationale is set out above, particularly at 14:58 UTC. UnicornSherbert (talk) 16:38, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:DUCK. Rehash of this. SPI filed. DeCausa (talk) 18:04, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Best to suspend this RFC, pending an SPI investigation. GoodDay (talk) 18:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Please see my talk page and the investigation page. UnicornSherbert (talk) 22:59, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose due to lack of policy-based rationale and absence of a specific proposal. Rosbif73 (talk) 11:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

==Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) § Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) - RfC drafting for reversion of the November 2023 change== You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) § Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) - RfC drafting for reversion of the November 2023 change. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Titles of European monarchs
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Titles of European monarchs. &#x0020;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)