Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)/Archive 16

Archives

 * Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Western nobility)/Archive 0 (formerly Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (monarchs) - very old)
 * Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles)/older archives
 * Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles)/Archive 2
 * Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles)/Archive 3
 * Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles)/Archive 4
 * Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles)/Archive 5
 * Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles)/Archive 6
 * Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles)/Archive 7

Kings of Ireland and Scotland
The examples in the proposed policy shows an Anglocentric POV. Kings (and Queens) of England after 1536 (including Henry VIII) were legally Kings of Ireland as well while Kings of England after 1603 were also Kings of Scotland. After 1707 until 1801, Kings of Great Britain remained Kings of Ireland. The full title of the UK was of "Great Britain and Ireland". Therefore the correct style (in terms of historical reference books) would be "Elizabeth I of England and Ireland", "Anne of England, Ireland and Scotland", "George I of Great Britain and Ireland", etc.--Andrew L 22:24, 8 October 2005 (UTC)--Andrew L 22:24, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Would it not be less POV to say Kings (and Queens) of England after 1536 (including Henry VIII) "Styled themseves" Kings of Ireland (Rather than First Lord)?

But be that as it may see Naming conventions (names and titles) Number 4:
 * Where a monarch has reigned over a number of states, use the most commonly associated ones. For example, "Charles II of England", not "Charles II of England, Scotland and Ireland".

Now that may be POV to say that England is "the most commonly associated one" but as they all chose to spend most of their time in England (with possible exception of King Billy) England is most probably the most common association. --Philip Baird Shearer 16:27, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The numericals will be wrong in some cases too Fornadan (t) 21:59, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

=Addition proposed=

proposed tag
Is it still needed? And if so, should this be moved from the conventions part of Naming conventions to the under consideration part? Hiding talk 11:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The discussion whether it should be
 * Naming conventions (names and titles)
 * OR
 * Naming conventions (Western nobility) + Naming conventions (Western clergy)
 * is still not concluded.
 * The first of these options equals the second, apart from:
 * Due to length of the guideline text, a split in two guidelines (one for nobility and one for clergy) is proposed - this also allows to expand the clergy part a bit, which is now very narrowly including only a limited part of the Christian denominations (and no Jews, etc...).
 * In the first option naming conventions (common names) is described as an exception to the names and titles NC guideline. The second option has the same content, only this option starts from the common names principle, providing solutions where that principle is not unambiguous. This way of putting it (that in practice does not lead to differences in page name all that often), is however better suited to link nobility and clergy naming conventions to the central ideas of naming conventions (people).
 * I'll list this discussion on current surveys now. --Francis Schonken 13:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Based on your summation, I'd support the second option. Hiding talk 13:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Implemented accordingly --Francis Schonken 10:36, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

You have not discussed turning this page into a redirect to Naming conventions (Western nobility) before you did it. This needs more discussion before making a decision to implement such a change. --Philip Baird Shearer 14:15, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Philip, please stop taking policy & guidelines decisions single-handedly: this has been on current surveys for 10 days (linking to this section as discussion area). All persons who cared to join the discussion in that period supported. Further, all remarks prior to the "current surveys" listing had been handled a long time ago. --Francis Schonken 14:52, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I concur with Phil. Gene Nygaard 15:09, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Re. Gene Nygaard's assertion "there is no such discussion on current surveys and no mention of any such on talk page here" (edit summary): Gene Nygaard, please check fact prior to making wild assertions. A sorry would suffise now, as far as I'm concerned. --Francis Schonken 15:29, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * "I'll list this discussion on current surveys now. --Francis Schonken 13:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)" - about 10 lines above on this page;
 * 13:09, 9 November 2005 - Listing on "current surveys" page the included link is: "Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles)", that is this page, this section
 * 10:34, 19 November 2005 - De-listed from current surveys after 10 days, that is after I had implemented the proposed change.


 * I do not have Current surveys on my watch list. I suspect most people who have an interest in this page do not. However even if I had I would not have understood what you were proposing, becase to me the wording is not clear. In my opinion your wording above does not make it clear that you intended to wipe this page and start again with you own version of this page. Now I may not be against that, but please explain in more detail why you think that it is necessary and the detailed difference between this version and the one you are proposing. They way you have implemented the change is the equivalent of a cut and past move. So even if I am in favour of your changes, and I have not made up my mind on that, then the move should be made using the move tab, not as a cut and past which buries the history under a redirect. --Philip Baird Shearer 19:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

What is going on here? There was no coverage of this anywhere that I could find. For a start the move makes absolutely no sense. Monarchs and nobles are two distinct categories. A monarch isn't a noble and a noble isn't a monarch. Moving a page to an inaccurate new name is ludicrous. All Francis seems to have done is create confusion. Put things back and hold a proper survey. &#91;&#91;user_talk:Jtdirl]] 22:59, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

As there was clearly no debate, much less consensus, on its creation (unless you call the participation of one person other than the creator a consensus!) Naming conventions (Western nobility) has been nominated for deletion. The early work on the original page involved drafts being prepared, messages sent to the w-list, twenty users who had already partipated in the development of royal naming being contacted to seek their opinions, and other messages left all over Wikipedia. Every effort was made to ensure that a large number of people participated in the discussion and a consensus arrived at that really wasa consensus. The contrast between that and the lack of communication surrounding the creation of this 'new' page is stark. &#91;&#91;user_talk:Jtdirl]] 02:22, 20 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Below you can find the text of the alternative I proposed.


 * This text had been proposed on this talk page before, for example on 8 september (now in archive 7) diff


 * We're not here to discuss temporary amnesias of people regularly contributing to this page.


 * Note that at that time I characterised this alternative as safeguarding all the "rules" of Naming conventions (names and titles), apart from putting "exceptions" where they should be according to the views I have expressed several times on this page. - This is the same as I expressed above, when I re-proposed this guideline on this page.


 * Re. whether royals can be included in a page on Western nobility: John Kenney had remarked on that too, and I had replied, see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)/Archive01 - was that reply not satisfactory?


 * Start of Western nobility NC proposal

This is a further detail to Naming conventions (people), concentrating on Western nobility.

As monarchs and other nobility often use titles rather than surnames, and often change titles, using a clear and agreed nomenclature can sometimes be difficult.

The following is a set of conventions that have emerged from a detailed discussion on Wikipedia. For the discussions, see the talk page and archives of the "names and titles" naming conventions page, the talk page of the general naming conventions page and, earlier, the "history standards" talk page.

Most general rule overall: use the most common form of the name used in English - if that doesn't work or leads to an ambiguous result, see whether Naming conventions (people) can help you out. If that still doesn't work, this guideline is here to solve further disambiguation and/or naming issues.

Western Nobility
Most of the conventions below are intended for medieval and modern European and Muslim rulers and nobility, since in these civilizations several countries share the same given names, so some disambiguation is often required, and disambiguation by territorial designation is convenient. Elsewhere, territorial designations are usually unnecessary in names and in article titles.

Note that the below will generally not apply to:
 * 1) Eastern and Polynesian civilizations. See also: Manual of Style (China-related articles), Manual of Style (Japan-related articles), Manual of Style (Thailand-related articles).
 * 2) Roman Monarchs or other Nobility, see: Naming conventions (ancient Romans)
 * 3) Germanic peoples (and any other leaders of a people, rather than a country or nation), if any description at all is used (and this is something the early medievalists should work on), it should be "of the Goths", etc.

Monarchical titles
For monarchs:
 * 1) Pre-emptively disambiguate the names of monarchs, of modern countries in the format "{Monarch's first name and ordinal} of {Country}". Examples: Edward I of England; Alfonso XII of Spain; Henry I of France; Cleopatra VII of Egypt.
 * 2) Where there has only been one holder of a specific monarchical name in a state, the ordinal is used only when the ordinal was in official use. For example, Victoria of the United Kingdom, not Victoria I of the United Kingdom; Juan Carlos I of Spain, not Juan Carlos of Spain. The usage of ordinals where there has been more than a single holder of a specific monarchical name is correct and appropriate. For example, William I of England, not William of England or William the Conqueror, as William II of England and William III of England hold the same monarchical name.
 * 3) Take care to use the correct name of the state at the time when a monarch reigned. So it is
 * 4) with the British: monarchs of England only up to 1707 (eg., Henry VIII of England), Great Britain from 1707-1800 (eg. Anne of Great Britain), the United Kingdom since 1801 (eg. Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom). England, Great Britain and the United Kingdom were all different states covering different geographic areas, and so they do need to be clarified.
 * 5) with German monarchs: Holy Roman Empire until 1806 (e.g. Henry V, Holy Roman Emperor), Germany from 1871 (e.g. Wilhelm II of Germany), Austria after then, etc. Germany is especially complex; when in doubt, refer to List of German Kings and Emperors.
 * 6) But if an obscure official name of a state exists alongside a clearly understood one, it is fine to use the more widely known version. For example, Kings of Greece rather than the technically correct Kings of the Hellenes.
 * 7) Where a monarch has reigned over a number of states, use the most commonly associated ones. For example, Charles II of England, not Charles II of England, Scotland and Ireland; Wilhelm II of Germany, not Wilhelm II of Prussia, although there should be redirects from these locations
 * 8) European monarchs whose rank was below that of King (e.g. Grand Dukes, Electors, Dukes, Princes), should be at the location "{Monarch's first name and ordinal}, {Title} of {Country}". Examples: Maximilian I, Elector of Bavaria, Jean, Grand Duke of Luxembourg
 * 9) Do not apply an ordinal in an article title to a pretender, i.e., someone who has not reigned. For example, use Louis-Alphonse, Duc d'Anjou, not Louis XX when referring to the legitimist pretender to the French throne. A person may however be referred to if they have a title, for example, Victor Emmanuel, Prince of Naples for the last Italian Crown Prince. But he should not be referred to as Victor Emmanuel IV even though Italian royalists call him so. Where someone has a disputed title, for example, "Henry V" – whom French Legimists believed became the real king of France in 1830 after Charles X's abdication – could be referred to as such in the article. Alternatively a disambulation page could be created, redirecting enquiries about "Henry V" to the page where his biography exists, that is, Henri, comte de Chambord.
 * 10) Former or deposed monarchs should be referred to by their previous monarchical title with the exception of those who are still alive and are most commonly referred to by a non-monarchial title; all former or deposed monarchs should revert to their previous monarchical title upon death; for example, Constantine II of Greece not ex-King Constantine II or Constantine Gluckberg, Edward VIII of the United Kingdom not the Prince Edward, Duke of Windsor, but Simeon Saxe-Coburg Gotha not Simeon II of Bulgaria.
 * 11) No family or middle names, except where English speakers normally use them. No cognomens (nicknames) in article titles – they go in the first line of the article.
 * 12) Make redirects from other plausible names that people might search for or link to, even if strictly incorrect. For example, Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom should have redirects from Elizabeth II of England, Elizabeth II of Great Britain, Elizabeth Windsor, Queen Elizabeth II etc.

Other royals
For royalty other than monarchs:
 * 1) If they hold a princely substantive title, use "{first name}, {title}". Examples: Charles, Prince of Wales, Anne, Princess Royal, Felipe, Prince of Asturias.
 * 2) If they hold a substantive title that is not princely (a peerage, for instance), use "Prince/ss {first name}, {title}". Examples: Prince Andrew, Duke of York, Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex. Numerals are not used. Example: Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester, not "Prince Richard, 2nd Duke of Gloucester".
 * 3) Use "Prince/ss {first name} of ..." where they have a territorial suffix by virtue of their parent's title, eg, Prince William of Wales, Princess Beatrice of York, Prince Arthur of Connaught, etc.
 * 4) Where they have no title, use the form "Prince/ss {name} of {country}," eg. Princess Irene of Greece.  Only former royal consorts should not have a title mentioned, eg Anne of Denmark. Using royal titles for more junior royals will enable users to distinguish between royal consorts and others.
 * 5) When dealing with a Crown Prince/ss of a state, use the form "{name}, Crown Prince/ss of {state}" unless there is a clear formal title awarded to a prince which defines their status as crown prince (eg, 'Charles, Prince of Wales', 'Felipe, Prince of Asturias', etc)
 * 6) Do not use styles as part of a title of an article; eg, Princess Irene of Greece not HRH Princess Irene of Greece.
 * 7) Do not use 'surnames' in article names. Most royal families do not have surnames. Many that do have different personal surnames to the name of their Royal House. For example, different members of the Royal House of Windsor have a range of surnames: Windsor, Mountbatten-Windsor, etc. Charles, Prince of Wales, for example, is not Charles Windsor but Charles Mountbatten-Windsor, as are his siblings and all their children. But many of his cousins are Windsor or other names. Similarly, the House of Habsburg is different to the surnames of some members of the Habsburg/Habsburg-Lorraine family.
 * 8) Incorporate surnames if they are known in the opening line of an article, eg, Charles Philip Arthur George Mountbatten-Windsor. But don't automatically presume that a name of a Royal Family is the personal surname of its members. In many cases it is not.  For visual clarity, an article should begin with the form "{royal title} {name} {ordinal if appropriate} (full name (+ surname if known, but not for monarchs)" with the full name unformatted and the rest in  bold (3 's) . In practice, this means for example an article on Britain's Queen Elizabeth should begin "Queen Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary)". Using this format displays the most important information clearly without an unattractive excess of formatting. Other information on royal titles should be listed where appropriate in chronological order.
 * 9) Past Royal Consorts are referred to by their pre-marital name or pre-marital title, not by their consort name, as without an ordinal (which they lack) it is difficult to distinguish various consorts; eg, as there have been many queen consorts called Catherine, use Catherine of Aragon not Queen Catherine.
 * 10) Existing Royal Consorts are referred to by their consort name, eg. Queen Sofia of Spain. But when she dies, she will revert to her pre-marital title, ie, Sofia of Greece. As widow, some appropriate addition (usually announced by the country in question) will be amended to (such as Queen Dowager or Queen Mother), with the new Queen of Spain being referred to by the consort designation. The same rule applies to male royal consorts.
 * 11) Use the most senior title received by a royal personage. For example, George V of the United Kingdom is referred to as such, not George, Duke of York or George, Prince of Wales, his earlier titles.

Other non-royal names

 * 1) Members of the hereditary Peerage (people who inherit their title), such as a marquess, viscount, count, duke, earl, etc., as with royals have two names.  For example Henry John Temple was also the 3rd Viscount Palmerston, hence typically referred to as "Lord Palmerston". Rule here is, "So-and-so, ordinal (if appropriate) title (of) place", and place redirects as you see fit. The sequence number is included since personal names are often duplicated (see Earl of Aberdeen.) Examples: Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington, or Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston, with redirect Lord Palmerston, which allows both of his names to be included. EXCEPTIONS: When individuals received hereditary peerages after retiring from the post of Prime Minister (unless they are better known for their later career under an additional/alternative title), or for any other reason are known exclusively by their personal names, do not include the peerage dignity. Examples: Anthony Eden (not "Anthony Eden, 1st Earl of Avon"), Bertrand Russell (not "Bertrand Russell, 3rd Earl Russell") (but Henry Addington, 1st Viscount Sidmouth not "Henry Addington"). When individuals held more than one peerage and are best known by a title other than their highest one, use the interim one. Examples: Frederick John Robinson, 1st Viscount Goderich (not "Frederick John Robinson, 1st Earl of Ripon"), William Petty, 2nd Earl of Shelburne (not "William Petty, 1st Marquess of Lansdowne"). When individuals inherited or were created peers but are best known to history by a courtesy title use that. Examples: Frederick North, Lord North (not "Frederick North, 2nd Earl of Guilford"), Robert Stewart, Viscount Castlereagh (not "Robert Stewart, 2nd Marquess of Londonderry"). When a peer holds one or more other peerages of the same rank as his most senior peerage, use only the most senior peerage in the title. Example: Charles Lennox, 1st Duke of Richmond, not "Charles Lennox, 1st Duke of Richmond and 1st Duke of Lennox" or "Charles Lennox, 1st Duke of Richmond and Lennox". Single peerages with multiple parts should be used in full. Example: Claude Bowes-Lyon, 14th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne, not "Claude Bowes-Lyon, 14th Earl of Strathmore".
 * 2) Life peers (ie, people who have peerages awarded exclusively for their lifetime but who neither inherit it nor pass it on to anyone else) use the same standard as for hereditary peers: use the dignity in the title, unless the individual is exclusively referred to by personal name. For example: Quintin Hogg, Baron Hailsham of St Marylebone (not "Quintin McGarel Hogg"), but Margaret Thatcher (not "Margaret Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher.")
 * 3) An honorific such as Lord Normanby may refer to any of the holders of the associated title, so can redirect to a page about the title itself.
 * 4) Titles of Knighthood such as Sir and Dame should not be included in the article title: use personal name instead, e.g., Arthur Conan Doyle not Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. (But make a redirect from the form with the title if it is well known, thus Sir Walter Raleigh redirects to Walter Raleigh.) The article itself should clarify details such as the full title, etc. "Sir" may be used in article titles as a disambiguator.  Honorary titles should not be used at all, but the appropriate post-nominal letters or explanation should be in the article.  This Bob Geldof is not "Sir Bob Geldof" in the title and is "Bob Geldof KBE (hon.)" in the text. Post-nominals should not be used for non-Commonwealth or former British Empire citizens as their use outside a Commonwealth context are extremely rare.
 * 5) Baronets, as they hold hereditary titles, often for a large part of their lives, follow the same practice as hereditary peers and should have their title noted in the beginning of the article. The format is Sir John Smith, 17th Baronet. For the article title, this format should only be used when disambiguation is necessary; otherwise, the article should be located at John Smith.
 * 6) Courtesy titles (also referred to as an honorific prefix) such as Lord or Lady differ from full titles because unlike full titles they are included as part of the personal name, often from birth. As such, they should be included in the article title if a person if universally recognised with it and their name is unrecognisable without it. For example,  the late nineteenth century British politician Lord Frederick Cavendish was always known by that form of name, never simply Frederick Cavendish. Using the latter form would produce a name that would be unrecognisable to anyone searching for a page on Cavendish. Similarly, Lady Gregory, the Irish playwright, is more recognisable to readers than Augusta Gregory.
 * 7) In general, use the most commonly recognized English-language form of the name.  Create redirections or disambiguations for other plausible links.
 * 8) Other names and titles, if any, should appear in the first paragraph of the article so they can be searched for.
 * 9) In East Asian names, look at common English usage to decide whether the western first-name last-name or the eastern last-name first-name order should be used. As a rule of thumb, Japanese names should usually be given in the western, Chinese names in the eastern order. A redirect from whatever order is not used, is almost always a good idea. Again, see Manual of Style (China-related articles), Manual of Style (Japan-related articles), Manual of Style (Thailand-related articles).
 * 10) People in the Hispanic world often have a double surname (see Spanish names). The first one is received from the father, the second from the mother. However, in practice often only the paternal name is used, and one should thus add them to Wikipedia under this name (e.g., Fidel Castro). In the first mentioning of the name in the article, use the full name. If the most common name is not the paternal form (e.g., Gabriel García Márquez), use the most common form for the article.

Other
If you get stuck again: ...maybe this guideline showed you nonetheless something about the approach, which could make it easier to interpret the solutions offered at Naming conventions (people), or some of the other guidelines mentioned below, in the "Naming conventions" Category or on the main "Naming conventions" guideline page. If none of this seems to apply, it is possible to leave a note on the talk page.

Clerical names
For popes, patriarchs, cardinals, etc, see Naming conventions (Western clergy)

In case of collision between a monarchical title and a clerical title there is no fixed rule, these cases are mostly solved individually, most often resuming the "what a person is known best by without ambiguity" principle:

Examples of the nobility title taking precedence:
 * Louis IX of France and not Saint Louis (regnal name disambiguates better, while there are several Saint Louis's)

Other European

 * Guidelines for the spelling of names of Polish rulers

Non-European and non-Western (names and titles)
Apply Most general rule overall: use the most common form of the name used in English if none of the rules cover a specific problem.
 * History standards for China-related articles, for China-related articles.
 * Manual of Style (Japan-related articles), for Japan-related articles.
 * Manual of Style (Thailand-related articles), for Thailand-related articles.

Comments

 * Indeed this is 95% or so text literally taken from the names and titles NC - I never made a secret about that.


 * As for preservation of the history of the names and titles NC, deletion of the Western nobility NC page would make it easier to preserve that history (apart from, of course, the history of how the alternative was built).


 * As there seems no opposition to split off the "Western clergy" NC, I'll adapt the names and titles NC accordingly.


 * --Francis Schonken 09:00, 20 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Also, I update the footnotes format according to footnotes --Francis Schonken 09:12, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Please remove the text of your article from this talk page as does not help clarify the discussion. Why not put it in a sub page under your user name and then put a link in to the text rather than dumping it into this talk page?

As to your statement "there seems no opposition to split off the "Western clergy" NC, I'll adapt the names and titles NC accordingly." You have not built a consensus to do this so please do not make any changes to the article until you have built a consensus to do so. I for one object to you making any changes until you have explained what the changes are and what you think the impact of the changes will be.

As I said above, but is lost in the verbiage of the text you have dumped on this talk page. I may not be against the changes but please explain why you wish to make them and what you think the differences make to the conventions. Because of your request to move William I of England (Talk:William I of England) in August, which as far as I could see was to make a point, I am wondering what you agenda is here, so I would feel more comfortable if you would explain these changes before making them. --Philip Baird Shearer 13:11, 20 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi Philip,
 * Thanks for your sympathetic criticism. However, I have a question for you: where was the "consensus" built to describe Naming conventions (names and titles) as an exception to Naming conventions (common names)? Could you give me a clear reference? Early 2004 consensus was built that article naming should be according to the "common names" principle (ref) - although I looked for it I couldn't find anywhere where consensus was built to overthrow that principle for Royals and (other) nobility. Could you please give me a clear reference?
 * Re. my motivation, I have no other motivation or "agenda" than harmonisation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, that is: make them more coherent. I was always clear about that, so, nothing hidden.
 * I see no reason for your blind revert of my attempt to make the two existing footnotes in the names & titles guideline conform to footnotes. Maybe you're a sysop and used the roll-back function? I'm not a sysop, but also here I would like the names & titles NC to be coherent to that other guideline. --Francis Schonken 09:45, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, based on the ensuing debate, I have to say I've changed my mind, and that the way these conventions are currently set up works for me, and I oppose Francis' proposal. I'm not sure I see the reasoning behind it, it all looks to work pretty fine as is. Hiding  talk 17:33, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

FS the reference you point to as other "ref" (Naming conventions (common names) was a discussion about and a poll on city names. The consensus on this article exists in the talk pages of this article. In late August and early September changes were made to exception 2 and point 2. These have now been in place for months and aprt from yourself no one has raised an objection to them. When you made a point of putting up articles like William I of England up for a change by WP:RM, they were in the main decisivly rejected, in the case of William by 11 to 2, which indicates that most people concure with the current wording. The changes made in late August and early september to the wording of both exception 2 and point 2, were to reflect how everyone but yourself already interprted the guidelines and the rejection of the William (and other moves) should have made it clear to you that most people agree with the wording of this guideline. Further your new page to which you tried to make this page a redirect is up for a speedy deletion with the votes running 6 to 0 Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Western nobility). You still have not made it clear with an example what pages you think will be affected by your changes. What is it in exception 2 that you object to?

Does anyone (apart from FS) object to me restoring the edit I made ("Revision as of 14:44, 21 November 2005") removing the templates from the top of this article to this version of the article which is the current article (with the Habsburg-Lorraine fix) that was the "Revision as of 20:25, 22 September 2005"? --Philip Baird Shearer 20:38, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * No, that edit looks fine to me. Hiding talk 21:10, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Re. what I think problematic about the present "exception #2" formulation: first in the intro of the guideline it is written:"Most general rule overall: use the most common form of the name used in English if none of the rules below cover a specific problem."Which disables the "common names" principle for the rules contained in the guideline. Then, in "exception #2" one encounters:"If a person is overwhelmingly best known by a cognomen, or by a name that doesn't fit the guidelines above, revert to the base rule: use the most common English name. Examples: Alfred the Great, Charlemagne, Louis the Pious, Henry the Lion, etc...'."Which enables the "common names" principle again for monarchs.
 * I don't think it to be good guideline writing to first disable a principle that is shared by all NC guidelines, and then, afterwards, enable it again as an "exception".
 * In the alternate proposal I wrote, in the intro:"Most general rule overall: use the most common form of the name used in English - if that doesn't work or leads to an ambiguous result, see whether Naming conventions (people) can help you out. If that still doesn't work, this guideline is here to solve further disambiguation and/or naming issues."Which links better to how other NC guidelines incorporate the "common names" principle (... and there's no need any more to add a formulation of the "common names" principle in a list of exceptions).
 * There's no more to it: just harmonise the NC guidelines.
 * As for which article names would be affected: I think virtually none: certainly not William I of England, nor Victoria, Princess Royal and Empress Frederick, nor Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu, nor George Sand, nor...
 * "Maybe", but that's a big "maybe", some of the dukes of Burgundy might be affected, because their numbering by ordinals is not so much used (and is sometimes confused). So it might be that Philip the Good gets back to where he once was (the WP:RM vote Arrigo once co-initiated over this name was flawed anyway - but it might be that if a new vote would be initiated now that the outcome would still be Philip III, Duke of Burgundy, and that would be OK for me).
 * So no, don't go looking for "reasons" why I propose this change, where such reasons are not to be found.
 * The reason is that the writing, the lay-out of the present guideline is more confusing to those who come here first and may (or may not) be acquainted with the "common names" principle. The message (or: the formulation) of the guideline adds complexity where it is not needed. --Francis Schonken 08:47, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry Francis, I still can't see a problem. Like I have said before, these are merely guidelines which can be overturned by consensus on an article talk page.  Redirects can solve any problem, and I can see the logic in, as you put it, disabling and then re-enabling the common names principle.  I don't think it's important to harmonise the standards so much as clarify their existing positions better if your concern is for first time readers. Hiding  talk 10:05, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Wives of Royal Peers
I would like to try and rename most of the articles on the spouses of Royal Peers (ex. Sophie, Countess of Wessex; Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall; Brigitte, Duchess of Gloucester; Katharine, Duchess of Kent) this is because in case you have not realized with these articles located where they are it implies that they are Royal divorceès.(such as Sarah, Duchess of York or Diana, Princess of Wales) Which they arent. what I propose is to make a simple change and move these articles to [name], the [Duchess of..., Countess of..., Princess of....etc.], this is the more correct and accurate location for these articles. I would apreciate it if you could let me know your ideas, and maybe we could bring it to a vote. Thanks Mac Domhnaill


 * I support the idea of change. Saying Sophie, Countess of Wessex actually means Sophie, formerly Countess of Wessex, aka the Earl of Wessex's ex-wife. (That is where the Diana, Princess of Wales and Sarah, Duchess of York comes from.) That form was laid down as the form for royal ex-wives by the Queen in 1996 (I forget whether it was by Order-in-Council or some other means, but the form was agreed if I remember correctly just before Charles and Diana's divorce).


 * Royal husbands don't need the the: no-one is going to think that Charles, Prince of Wales means Charles, the ex-husband of the Prince of Wales! But our royal bride naming is factually wrong and confusing. After all, how can we explain that Diana, Princess of Wales means, Diana, the ex-wife of the Prince of Wales but Sophie, Countess of Wessex means Sophie, the current wife of the Earl of Wessex, especially when Diana was never called Diana, Princess of Wales during her marriage! This sort of thing breeds confusion when an encyclopædia should be bringing clarity. FearÉIREANN 02:32, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree. I started some of these articles, but not at their present titles. Deb 17:34, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree as well. It is extremely confusing the way it is now.  I would only change one thing with the proposal.  Would it be possible to make it [Name], [The Countess of ...].  As most of the British royals are styled as The Countess (Duchess or whatever), this would keep it consistent.  For the deceased consorts, we can use the lower case 'the' to show the differnce.  Any ideas??? Prsgoddess187 18:19, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

THIS IS AN ARCHIVE. PLEASE DO NOT POST HERE. GO TO Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles) INSTEAD.