Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)/Archive 17

Requested moves

 * Please list here any Request move which uses or abuses this convention


 * Talk:Edmund II of England - Edmund II of England &rarr; Edmund Ironside (and dab page Edmund Ironside &rarr; Edmund Ironside (disambiguation)). (Informal requests Diarmait mac Cearbhaill &rarr; Diarmaid mac Cerbaill and Flaithbheartach &rarr; Flaithbertach mac Loingsig; Æthelthryth &rarr; Etheldreda) Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Talk:Ntare VI — Ntare VI → Ntare VI of Ankole - "King of Ankole, article is missing his kingdom." --Lox (t,c) 17:49, 20 January 2006 (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)


 * I support this proposal. I think there should also be a standard for the title of deceased consorts of princes, currently some are at their pre marital name (eg Princess Alice of Albany) and some are at their post marital name (eg Princess Marina, Duchess of Kent) I think all should go to the pre marital name. Astrotrain 11:25, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Why not just name the articles The Countess of Wessex, etc? We would normally just call her HRH The Countess of Wessex. I'm not so sure about royals, but for normal peers' wives (or peeresses in their own right) the first name is not included. The first name is only added once they are widowed or divorced. So my vote would be for not including the first name of current wives. Once they are widowed or divorced, the article can be renamed to reflect that. --JRawle 18:12, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

We cant really not include a first name. This is because there have been many Princesses of Wales, Duchesses of York etc. So for disambiguation purposes we need to include a first name, This is just a matter of finding the most correct place to put the article, while still specifically identifying the person. Mac Domhnaill

And you are wrong about the first names of wives of peers not being included see: Natalia Grosvenor, Duchess of Westminster, for just one example. Mac Domhnaill


 * My point was that there is only ever one Princess of Wales or Countess of Wessex at a time, or more to the point there's at most one now. However, I do take your point about peerage articles. Indeed, articles about peers themselves also include their "real" name, even where they are usually known solely by their title. So I think you can disregard my earlier argument! --JRawle 19:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, since we all agree change is needed, for now why dont we say that all wives British peers, (royal or otherwise) will be titled, [Name], [The Countess of..., The Duchess of.....etc.]. Can we all agree to this?? (And yes Astrotrain, I think that there needs to be a set rule on Princesses aswell, However I would support putting a Princess (by marriage) at the highest style she held during her life. Ex: Princess Marina of Greece and Denmark, would remain at Princess Marina, Duchess of Kent. I would consider this to be herhighest title. And say Sophie, Hereditary Princess of Liechtenstein at death would move to her higher premarital title of HRH Princess Sophie of Bavaria. What do you think??) Mac Domhnaill


 * ...all current wives of British peers, (royal or otherwise) titled, [Name], [The Countess of..., The Duchess of.....etc.]. If they are a widow, divorcee, or if it's a historical entry, it shouldn't have the The in there, is that right? But if this is the policy, why shouldn't the same thing apply to the peers themselves? Current peers should be The Nth Earl of... --JRawle 10:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

It isn't workable, J. We have to include a first name for disambigulation purposes because not everyone will know the title in isolation, or the first name in isolation. This has been explored at length. First name is necessary. The only issue is WP's decision in using name and title not to use the, which meant that the form for divorced and existing titles of wives were the same. Current wives include the. Ex-wives don't. It looks like we have a clear consensus to fix that. The first name thing is a different issue and from past experience unworkable with them. In articles one may need to refer to the late Princess Royal, Mary and the current Princess Royal, Anne, in the same article. One needs the first name to distinguish between them. The same is true with peers given that many peerages have died out and been reissued. So otherwise you'd have the third earl of 'x' (first issue) and the third earl of 'x' (second issue). Saying John, the third earl of 'x'  and William, the third earl of 'x'  gets around that. FearÉIREANN 13:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with including first names now, I'm not actually sure what I was thinking... My query was about the current holder of a hereditary peerage. At present, these don't include "the", but are in the form 'Name, Nth Earl of X. Should this now be Name, the Nth Earl of X? --JRawle 14:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't know. In many ways that isn't a problem. The problem is that if one leaves out the the for women one uses the form of name they would have if divorced. '"Diana, Princess of Wales, '"Sarah, Duchess of York mean an ex-wife of the Princ e of Wales and an ex-wife of the Duke of York. The problem is that Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall actually implies the ex-wife of the Duke of Cornwall!!! The same problem does not arise with men. Charles, Prince of Wales does not imply. . . um. . . Charles, the ex-husband of the Prince of Wales. There is no problem going down that route if we wish, but the principle problem here is simply that the female name implies that someone is divorced when in reality they may not be. The simple inclusion of the avoids that. FearÉIREANN 16:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I also agree with including the first names, or else users not as familiar with the holders of these titles (as some of us are...) would be unable to find them. I also agree with deceased holders of peerage titles, and their wives being listed at Name, Nth Duke of X/Name, Duchess of X and the current holders and their wives being Name, The Duke of X/Name/The Duchess of X.  Maybe this will keep the articles from being moved and renamed every other day.Prsgoddess187 15:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, when I posted earlier I didn't include the lower case the for deceased peer(esse)s. FearEIREANN makes a good point.Prsgoddess187 18:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, JRawle you bring up a somewhat valid point about the titling of peers in general, however it does not really matter because there is not really and danger in say putting Prince Andrew, Duke of York where it is, because there isnt any danger of someone assuming that he is the ex-wife of the Duke of york. And of course this change would only effect current spouses, this is the whole point. Mac Domhnaill

Maybe this might arise when the law recognises gay marriages, but right now it isn't a major problem. But calling someone who should be Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall by a name that she would only have if she and Charles were to divorce, is a more immediate problem. We can worry about ex-husbands of royal dukes when that happens, which probably won't be for a while. FearÉIREANN 23:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Good point, and that might happen sooner or later, and that would upset the applecart. But I would rather see Camilla as Camilla, The Duchess of Cornwall. And for deceased consorts we could use Princess Alice, the Duchess of Gloucester. And of course Sarah, Duchess of York would stay where she is. What do you think?Prsgoddess187 23:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * No, not quite. Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester only became Princess Alice after her husband died. Before that she was just "the Duchess of Gloucester".  Then her daughter-in-law became the Duchess of Gloucester and they had to find her a special title.  It's a one-off, like "Diana, Princess of Wales" and "Sarah, Duchess of York". Deb 23:31, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * You are right Deb, sorry she is the first person I thought of. Bad me!Prsgoddess187 23:36, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes Prsgoddess187, I agree entirely. Except that Princess Alice is okay, because that is the style that she chose to use after her husbands death (otherwise I would agree with you). I think we can now all agree that all, living and current spouses will be at [name], [The Duchess of.....etc] Mac Domhnaill

I have moved all the current wives of British Royal peers, to [name], [The Duchess of....] as we seemed to have reached an agreement. Although I think that we still need to work out the details for deceased peers wives. Thanks Mac Domhnaill 02:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I was thinking, should we move Charles, Prince of Wales to Charles, The Prince of Wales and Andrew, Duke of York, Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex, and {{Anne, Princess Royal]], to Name, The royal peer title. Prsgoddess187 00:42, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * That might be a wee bit more controversial. Deb 17:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Just an idea. No problem with not doing it.  We have other things to worry about :)Prsgoddess187 20:26, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

It isn't necessary. The is required to distinguish divorced former consorts from current consorts. Including the for husbands would be pointless. No-one is going to think that Charles, Prince of Wales is the ex-husband of the Prince of Wales! But Camilla, Duchess of York is the name Camilla would have if she was divorced from Charles. As she hasn't the page had to be moved to a more correct version. FearÉIREANN \{{sup|(caint)}} 20:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh dear, I seem to have missed this. Camilla, The Duchess of Cornwall just looks absurd. And having a system which necessitates moving articles when people die is inherently bad. Proteus (Talk) 18:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually it is less absurd that using a name that Camilla would have if she and Charles divorced. We couldn't go on having Diana, Princess of Wales for Charles's first wife and Camilla, Duchess of York for his second. It was nonsensical and totally wrong. And of course we do already move wives of royalty when then die anyway (or we should be doing so) to the standard maiden name format. FearÉIREANN \{{sup|(caint)}} 20:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * In what sense was it "wrong"? Yes, it would be wrong if you wrote it on an envelope, but then so would Charles, Prince of Wales, Gerald Grosvenor, 6th Duke of Westminster, Augusta, Lady Gregory, and the vast majority of other articles on titled people, and yet no one's suggesting we call articles The Prince of Wales and The Duke of Westminster just because they're alive and we need (for some unknown reason) to use correct styles in article titles. Anyone who knew enough to assume that "Name, Duchesss of Somewhere" meant a divorced wife would certainly know Camilla wasn't divorced from Charles, so what on earth is the problem with putting her at a title that doesn't look stupid?
 * And I know you like the maiden name format, but no one else appears to, and it is rather silly. QETQM should be at Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother, and having her at Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon is just ridiculous. Proteus (Talk) 20:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * How can you possibly say this? We have argued out the case of Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon ten times or more, and the consensus has always been in favour of the current solution. I do believe in freedom to disagree, but not to misrepresent. Deb 17:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * As I'm not the only one who is uneasy about the new page headings... surely the point is that on Wikipedia, the names of the pages used for these people are not supposed to be in the same form as their legal name, but contain both the full name and title of the person (separated by a comma). It doesn't matter if this isn't the correct form for someone who is alive and still married. For non-royal former wives of peers, it isn't the correct form for a widow or divorcee anyway as in those cases they don't include their surname (whereas on Wikipedia it's Forename Surname, Title). The correct title, form of address, or whatever, can be discussed in the body of the article. It isn't possible to convey this correctly and to include both the birth name and full title in the page heading.


 * As there aren't that many "royal peers", I'm not so worried about this. But I don't think we should go down this route for other peers' wives, where surnames are included in the page heading. --JRawle 12:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I think it's a good move, but I wouldn't have used a capital in "the" - that's inconsistent with other article titles except where it's the first word in the title. That's why it looks funny. Deb 17:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I oppose this proposal for past peeresses, as contrary to usage, which is Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire. There can be more than one Duchess of Devonshire at a time, btw, even if several of them are dowagers. Septentrionalis 17:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, several things..this really wouldnt be an issue for past peresses because if their dead their no longer The Duchess of...., and this was a move for the wives of royal peers, and as for opposing it if you noticed the dates your over a month to late. We agreed on this proposal and moved the nescesary pages. Mac Domhnaill 21:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

article title for Queen Rosalie Gicanda
I figured that people on this page would know where this article should be, as the "Queen" in the title looks odd to me. My initial impulse is to move it to Rosalie Gicanda, but should it say "of Rwanda"? I find royal/peerage titles baffling. She was actually the Queen Dowager, at a time when the Rwandan monarchy was abolished, if that changes things. Thanks, BanyanTree 14:41, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

She is dead, so yes it should be at simply Rosalie Gicanda, if she were alive, it would be correct. Mac Domhnaill
 * Thanks for your help! - BanyanTree 22:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Polish monarchs
Please see Talk:List of Polish monarchs for a lengthy discussion on the issue of the titles of these pages. john k 19:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I (re-)activated Naming conventions (Polish rulers), as a result of the problems mentioned (also by john) at Talk:List of Polish monarchs. As ye all know, I'm no expert in royals, so please help a hand, I'm sure users like Elonka and Calgacus etc would contribute to working out a solution too, if given enough support. --Francis Schonken 17:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to bring closure to this thread: The proposal at Naming conventions (Polish rulers) has been rejected. --Elonka 16:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Titles of children of former royals
If I got it correctly (I'm really trying to understand this naming conventions, but am not sure if I do understand them), if a person is born crown prince, he is referred to as crown prince on Wikipedia, no matter whether the monarchy was abolished after he was born or if the country he's crown prince doesn't even exist any more, right? Now, if that's correct, then, how do we refer his descendants? For instance: Prince Peter of Yugoslavia. It is disputable if his father is crown prince (since it is disputable wether Kingdom of Yugoslavia existed in 1945), but, let's say Alexander, Crown Prince of Yugoslavia is a crown prince. Prince Peter of Yugoslavia was born on February 5, 1980. Kingdom of Yugoslavia didn't exist then. I does not exist now. Is Peter a prince? --Dijxtra 15:26, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, its a confusing point. The answer is simply put yes and no. He is not legally recognized in Yugoslavia as a Prince. However, none of the old German Royals and Aristocrats are recognized either, and they have continued to use and be styled as such ever since WWI. And Prince Peter's is an interesting situation, where unlike the exiled Greek Royals, they have been openly welcomed back into Yugoslavia (or what was), and even live in the old royal palace. So the answer to your question, is that yes Peter is, a Prince (although his title is not legally recognized). Mac Domhnaill 20:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

If he's not legally recognised a prince, how can he be one? He does not enjoy the rank, or title of one, does not get to wear a coronet, his family have no legal nor constitutional power - in short, he is not a prince, he has only the style/name. Pretenders are not royalty. See Caroline, Princess of Hanover. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.188.14 (talk • contribs)

I have just been on the Yugoslav royal pages - what IS going on?? Whilst on the Hanover pages it makes quite clear the Hanover throne does not exist anymore (yet still refers to them as Prince/ss and HRH by courtesy) the Yugoslav ones treat the Yugoslav ex-Royal family as if they were still on the throne (even saying "Prince X is third in line to the throne of Yugoslavia") - how can that be so when that throne does not exist anymore? It's misleading and needs to be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.188.14 (talk • contribs)

Well clearly what I meant was misunderstood. He is most definatley not legally a Prince, although he will always be styled as one, I have always been aware of that. And the Yugoslavs should probably be treated differently than the Hanoverians, as Yugoslavia welcomed them bakc as the Royal Family, the people there treat them as royals, and they live in the royal palace. And i very clearly stated that he is not legally recognized as a Prince, this doesnt mean hes not. Say Jane Brown marries John Smith, she may not legally change her name but she is still Mrs. John Smith, or Mrs. Jane Smith. Even though this is not legally her name. Just because his title has no legal standing does not mean he isnt. Mac Domhnaill 20:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

So he is in fact not a prince but a courtesy prince? It needs to be acknowledged on every Yugoslav page he's a prince by courtesy only. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.188.14 (talk • contribs)

There is no such thing as a "courtesy prince". Either you are or you aren't. A person is a prince by birthright, not by state decision. As the son of a prince, this guy clearly is a prince, under traditional dynastic criteria. The only issue is whether he is referred to as such. In the absence of a monarchy, being a prince carries no constitutional status. Some republics tell princes not to use the titles. Some republics out of courtesy allow them to use it. Serbia allows the prince to use his title out of courtesy. Even if it didn't he would still be a prince, just not be allowed to call himself one in Serbia. FearÉIREANN \(caint)|undefined 00:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually I think you'll find that is incorrect. A monarch is no longer a monarch if he has no sovereignty - deposed kings are usually referred to as ex-King so-and-so, e.g. ex-King Constantine of Greece, who by courtesy can be styled King of Greece (but he ISN'T king of Greece as there is no THRONE of Greece). I don't see how if legally he is not recognised as a prince he can still be one. If the government doesn't recognise him as one, who does (other than by courtesy?) They recognise themselves? They are just ordinary citizens by Yugoslav law. You cannot say a title exists if it is not recognised by law. What, exactly, is Prince Peter referred to in Yugoslav law? (NOT styled) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.243.180 (talk • contribs)

...and as for a prince being a prince by birthright & not state decision, why was William III of England king? Because he was invited by the British government to take the crown, he certainly wasn't king by birthright. That just goes to show that the state has the last say on these matters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.243.203 (talk • contribs)

I have to say that many of you seem to completely lack understanding of what a Prince really is. Jtdirl is completely right, and you cannot compare a King to a Prince. As the title of King is never by birthright, while the title of Prince almost always is (unless through marriage, or the title is bestowed upon someone.) As well please do not use Caroline, Princess of Hanover, as an example, she is a princess by birthright and her titles are legally used in Monaco. Her husband, step-children and youngest daughter are all examples, but not her. And coud you all please sign your comments. Mac Domhnaill 23:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

...so how come James II's descendents were not all titled prince and aren't recognised as such (and hardly referred to as such by the british government? If a king isn't a king by birthright, what is he king by virtue of? I'm not being rude, I genuinely want to know answers to these questions. Can you please tell me who recognises Prince Peter as a prince if it is not the government.--130.88.188.14 00:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok....a King is the King by virtue of succeeding a previous king (being king is not a birthright, but being the heir is a birthright)the office of a King or sovereign is a constitional one and needs to be defined by a government. Constantine II of Greece, is still a king because he became King when Greece still had a monarchy, the title of King is one that is held for life (unless lost through abdication, which Constantine did not do), whilist no one is obligated to refer to him as King Constantine after the office is abolished, he will be a King until his death, although he is not The King. As for what you are saying with all the descendents of James II not being Princes, this is because the British government and Royal family have guidlines as to who is a prince by birthright (in the UK this is all children and grandchildren of a monarch in the male line), in Saudi Arabia all the male line descendts are Princes or Princesses (there are thousands of Saudi Royals). Each Royal Family/ House or government sets up its own rules as to who is a Prince merely by birthright. According to the rules established in Yugoslavia by Peters family all the children and grandchildren in the male line are Princes or Princesses. This is why Peter is a Prince by birthright. His father will be forever the Crown Prince, as it is a title that he holds from birthright when it was an established constitutional office. Each Royal family/governemnt or constition has its own set of guidelines as to is a Royal merely by birth. Since the Yugoslav monarchy was abolished, it is up to Peter's family to set those guidlines, as it is in Hanover, Prussia Austria etc. where monarchies have been abolished. As I have been trying to say no one, needs to recognize him as a Prince for him to be one. If you still have any questions dont hesitate to ask either here or on my talk page. Mac Domhnaill 02:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

What are the Yugoslavs princes of exactly? They can't surely be of Yugoslavia? Would anybody be required to kneel/curtsey to them? I don't understand how if no-one needs to recognise him as a prince he still is one, that surely means anybody could style themselves a prince without being recognised? I could believe what you are saying but can you please provide evidence for your points. I'm not saying you are wrong, but I am not saying I am wrong either as it is important in these matters to have supporting evidence. What is Prince Peter referred to legally in Yugoslavia? Surely he is just a normal citizen in his own country? The way I see it is this - I'm not saying I am right, but it seems this way: Yugoslav monarchy is dead, therefore monarchical titles are dead. The sovereign is the fount of honour in the royal family since all royal titles derive from him or from being related to him. There is no throne of Yugoslavia, no pageantry, no crown, no legal authority attributed to the royal family. The former royals no longer have precedence over their subjects, they are normal citizens. Monarchical titles have been abolised, therefore the rank and office of "Prince of Yugoslavia" does not exist; they are not legally recognised, there are no letters patent deeming them so, no laws referring to them in the constitution. The ex-royal family is styled as Prince/sses but not titled - i.e. Diana Spencer when Diana, Princess of Wales was not The Princess of Wales (or a princess of any kind) since by law there was no holder of that office. So whilst he may be referred to as HRH Prince Peter, this is courtesy - legally he is a plain Mr. The whole prince/ss thing is a matter of family tradition but has absolutely no validity. They are styling themselves royal when in fact they no longer are royal since they have no sovereign power - it is like the descendents of James II calling themselves Kings of England - they are most certainly not (though you could argue they are "by birthright"). Constantine II is referred to as King of Greece by courtesy, in reality he is ex-King Constantine of Greece, as there is no The King of Greece just as there is no The King of Yugoslavia Can you please give me a definition of a prince - yes he derives his power from birthright (by virtue of being related to the monarch) - but when the monarch's title doesn't exist anymore? If they are Princes of Yugoslavia yet their own country does not recognise them as such, how can they hold that title? Princess of Hanover is different since she is a princess of Monaco and holds the surname "of Hanover" styles herself Princess of Hanover when in fact that title does not exist except as a legal surname. Monaco recognises this style but by courtesy (it has not taken legal action to create her a Princess of Hanover, but merely refers to her as such). The same is true of Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester - she was not "Princess Alice" but "The Princess Henry" through marriage, yet combined her title with her name to produce Princess Alice when no legislation was passed to make her so. George VI made his grandchildren Charles and Anne prince/princess of the UK by letters patent i.e. they could not have been prince/ss without letters patent i.e. they were not prince/ss without legal confirmation. Princes of Yugoslavia have no legal confirmation - they style themselves as princes but do not hold the rank and are legally titled as normal citizens.

Please can you tell me why all of the above is wrong (and please don't answer "he just IS a prince" because there's no evidence for that), and also if you think any of my points above are valid. What was the legislation enacted deposing the monarchy? Thankyou. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.243.186 (talk • contribs)

Ok...just because Yugoslavia does not exist does not mean he cannot be a Prince of it. He is a Prince of Yugoslavia. Prussia and Hanover do not exist as independent nations anymore, and their princes are still tyled that way. No, no one would be required to kneel, bow or acknowledge him as a Prince, but he is one. You also cannot bring Princess Alice into this story. British Royal title systems are different than those of Yugoslavia. And yes Constantine is only refffered to as King of Greece as a courtesy, but he is a king. I have explained everything I can and dont feel to be repeating myself, it seems to me you cannont comprehend the concept, that because he is not legally recognized he is not a Prince. Which he is regardless of what the govt says. Mac Domhnaill 02:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I would buy what you say except that you do not use any evidence for this - I asked specifically to not just say "he IS a prince" and asked other questions such as what Prince Peter legally referred to etc. I'm afraid I don't understand the concept because there isn't sufficient evidence for it. Please PLEASE answer my questions thoroughly and don't just excuse this case by saying it is "different". I'm not disagreeing with you, just questioning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.188.14 (talk • contribs)


 * This essay by Guy Stair Sainty, while it primarily deals with the right of dethroned or exiled rulers to grant membership in their sovereign orders, suggests that one of the premises above, to wit, that the legal abolition of the monarchy extinguishes the fons honorum, is incorrect. Choess 03:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Some Greek royalty and a void in guidelines
I would like to raise the subject again, this time regarding the even more controversial children of the deposed Greek royal family. I am trying to have a pre-emptive discussion on the matter as I can see there exists no guideline regarding children of deposed monarchs' children, and the ongoing heated debate in the Anne-Marie of Greece article indicates that even more heated discussions could arise regarding them. I am reffering to the following:


 * Princess Maria-Olympia of Greece and Denmark
 * Prince Constantine-Alexios of Greece and Denmark
 * Prince Achileas-Andreas of Greece and Denmark
 * Prince Odysseas-Kimon of Greece and Denmark
 * Princess Theodora of Greece and Denmark
 * Prince Philippos of Greece and Denmark

All of the above have been born after 1974 when the monarchy was abolished in Greece. Surely they are princes and princesses of Denmark. But are they princes/esses of Greece? I am not argueing weather they are styled as such in royal courts in Europe. I am just questioning the titling of the articles. I would go for it and straightforwardly request a move en masse, but as this could cause problems, I thought I'd bring it up here first.

Now, commenting to what has been said above: to say that X is prince of Y, just because he IS (and excuse the harsh language) is absurd. Nothing is true just because it is. This train of thought is logically twisted and cannot hold. The aformentioned article by Guy Stair Sainty is of course one point of view but that does not in itself validate the argument, since (at least to my better knowledge) there is no such thing as "royalty science". I mean if one says that "The Earth is round because Neil Armstrong observed it" that cannot be denied, it is science. But one can refuse to accept Mr Sainty's analysis without being either inconsistent or paradoxal, just as one can refuse to accept the existence of Classes as Marx described them..

In my understanding they are not princes/esses of Greece. In my understanding of politics, a title is conferred upon individuals by society, under the terms of a Social Contract that permits that. I can accept that Wikipedia articles of deposed monarchs and their immediate relatives are, for the shake of historical accuracy, named with their former title affixes to their names, as they were indeed at some time kings, princes and princesses. But for people who never reigned, such as the ones in the above list, it is IMHO not correct (and in fact misleading) to use monarchical titles. I would also like to point out the following part of this guideline page, point 6 of the first section:


 * Do not apply an ordinal in an article title to a pretender, i.e., someone who has not reigned.

Are not all the above pretenders according to the guideline's definition of pretender? If so, they should not have the titles affixed to the titles of the corresponding articles. Of course it should be mentioned in the article body that they are known as such among other royal courts, but the problem is with the naming of the articles.

I sincerely hope we can produce a guideline out of this discussion, explicitly for such cases, as the Yugoslavian and the Greek former royal families. --Michalis Famelis 18:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Ordinals are Roman numbers... I, II, III, IV, V, VI and so on... So no, that rule does not apply to the princes and princesses, who are not pretenders. Standard has been to accord to former royalty the titles which they are best known. Thus we have people called princes or princesses of Greece and Denmark, just as we have articles for people after 1918 called princes and princesses of Prussia, so on and so forth. Dynasts of former royal houses almost always use their titles socially and also have them as names by which they are best known. Therefore, they are titled as such in their articles with footnotes explaining why the titles aren't legally recognized, not the equivalent of material worthy of a whole different article in the case of Queen Anne Marie. Charles 18:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Excuse my bad understanding of English! My argument about the ...ordinals is therefore null and void. Please consider the rest of the post. --Michalis Famelis

What is there to consider?
 * 1) You have your information on pretenders all wrong. They're not pretenders. Prince Pavlos will be the pretender (ie, the claimant) when his father dies. The rest aren't.
 * 2) It is standard worldwide for people who are decended from former royal families in a princely line to still be called prince or princess. Burundi has not had a king in decades, yet there still are princes from Burundi. Germany has not had a monarchy since 1918, yet not merely does it still have German princes. They are referred to as such when they meet the Federal President or Chancellor. The Kingdom of the Two Sicilies has not existed for well over a century, yet there are still princes and princesses of their royal house, referred to as such in Italy. All that's happening here is that a few Greek republicans are trying to fight their cause through Wikipedia. All Wikipedia is doing is doing what the rest of the world does. It refers to descendants of the last King of Greece as princes of Greece and Denmark, which is how the rest of the planet refers to them. If that irks Greek republicans, tough. We seem to get a lot of POV-pushers, from Irish republicans trying to push a pro-IRA agenda to Portuguese monarchists trying to push their agenda, from promoters of internet myths trying to push the myths on WP to pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian supporters trying to push their agendas, and hosts of others. The response in all cases is simple: take your agendas elsewhere. We stick by NPOV. If the rest of the world refer to exiled Greek royalty using certain name structures, if the rest of the world refers to internet myths as internet myths, if the rest of the planet calls descendents of the King of Burundi in one way then we do too. To do otherwise would be to breach NPOV.   FearÉIREANN [[Image:Map of Ireland's capitals.png|15px]]\(caint)|undefined 19:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I was not trying to push a POV, I was asking for a clarification, as the discussion above regarding the Yugoslavian formers was not illuminating. I asked in a civil manner and expected an equally civil answer, not a lecture on how WP is rampaged by POV pushing. Apart from that thanks for the information on other former royalty. --Michalis Famelis 21:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I have considered the post as I do every post. The "office", so to speak, of prince/princess no longer does exist. But the titles exist as courtesy titles for a formerly sovereign family. It really doesn't matter what the Greek government or the Greek people want to call them, sad as it may seem to some. The fact of the matter is, internationally Anne-Marie (as obscure as she actually is) is known as Queen Anne Marie of Greece/the Hellenes. After Constantine, Anne-Marie, Paul (Pavlos) and Marie-Chantal die, their titles die with them. However, the titles of princelings of a royal house exist by courtesy so long as they use them and as so long as others refer to them as such. If absolutely no one referred to Anne-Marie as queen, then she would not be titled as such. Charles 18:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It does not create original scholarship; it merely gathers together what has already been written elsewhere.  It's not for Wikipedia to determine the validity or invalidity of anything.  See WP:NOR.


 * In scholarly works (I'm a university librarian, I know), the male-line descendants of families which formerly reigned in a country are commonly referred to by the titles and styles which were accorded to cadet members of those families when they were still reigning. The Bonapartes have not reigned in France since 1870, but the living members of that family are commonly given the title "prince" in published works.  The Bourbons have not reigned in France for even longer, but the living members of that family are also commonly given the title "prince" (even though they did not have that title in French when they were reigning).


 * The basic naming convention for Wikipedia is "Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things" (see WP:NC(CN)). If a descendant of a formerly reigning family is commonly referred to NOT by the titles which were used by his family, then I have no objection whatsover to him being cited on Wikipedia without his titles.  The best example is Otto von Habsburg who is sometimes known as "Archduke Otto of Austria", but more commonly as "Otto von Habsburg".


 * In the case of the children and grandchildren of Constantine and Anne-Marie, they are most commonly referred to in English with the title of "prince". Some people might not think that appropriate, but that is what the print record shows.  As an encyclopedia (and not a work of original research) Wikipedia has to follow what others do - not come up with a new solution. Noel S McFerran 19:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Can a guideline be writen that states this explicity about such cases, so as to avoid further complications with articles such as the ones in the list in my original post? --Michalis Famelis 21:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * My opinion on the issue, is that wer can use for Constantines family the titles of Queen and King, (King Constantine II) but they cannot use the teritory suffix as the country were they used to provide their royal services has exiled them and has a new constitution that indicates that the givernment system is a Parliamentary Democracy. The titles (King, Crown, Prince, Queen) can be used outside Greece but everywhere they should be without the "of Greece" part that also missleads about the existance of Crown Republic in Greece. ALEKSANDAR 00:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You cannot unilaterally turn around precedent. What in your mind they "should" do is not how things are done. Charles 00:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Aleksandar, you are slightly offtopic. The question was about their grandchildren, those that were born after the establishment of the republic, not weather the "of Greece" is valid or not. And more importantly this is not about the former Greek royals, but about deposed royal families in general. --Michalis Famelis 00:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Current upset in Norway
Just to show that this is no mere academic debate: The Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten has a report that some Greek immigrants to Norway are offended that the list of baptismal sponsors for the new son of the Crown Prince of Norway (available on the website of the Norwegian Royal Family)  lists "His Royal Highness Crown Prince Pavlos of Greece". The conflict on Wikipedia reflects a conflict in society. There is a practice which has been used in the past (although not without opposition) and continues to be used in the present which some people think just shouldn't be. The challenge on Wikipedia is that some of these people think that only one side of the debate should be presented (i.e. we should state the case of the Greek constitution, and that's the one and only and final word on the topic). That's not intellectually honest. Noel S McFerran 02:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem being that page titles must choose one or the other; article text can and should explain all the choices. So far I am not convinced, btw, that either Prince or of Greece and Denmark is most common usage in these cases, and would appreciate actual evidence in English. Septentrionalis 03:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It's actually exceedingly difficult to find English language sources which DON'T refer to them with the title "prince" and the designation "of Greece" or (less frequently) "of Greece and Denmark". The Norwegian baptismal list is evidence of this use.  I have already provided footnotes on the Anne-Marie of Greece page listing other occasions when she is given the title "queen" and the designation "of Greece" or "of the Hellenes". I think that it's up to the "don't use prince" party to provide some evidence for that.  Noel S McFerran 05:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * How would you refer to Constantine's children and those of his sons, then? I've only ever seen them referred to by their princely title: they do not have a surname (having commenced reigning back before surnames were used in Europe), and they have never used any of their dynastic titles in lieu of a surname except "Prince/ss of Greece (and Denmark). But why would it be more appropriate for one of those to be attributed to them than "of Greece"? Their hereditary titles include "Prince of Denmark" "Prince of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderborg-Glucksborg" and "Count of Oldenburg". But these are all currently existing localities over which their branch long ago ceased to reign. So they do what most royals do, current and ex: use the dynastic title with which they have been most recently associated.


 * The real point is this: The reason members of this family are noteworthy is because of their association with the former monarchy of Greece. Otherwise, none of them would have articles devoted to them, with the possible exceptions of Anne-Marie (who is sister of a reigning monarch), Sophia (who is wife of a reigning monarch), and Philip (who is husband of a reigning monarch). But the fact that three of them are married to members of reigning families is 1. noteworthy and 2. not a coincidence. The fact that Greece is now a republic and that some Greeks want to disassociate them from the Greece of today -- enough to draw public attention to their antipathy -- is itself part of why they deserve mention in WP. But they must be mentioned recognizably -- yet virtually no one, in or out of Greece, could tell you what their surname is -- including they themselves. Thus, by simple default they must be allowed to use the titles which associate them with Greece in WP -- they are unknown otherwise. Nor is this unique to the Constantine's brood. There are lots of bios on ex-royalty in WP for the sole reason that they were once associated with a now-defunct monarchy. Just as some of their families' ex-subjects want to efface any hint of current affiliation with them, there are lots of historians, genealogists, celeberity-watchers, nostalgists, aristocrats and, yes, monarchists, who want to track their post-monarchic doings -- or these "royal" WP articles wouldn't be proliferating. So the very thing that alienates some people from them attracts others: they were once exalted, living symbols of nations that have changed regimes. If they aren't going to be excluded from WP we'd better develop a convention to accomodate them and minimize offense to those that object to their having ever existed.Lethiere 07:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Polish monarchs (sequel)
Please, see above  --Francis Schonken 17:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

"Saint" / inconsistent use of "St" and "St."
Have quickly scanned the archives' contents boxes for discussions on the following, so apologies in advance if I've missed anything.

Does anyone else find that "Saint" written out in full – especially in article titles – impedes their reading speed? Or, to put it another way, might there be a consensus to prefer "St." over "Saint" in articles (other than Saint itself)...?

Also, I appreciate the observation that using the abbreviation "St" rather than "St." (or "Mr" instead of "Mr." etc.) aids reading when the text is in a non-proportional font. In a proportional font, however, such as that used on the Wikipedia (Wikimedia) pages, periods within sentences look less obtrusive to me, so I happily include them. Do people think this should be upheld as a policy, particularly in article titles?

Thanks, David Kernow 10:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The use of periods is linked to different types of English (American English, British English, Hiberno-English, etc. So the rules on English usage covers it. FearÉIREANN [[Image:Map of Ireland's capitals.png|15px]]\(caint)|undefined 13:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Naming conventions (people):"If a qualifier is used in the title of a page where the content is, it is never abbreviated (apart from Jr./Sr. ...), so: 'Saint', not 'St.' nor 'St'."
 * See that same section of that same guideline for several examples of "saints", some of which with the "Saint" title in the page name, a lot of others without (e.g. Augustine of Hippo).
 * See also: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions/archive6, where I learnt that the difference between "St." and "St" is also US/UK difference. Another reason to avoid abbreviations where possible.
 * For landmarks & geographical names however often the abbreviation is used (e.g. St. Augustine, Florida in the US, but in the UK without dot: St Albans; If no "local variety" of English can be defined, of course again non-abbreviated: Saint Petersburg for the Russian town).
 * See also Naming conventions (Western clergy). --Francis Schonken 10:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts, Francis. Wikipedia Talk:Naming conventions (people) seems to indicate that a consensus over this kind of policy would be difficult to find, so I think I'll plod on merrily. I don't believe trying to avoid all abbreviations is necessarily a useful approach; whilst "Saint David", "Saint Petersburg" etc. are doubtlessly correct, I and I suspect many have become so used to seeing and reading "St. David", "St. Petersburg", etc. (with the periods/full-stops included when in proportional fonts) that the former look odd, especially within prose. I'm aware, though, that reading habits are necessarily highly subjective and that I don't know how representative my suspicions are.

Presumably all these "Naming conventions (X)" have at some point been through some kind of establishment-by-(small-sized-)consensus process...?

Best wishes, David Kernow 19:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Polish monarchs (table)
Please help completing the table below. The table is on a separate page, that opens when clicking the "edit" link below.

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Polish rulers) is the place for discussions on the English Wikipedia page names of individual monarchs. --Francis Schonken 09:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * 
 * I have commented out the display of the above table, since the proposal was rejected. Anyone interested in still seeing it, please click on the link. --Elonka 16:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

German nobility
This came up in regards to the proposed move of Prince Chlodwig zu Hohenlohe-Schillingsfürst: we have no policy on the naming of articles on members of the German nobility. I confess that my own knowledge of the German nobility rests on a shaky foundation, but I'm going to craft a proposal nonetheless and invite criticism.

"Titles of German nobility are part of a holder's legal name and should be included in the article title, subject to the following constraints. Families which were formerly sovereign rulers, or who were mediatized Holy Roman Empire nobility, or who were otherwise members of the Hochadel should have their title included in the article in the original German: Chlodwig Fürst zu Hohenlohe-Schillingsfürst, Maximilian Reichsfreiherr von Weichs. Individuals who ruled as sovereigns during their life time should be referred to by the convention Name Ordinal, Title: Charles I Louis, Elector Palatine."

"Lower nobles who gained higher titles after the fall of the Holy Roman Empire should be referred to by their most common name: Otto von Bismarck not Otto Fürst von Bismarck. Non-sovereign titles granted for life only, such as Duke of Lauenburg, should not be mentioned in the article title."

"Members of the lower nobility who are commonly known by a title should have that title included in the article title, in the original German: Colmar Freiherr von der Goltz not Colmar von der Goltz or Baron Colmar von der Goltz. Individuals who hail from Baltic regions and have baronial rank should be referred to as Baron, not Freiherr, when appropriate (e.g. Friedrich Baron von Holstein."

I suspect I've made something of a mess here, but it's a messy subject. Mackensen (talk) 18:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The argument about legal name sounds good, but is some cases historians will have commonly used a anglizied name, which then should be the main article.
 * What tickles me in this regard is that Kaiser Wilhelm does not get translated while his father Frederick does (at least in the last book that I read). Possibly William is to soft a name for an enemy. As far as Wikipedia is concerned Frederick_William_IV_of_Prussia is a bit confusing with the two readings of the name in the same article - English at the top - German in the info box Agathoclea 18:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I find William II quite common, although not universal Septentrionalis 20:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Mackensen - this proposal seems like a good starting point...except...Why Otto von Bismarck and Colmar Freiherr von der Goltz? This seems inconsistent. It is also worth noting that noble titles have been officially part of the name since 1919. I'm not sure how one should describe their status before that. It's also worth noting that Austrian nobility all officially lost their titles in 1919, but many still use them. The whole subject is rather a mess. john k 19:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Goltz came from an established family which had carried Freiherr for quite some time, whereas I believe Bismarck was born simply von Bismarck. I would make the same argument with regards to Bernhard von Bülow. I admit that this is an inherently subjective way of looking at it. Mackensen (talk) 20:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * So? Disraeli is (quite properly) under Benjamin Disraeli, 1st Earl of Beaconsfield, which title didn't exist before he earned it either. Septentrionalis 20:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The situation isn't quite the same though--the British peerage doesn't make these kinds of distinctions (thankfully). Mackensen (talk) 13:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe German nobles acting in capacities as appointed or elected politicians (chancellors, prime ministers) should be under article names that do not include titles, with the exception of those who came from sovereign families. It becomes messy referring to "graf von this" but "count von that" or some other bizarre mixture of titles and prepositions. Charles 03:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

What about Otto Graf Lambsdorff? He, and some other elected politicians, are known by their title. And I'm still uncertain if Hohenlohe counts as a sovereign family... john k 15:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that would be fine if the other articles were titled Chlodwig Fürst zu Hohenlohe-Schillingsfürst and Otto Fürst von Bismarck. Hohenlohe certainly wasn't sovereign at the time when Chlodwig was the chancellor and prime minister. At best the family was mediatized. Charles 23:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * If we're going to use the title, let's use English; and the English here is Prince Bismarck.Septentrionalis 20:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Not using the title eliminates that issue. The English is not "Prince Bismarck". That is merely an Anglo-American informal reference. Charles 20:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, the family were not sovereign rulers of a state. But the whole idea of mediatized families is that, even though they no longer rule a state, the family itself remains sovereign.  At least, that's my understanding of it. john k 07:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Mediatized families were, at one point, sovereign but then were subject to another monarch (be it the emperor, a king, a grand duke or a duke. The House of Hohenlohe was such a case; they cannot remain a sovereign house. The only difference between the mediatized families and those who were simply noble was that a mediatized family of the lowest title ranked higher than a simple noble of the highest title (such as a duke of a never-sovereign family would beoutranked by a count of a formerly sovereign family. Sovereignity would be a major issue. Charles 19:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * hm, proposal by Mackensen looks good to me. Although this is English Wikipedia, I think we should use the German language titles, in order to avoid conflicts with the translation. For example, there were "Freiherr" titles, which would translate as "Baron". ok, but there were also nobles with the German title "Baron" (same thing) but this differentiation should be made. Also some titles cannot be translated, such as "Edler" or "Ritter". Me and Charles also had some talk about how to translate "Reichsfreiherr" properly, there is also the title of "Reichsgräfin" for example... since we couldn't agree on the proper translation, I think what we could agree on is to keep the original title and leave the translation issue for later... Maybe titles starting from Archduke, Grand Duke, up to Prince can be left in English.... the rest in German? Gryffindor  11:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I strongly object to this, as an effort to circumvent WP:UE, which is consensus. If Gryffindor wishes to repeal or amend that policy, he should address its talkpage. Septentrionalis 04:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Looks good enough. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 12:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Septentrionalis, I don't think you understood my argument correctly. I support using English whenever possible. However how would you translate titles that are not translatable? or where disagreement exists? If you are familiar with German noble titles, then you understand the complexity in using English in all cases, which can easily result in misinformation. Gryffindor  13:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I do know something about German noble titles: which Reichsgraefin? What "misinformation" do you see in
 * Using "Countess" in the article title,
 * "Reichsgräfin" in the first line,
 * and "unmediatized countess" somewhere appropriate in the article text? Septentrionalis 01:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Reichsgraefin simply means countess, the reichs- only indicates its origin as a title of the HRE. It can be spoken as "countess of the (Holy Roman) Empire" when referring to the title without the following name. No one would call a Reichsgraefin von X the "countess X of the HRE" or the "imperial countess X of the HRE" but merely the "countess of X". Charles 01:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Some google-searching and book-checking reveals that "Prince Bismarck" and "Fürst von Bismarck" are common constructions. In light of this, and in the interests of a more uniform (and sensible) policy, I propose to do away with the differentiation between newer and older titles. Therefore, the article on Bismarck would be located at Otto Fürst von Bismarck (on the other hand, in Bismarck's specific case, I would be receptive to the argument that most common name trumps this usage). We would still exclude lifetime only titles such as Duke of Lauenberg. Mackensen (talk) 00:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Fuerst von Bismarck is a correct construction when used in German conversation. Prince Bismarck is pushing it at best and ought to be avoided unless using direct quotations. Referring to Bismarck simple as Bismarck is fine enough. Otto von Bismarck as a title is fine as is. Charles 01:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm perfectly happpy with Otto von Bismarck. In the general case, I would prefer to use Prince in the article title and let the text sort out whether Prinz or Fuerst is being translated (as most articles seem to do). Septentrionalis 01:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I think all elected German/Prussian chancellors who were noble should be at "forename von/zu surname", unless from a sovereign house such as Prince Max of Baden. Charles 01:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see why we need a special convention for chancellors; and Prince Hohenlohe is usually so called. Prince Chlodwig zu Hohenlohe-Schillingsfürst sounds about right. Septentrionalis 02:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Chlodwig zu Hohenlohe-Schillingsfürst is the only non-royal chancellor who is at an article with the title of prince. Otto von Bismarck isn't even articled as Prince Otto von Bismarck, and even he was called Prince xxx (in this case, Bismarck). Mixing the languages of titles and prepositions is bad form anyway. Charles 03:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That doesn't necessarily make it right. I prefer to err on the side of caution when rendering German into English, particularly when every authority I've found on German noble titles says Fürst should not be translated as "Prince." Besides, there's the question of consistency. What would we translate Reichsfreiherr to? I suppose it could be "Baron of the Realm," but that sounds odd. Mackensen (talk) 03:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Reichsfreiherr is translated as Baron, when used with the following name. Reichsfreiherrin are collectively "Barons of the Empire". Charles 03:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is how to handle Reichsfreiherr in English. If consistency is the paramount objective, Chlodwig, Prince Hohenlohe is probably the best. Septentrionalis 03:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I still maintain that Chlodwig zu Hohenlohe-Schillingsfürst is a better choice. Bismarck isn't at Otto, Prince Bismarck. Charles 04:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Septentrionalis my question (which you still don't seem to understand) is how would an article look like with a title that is difficult to translate (example: Edler, Ritter) and titles that are very cumbersome as in "Reichsfreiherr". So what would the article's name Heinrich Friedrich Karl Reichsfreiherr vom und zum Stein be in English? "Baron of the Empire Heinrich Friedrich Karl vom und zum Stein"? That's why I think it better to leave all titles up to Graf in German, and starting from "Graf" they can be left in English. Gryffindor 21:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC) ps: "Chlodwig, Prince Hohenlohe" is factually wrong and not a good idea anyways, I think the format Prince Chlodwig zu Hohenlohe-Schillingsfürst comes closest to being correct.
 * I am not proposing to move it; I do not regard consistency as particularly valuable here. I made a suggestion to those who do. Septentrionalis 18:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Edler and Ritter are more like qualities than titles. Reichsfreiherr vom und zum Stein (von und zu dem Stein) is simple Baron of Stein. As I had indicated earlier, the Reichsfreiherr is simply a baron. A collection of Reichsfreiherren are Barons or the Empire. Reichs- is a quality, not a real title component. Btw, Chlodwig zu Hohenlohe-Schillingsfürst would be a better choice. He was firstly a chancellor than a prince. Charles 21:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Ritter and Edler were full-fledged noble titles with full noble rights just like Graf and Freiherr, I have never heard of "qualities" that were given by the emperor or king, you may check the Almanach de Gotha for reference. A Reichsfreiherr is an Imperial Baron or a Baron of the Empire, not just a normal baron. It can be shortformed as "Baron", yes, just like "Freiherr" can be translated as Baron as well. However the full translation would be either Imperial Baron or Baron of the Empire. Where are you getting this assumption from that "Reichsfreiherr" is only a quality? I have checked for you on the Almanach de Gotha, I quote: "The Nobility of the Holy Roman Empire - The titles of Duke, Prince, Count, Baron, Knight and Noble of the Empire were conferred by Imperial patent. [...] The Imperial nobility enjoys a more elevated status than the nobilities of the German successor states and, indeed, of the Italian states. [..] The ranks of the latter are as follows: Duke (Reichsherzog) - variously Serene Highness or High Born (Durchlaucht or Hochgeboren) Prince (Reichsfürst) - variously Serene Highness or High Born (Durchlaucht or Hochgeboren) Markgraf [6] LandGraf [7] AltGraf RheinGraf WildGraf [8] ReichsGraf Reichsfreiherr Reichsritter Reichsherr."  Now note, this concerns only the Imperial Nobility of the Holy Roman Empire. We have then the nobility of the smaller German states as well as Prussia and Austria-Hungary, which had different ranks again as well. But to assert that imperial noble titles were simple "qualities" is nowhere confirmed in the Gotha. Chlodwig zu Hohenlohe-Schillingsfürst is not a good idea, since Wikipedia clearly allows titles for nobles of the blood. He was born and died a prince, who happened to be chancellor at some point in his life, see Benjamin Disraeli, 1st Earl of Beaconsfield, and Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury for reference.  Gryffindor  22:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC) ps: Charles you also once pointed out that you thought that the name "Bourbon-Parma" was wrong and should be different. I can only point out to you the homepage of the Royal House of Bourbon-Parma which clearly states their name as such http://www.borbonparma.org/ and also concerning the "Bourbon-Two Sicilies" here is the homepage of the Royal House of Bourbon Two Sicilies http://www.realcasadiborbone.it
 * Otto von Bismarck was a count, a prince and later a duke. How come he isn't at Prince Otto von Bismarck? Bernhard von Bülow was a prince. Why is he not at Prince Bernhard von Bülow? Undisputedly untitled nobles also exist --- with full-fledged noble rights. Who made them noble? All the Reichs- in a title meant was creation of the title by the Holy Roman Emperor. Sort of akin to the trademark symbol appended to the end of a brandname... All it means in English is a German noble whose title was derived from the HRE. What you quoted talks about the titles of Duke, Count, etc... Not "Imperial Duke", "Imperial Count", etc. It's akin to the  British peerage in a sense... There are the peers of the United Kingdom, etc. But no one says "Irish Duke" of "Duke of Ireland of Leinster". Keep your PS to my talk page. This is a discussion of the German nobility and please keep it on topic. The UK royal website is riddled with errors. I don't expect more from a defunct royal house. There are princes of Parma, etc, but not Princes of Bourbon-Parma. Charles 22:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

You can find out what people are called in English by looking them up in English texts. For Stein, there are four choices actually used in English: H. F. K., Baron Stein; HFK, Baron von Stein; HFK, Baron vom und zum Stein; HFK, Freiherr von und zum Stein. I do not defend the second (which is an error, rather than a translation); I think the third is most common. The fact that his family was ennobled by the Emperor can be mentioned in the article, if relevant. Septentrionalis 18:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * So Charles you are saying you have information that the UK royal website, the official homepage of the House of Bourbon-Parma and the Almanach de Gotha obviously missed or got totally wrong? Gryffindor  17:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

German Emperors 1871-1918, not Emperors of Germany
"... of Germany" was intentionally not used back in 1871 by/for Wilhelm I, German Emperor, so Friedrich III of Germany (Hohenzollern) should be moved back to Friedrich III, German Emperor, and Wilhelm II of Germany back to Wilhelm II, German Emperor. See discussions there, as well as the announcement on Requested_moves. --Matthead 23:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Consorts of Grand Dukes
I was wondering if there was a convention for the naming of Grand Ducal consorts. We have Princess Augusta of Cambridge, Grand Duchess of Mecklenburg-Strelitz; and Princess Alice of the United Kingdom, Grand Duchess of Hesse and by Rhine; but then there is Josephine-Charlotte of Belgium, Grand Duchess of Luxembourg. Should their articles be titled in the manner of queen consorts (Mary of Teck) or not? Just want to make it all uniform. Any ideas/comments?? Prsgodd e ss187 00:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I personally believe the the consorts of sovereigns, whether they be duchies on up to empires, should be titled under their birth name sans the title. The Hessian Grand Duchess ought to have the article about her titled Alice of the United Kingdom. Likewise, the Mecklenburgish Grand Duchess ought to have the article about her titled Augusta of Cambridge. Charles 02:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that probably for the sake of unity we should also have them at their maiden names. This would avoid any confusion in the future. I myself was also wondering about Grand Ducal consorts, it seems that they are not all titled consistently. But yea, Id have to say that probably all deceased consorts should be at their maiden names. Mac Domhnaill 03:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Listing them all under their maiden names is a bad idea in my opinion, there is already controversy about Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother. I think it better to go with the titles, otherwise it would create even more confusion. Gryffindor  15:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree. It seems to me that the controversy is that she was known for a long time as The Queen Mother, a title which many people wrongly believe was invented solely for her. People these days frequently refer to Mary of Teck, Alexandra of Denmark, Catherine of Aragon, etc. I was glad that consistency was being brought to article names dealing with various royals. Charles 19:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Charles, we have argued the case of the Queen Mother many times. It is only because she was known as such for a long time. It's not going to make sense for generations in the future to call her Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother. Maiden names are the more accurate, preferred and uniform way to go. Mac Domhnaill 03:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

To return to the subject of grand dukes, I think the point here is that the title of princess with which some of these consorts were born is (rightly or wrongly) regarded as being in some way superior to the title they acquired by marriage. This brings into play the wikipedia naming convention about using the highest title a person ever used. I'm not saying I agree with that perception, but I think that's what's behind it. Deb 20:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Deb, on the pecking order, Grand Duchess is a title that, historically, ranks just behind kings and queens but above sovereign dukes. A princess who is such as the agnate of a king ranks behind a Grand Duke, who is a sovereign. Becoming a Grand Duchess is a promotion of sorts, much like a princess becoming a queen. There was a farily amusing quote by a Grand Duchess of Russia on the matter of her title and that of a "mere" princess. Even then though, a Russian Grand Duchess isn't sovereign and would come after a Grand Duchess consort. The perceived difference between Russian Grand Duchess and princesses exists, but it is real and solid between grand ducal consorts and mere princesses. Since Grand Dukes were indeed sovereign, their consorts fall within the established wiki guidelines for "Name of Place (by birth)". Charles 20:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Note, however, that this is German usage; Russian Grand Dukes were not sovereign (at least after 1610).Septentrionalis 02:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * [de jure]] none of the German monarchies within the Holy Roman Empire were sovereign. The only time they truly enjoyed independence was between the fall of the Holy Roman Empire and the founding of the Second Reich. Or would anyone argue that tiny Wied was just as "sovereign" as Prussia? So where do we draw the line between sovereign monarchies within the Holy Roman Empire? None of those monarchies were truly sovereign in the classical sense like let's say France or Britain. And after the founding of the Second Reich less even so. Gryffindor  17:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Each case has to be examined individually. I have posted a discussion for Grand Ducal Hesse at Talk:Hesse-Darmstadt. Charles 17:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

A modest proposal
The "maiden name rule" is a generalization (and a simplification) of actual usage, which does not actually follow it.

Until very recently, royals were disambiguated by any means convenient; often a place name. This could be
 * Place of birth (John of Gaunt, Edward of Caernarvon).
 * Associated title (Joan of Kent, Edward of March, Richard of Gloucester)
 * Foreign realm associated with the royal. The foreign realm might be
 * The origin of a foreign princess marrying in England: Mary of Teck, Anne of Cleves.
 * The origin of a foreign prince marrying or coming to England: William of Orange, George of Denmark, Rupert of the Rhine.
 * The foreign realm assumed by an English princess marrying abroad: Elizabeth of Bohemia.
 * I don't think any English princes acquired crowns matrimonial, but it would have extended to them too; consider Maximillian of Mexico as a distant parallel.

This inevitably Anglocentric (or, xince the French used it too - and probably first - Gallocentric) system in part (but only in part) overlaps the maiden-name rule, which is an artificial Wikipedia construct. The cases where it most weverely fails are precisely those where this discussion keeps floundering; Alexandra of Russia and Elizabeth, late Queen-consort of England.

I have a modest proposal: let's follow actual usage. Septentrionalis 02:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Actual usage varies, to be honest. Many people speak of Alix, some of Empress Alexandra, others of Aleksandra Feodorovna/Fyodorovna. Rupert of the Rhine is a mess as is... To get to the point, a set system of classification where there is generally no wiggle room is what works best. Consorts to states with monarchs (be them dukes, emperors, etc) should be treated the same. Sovereigns ought to be treated the same and royals who were neither consorts or sovereigns ought to be treated alike. Other common usages should redirect to the appropiate article (eg Kaiserin Elizabeth to Elizabeth of Bavaria) as they do now. Charles 02:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Actual usage varies enormously - if it didn't, we wouldn't have a problem. The maiden name rule isn't a wikipedia concept at all, it is the "normal" usage in academic/reference books. That's why we adopted it as a general rule or convention.  Deb 11:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It's the normal usage in many cases. Sometimes Wikipedia tries to generalize this beyond its elastic limit; don't think I'm saying more than that. Septentrionalis 06:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I would welcome some improvement in the naming conventions for past royal consorts. The present system treats a princess of X-land in exactly the same way as a queen regnant of X-land; this is downright peculiar. I understand Charles' desire for "no wiggle room", but after decades of royalty-study I now understand that that is just not possible (there are so many variations and exceptions). Noel S McFerran 13:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Joan of England
Another query on Queen Consorts. There are four Joan of Englands, all mentioned on that page. Two have 'alternate' names, and have their own articles under those. The other two do not, and the page looks a mess as a result. According to the naming conventions discussed above, these women should both be at Joan of England, but need to be disambiguated. I have proposed on the talk page turning Joan of England into a redirect dab page, with links to:


 * Joan of England (Queen Consort of Sicily)
 * Joan of England (Queen Consort of Scotland)
 * Joan, Lady of Wales
 * Joan of the Tower

Any thoughts on the article names for the first two? Alternative ways to dab these would be welcome. :Supergolden:: 11:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You mean a disambiguation page; a redirect must point only one place. Consort should not, by WP style, be capitalized, and is probably unnecessary, Septentrionalis 17:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I did of course mean a disambig page. I think consort is probably necessary, Joan of England (Queen of Scotland) does sound a wee bit odd. :Supergolden:: 17:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Any more than Margaret of Anjou (queen of England), or even William of Orange (king of England)? Not that these exist; Margaret doesn't need dabbing AFAIK, and we barely escaped disambiguating William of Orange (from William the Silent). Septentrionalis 22:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The House of Bourbon
The names for members of this house is an absolute disaster. The use of Bourbon-"Territory" is at best, extremely informal and has only ever been used by few people to describe themselves. It also appears to be applied to every Bourbon princeling one can think of on Wikipedia, certainly even for those who never used it. Bourbon monarchs of states such as Parma, the Two Sicilies, etc are at "of Parma", "of the Two Sicilies", etc. The agnates of such monarchs should share the same territorial designation, be put into categories of Parma, the Two Sicilies, etc, which should be sub-categories of Bourbon. It reflects fact and the few people who seem to be known by such hyphenations would be covered by redirects. For instance, Zita of Bourbon-Parma would be at Zita of Parma, which is shorter, correct and actually looks better. Charles 17:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * (reposted here from above) I can only point out to you the homepage of the Royal House of Bourbon-Parma which clearly states their name as such http://www.borbonparma.org/ and also concerning the "Bourbon-Two Sicilies" here is the homepage of the Royal House of Bourbon Two Sicilies http://www.realcasadiborbone.it  Gryffindor  18:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That appears to have only come to use in exile. Retroactively, one cannot apply such names to all Bourbons who aren't of Spain or of France. Charles 19:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles' suggestion would be contrary to established English-language usage as testified by hundreds of books. It is the common practice for the head of the house to be "name, Duke of Parma" or "name, King of the Two Sicilies" - but for the cadets of the same house to be "Prince name of Bourbon-Parma" or "Prince name of Bourbon-Two Sicilies" (or Bourbon-Sicily).  It is totally inappropriate for Wikipedia to change the scholarly practice. Noel S McFerran 13:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't believe the practice is scholarly, it is merely recycling of sloppiness. Charles 15:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The evidence shows that "Prince X of Bourbon-Parma" and "Princess Y of Bourbon-Sicily", or variations thereof (always including "Bourbon" and usually "name-of-realm") is how members of these branches of the Bourbon dynasty are overwhelmingly referred to (rather than as "Prince X of Parma" or "Princess Y of the Two Sicilies") in even the most precise venues, and in common reference, the latter being what is most relevant to WP usage.
 * As indicated above, this is how they refer to themselves and inform others of their title, as evidenced by their respective websites.
 * It is how they refer to themselves legally, as evidenced in the name/title under which one of them filed a lawsuit appeal (against Mrs. Carmen Rossi, as mother/legal guardian of the French Legitimist claimant, over use of the title Duc d'Anjou) jointly with the Orléans claimant as shown: "Cour d'appel de Paris (1re Ch. sect. A) 22 novembre 1989 Présidence de Mme Ezratty Premier Président Prince Henri d'Orléans, comte de Clermont et Prince Sixte Henri de Bourbon Parme c. Carmen Rossi". (Emphasis mine).
 * Scholarly works? In the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica's article on the principality of Bulgaria, it states: "In the spring of 1893 Prince Ferdinand married Princess Marie-Louise of Bourbon-Parma, whose family insisted on the condition that the issue of the marriage should be brought up in the Roman Catholic faith." (Emphasis mine).
 * Authoritative sources? Until it ceased publication in 1944, the Almanach de Gotha was regarded as the premier source and final authority on proper use of dynastic titles, relied upon by courts and diplomats. Since it began publication in 1951 the Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels is now regarded as the most authoritative genealogical work on royalty. Both publications did and do submit entries to the Head of House of each dynasty for prior review.
 * The 1878 Almanach de Gotha included its entry on the Dukes of Parma, who had been in exile since 1860, under "Bourbon". But it did not define the official titles of Parmesan dynasts, nor did it report titular suffixes for females. But I found one relevant example: in the Portugal entry the marriage was recorded of the Infanta Adelgonde in 1872 to a younger son of Duke Charles III of Parma, who is listed as Prince Henri de Bourbon, Comte de Bardi (Emphasis mine).
 * But the 1912 Almanach entry does define the official title of Parmesan dynasts: "Les cadets portent les titre et nom de prince ou princesse de Bourbon de Parme, Alt. Roy." (Emphasis mine).
 * The 1991 Handbuch does likewise on p.13: "Die Nachgeborenen führen den Titel und Namen Prinz bzw. Prinzessin v. Bourbon v. Parma und das Prädikat Kgl. Hoheit." (Emphasis theirs).
 * Nonetheless, I agree with Charles that it would be reasonable to use Prince/ss of Parma for members of the family prior to 1860. The House of Bourbon reigned in Parma (with interregnums) 1748-1860. So that family has now been in exile from their realm longer than they held its throne, therefore it is understandable why they and everyone else refer to them as we do. I would be interested in evidence that outweighs the cites given.Lethiere 07:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Incoherence in French titles of non-royalty
In going over the naming convention page and its archives, I haven't come across a discussion of a problem found in many French biographic articles: in Wikipedia article titles, French noble titles of lesser nobles (including artists, writers, statesmen and so forth) are currently listed in two different ways:
 * 1) in English translation (Duke of, Count of...) for historical figures and royalty most well-known by their English forms.
 * 2) in French for other cases, maintaining the French title spelling (seigneur, chevalier, marquis, duc, comte) and the de.

Furthermore, in the second case, capitalization is currently chaotic:
 * in French with lower case spelling: comtesee de, marquis de... (e.g. Marie de Rabutin-Chantal, marquise de Sévigné, Catherine de Vivonne, marquise de Rambouillet, Pierre de Bourdeille, seigneur de Brantôme, François Hédelin, abbé d'Aubignac, Jean François Paul de Gondi, cardinal de Retz; this is the correct form in French and is the form used in article titles on the French wiki)
 * in French with capital spelling: Comtesse de, Marquis de... (e.g. Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu, Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon, Constantin-François de Chassebœuf, Comte de Volney; this is a Franco-English hybrid form, but fits with the capitalization rules of the wiki).

It would be helpful if we could come to some sort of consensus which would fit with Naming conventions (names and titles). (Feel free to post discussion on talk page of France-related topics notice board). -- NYArtsnWords 18:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I have only ever seen instances of duc/comte/prince de Place or Duke/Count/Prince of Place. In my opinion, it should be standard to have all articles with french titles using de to have the title in lowercase. Charles 18:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with Charles on this one. Although I know this can be controversial amongst users. If you are going to go with french, it should be lowercase in order to be correct. Uppercase is used sometimes as well though in English. Where is the uppercase rule on Wikipedia, I must have missed it? If it says though we should use uppercase, well then it would indeed be a hybrid form of English-French. hm.... Gryffindor  18:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Gryffindor. (Clearly time I went home :->). Septentrionalis 06:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that when a title is given in French, it should be lowercased to be consistent with the fact that French is in use. However I disagree that titles should be given in a language other than English if a customary English translation exists. Thus Jean III de Grailly, captal de Buch and the vidame de Picquigny should be listed that way because captal and vidame have no customary or consistent English translations (and the comte de Paris should be listed as such {contrary to the WP article}, because by convention dating to the 19th century the "title of pretence" of claimants to the kingdom of France is not usually translated when referred to in English). But the Duke de Broglie should be listed that way because "Duke" is the customary English translation for French "duc".


 * I also suggest that, when a (non-royal) titleholder's associated language is one of the Latin, Scandinavian or Benelux languages most recognizable to English speakers, the particule should be in that language, otherwise in English (if in doubt, I'd use the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica as a guide), e.g. Duke de Lerma; Count van Hoorn; (Queen Paola of the Belgians' father) Don Fulco Prince Ruffo di Calabria, 6th Duke di Guardia Lombarda; Count Folke Bernadotte af Wisborg; Baron von Munchhausen, etc. Exceptions should be made for noble titleholders so well known in English that their native particule is usually translated, e.g. Princess Daisy of Pless.Lethiere 07:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree. I think English should be used when at all possible and when it makes sense to do so. A title placed after the initial name can almost always have elements equivalent to "of", "in", etc translated. Charles 18:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Since Gryffindor has asked us to try again to move toward a conclusion on the use of, at least, French noble titles in article names, I'll take another stab at that task.

We seem to have agreed on the following:
 * 1) Since titles have so often been borne by more than one person, articles must include a first name, according to WP naming convention.
 * 2) When a noble title is written in French, it should be lower-cased, as it would usually be if the article were in a French publication.
 * 3) If a title is given in English, it should be capitalized.
 * 4) When a noble lacks a title but has a particle in the surname, that particle should not be translated into English.
 * 5) A French title that does not have a standard English translation should be given in French.

In other areas where no consensus has been reached, I recommend the following for the reasons indicated:
 * 1) A courtesy title should only be used in compliance with the French norms prevalent in the era of the article's subject (e.g. Vicomte de Turenne for "Henri de la Tour d'Auvergne" is fine. But it should be Henri de Laborde de Monpezat for Henrik, Prince Consort of Denmark, without the comital style because when that prefix was adopted by the Laborde family, only members of titled noble families customarily assumed a titre de courtoisie, yet the Labordes were not even genuinely noble, let alone titled). If the subject is substantially better known by a non-standard style that should be explained in the article.
 * 2) A French title should be translated into English, but French particles should not (except for royalty). The reasons for this are:
 * 3) English-users may not be presumed to know French titles, so they should be translated in order for the reader to understand more about the person's status than would be the case if the title is left untranslated. Since titles are wikified in English, general information about the title, as well as its use in French-using nations, is readily available. Granted, titles carried different meanings in different nations, but the fact that there are words which translate all but the most obscure titles (and Pfalzgräf has two translations: "Palsgrave" and "Count Palatine"!) indicates that we need neither re-invent nor dis-invent that wheel.
 * 4) Particles should not be translated because the "of" in a title suggests geographical affiliation to English-users, i.e. it implies that what follows the "of" is the name of a place, whereas this is much less the case in French titles. Place affiliation is intentional in British titles: even when the titleholder never had a historical association with the locale in the title, the official Letters Patent legally create that association when they create the title. Thus in Britain, the title as used almost invariably reflects the actual title conferred by the sovereign. But French particles in titles often precede a word that is nothing more than the surname (prior to the 19th century it was common for social-climbers to insert "de" into their surnames). But it may never have been a geographical site or may never have been legally associated with the title. French custom is far more lenient than British when it comes to usage of noble titles, and it is considered perfectly acceptable socially (though meaningless legally) for a junior male (never females) of a titled family to assume a title as a prefix to his surname, or to include the name of a locale which is no longer owned by or associated with his family.
 * 5) Leaving the particle untranslated helps the reader identify the nationality with which the title is identified (e.g. "Duke de Magenta" is a French dukedom, not an Italian one)
 * 6) Leaving the particle untranslated for nobility helps the reader of history distinguish between nobles and rulers (e.g. the Duke de Guise was a non-reigning French peer who was also a cadet of the dynasty of the reigning, non-French Duke of Lorraine. The Prince of Orange was a reigning monarch, whereas the Prince de Marcillac was a French courtier who did not rule or own anything called "Marcillac". The Prince de Condé was for long the first Prince of the Blood Royal of France, but the "de" reminds us that this title was not substantive, whereas the petty Prince of Monaco, although deemed far below Condé in dignity at Versailles, nonetheless ruled his own realm. And the Duke de Wagram, Prince of Neuchâtel was a French, not an Austrian, duke, and the ruler of a principality -- both of which distinctions can be gleaned by deploying the particle as I propose).
 * 7) The particle should not be translated because that would change both historical and prevailing styling for no advantage. Again, "The Prince of Condé" is almost never used and would strike many WP readers familiar with history as wrong-headed if not wrong, eliciting never-ending edits and reverts.
 * 8) If style is a legitimate consideration, giving every French titleholder an "of" sounds a bit pretentious and retrograde -- stuffy. Worse, it subtly intimates that the importance of noble titles (and, implicitly, of nobility) is current rather than historical. That is because "of" is usually reserved in English for peers who, until recently were hereditary members of the British Parliaments, and for members of reigning and once-reigning families. Yet the majority of the 10,000 families in France that use "de" in their surnames aren't even noble, let alone royal. Surnames are not translated in WP, yet for most French titles, the particle has become part of the surname.
 * 9) For the reasons just enumerated, translating particles is also likely to be perceived as subtly pro-monarchist, pro-aristocracy, and therefore too POV. It becomes an inviting target. There is an escalating struggle that this Naming Conventions page has become a WP battleground for. It is between the traditionalists, who often write of royalty and nobility as if the French Revolution never happened, and the republi-egalitarians who would like to see titles stripped from current WP usage altogether, or at the least minimized. And the latter much outnumber the former. I don't want this to happen, if only so that some of the flavor of a bygone era can still be scented when immersing oneself in history on WP. But I realize that to preserve WP references to "Her Royal Highness Princess Diane of Orléans" it is prudent not to insist upon references to the "Marchioness of Sévigné" or the "Marquess of the Fayette"!Lethiere 08:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I suspect I would agree with Lethiere in practice. But I must disagree with his rules. In fact, I disagree with any rule except English usage, which is usually clear, and can be found by looking up the subject in a few English references. (If he's not there, he's not notable.) Marquis de Lafayette is unquestioned American (and I think British) usage; so is Duke of Anjou. We should use both. Septentrionalis 23:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe that Lethiere worries too much about the use of a French title with non-French placename, like Duke of Wagram. This should not be a problem; there are lots of British titles including non-British placenames, like Baron Clive of Plassey, for the same reason: the title is for a battle won abroad. (We can disambiguate this when and if we have to; I doubt there is an Austrian Herzog zu Wagram.) Septentrionalis 23:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Yikes, didn't notice this until now. I really hate "Duke de Broglie" or "Viscount de Mirabeau". French titles are sufficiently similar to the English versions that confusion is not likely. Duc>Duke, Comte>Count, Marquis>Marquess, Vicomte>Viscount, Baron>Baron, are all pretty obvious. The hybrid forms suggested by Lethiere are strange and ugly. I would suggest that non-royal French nobility just have its titles given in French, straight up. john k 10:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Władysław II Jagiełło
I think this name may actually be usual usage in English. I would propose making the article title Władysław II Jagiełło of Lithuania and Poland, both for historical order and to avoid any appearance of slighting Lithuania. I don't think there's any risk of confusion with Władysław II the Exile; if necessary there is always the option of using the English form (and yes, it is the English form, as well as the Latin) Ladislaus. Septentrionalis 17:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Poland was a kingdom, Lithuania merely a grand duchy, so Poland should come first. Is it slighting Spain to have Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor? But the Polish monarch articles are currently on their own bizarre plane of article naming, which needs to be cleared up. john k 18:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This should be addressed at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Polish rulers), I believe. Olessi 18:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict, @Pmanderson/Septentrionalis:)? I still prefer Wladyslaw II/V of Poland, Jogaila of Lithuania, as it is on this page above for more than a month. Your argumentation does not appear convincing to me. This monarch was never "Władysław" in Lithuania; the ordinal "II" only applies to Poland, and then still with ambiguity: "V" is equally used; he was never "Jagiełło of Lithuania" ("Jagiełło" is Polish, in Lithuania his name was "Jogaila", this is never transcribed as Jagiełło in English).
 * Your proposal sounds something like William I the Conqueror of Normandy and England to me: in Normandy he was William "II" (and that's then still without mixing in a frog-leaped translation like you did in the Jogaila/Jagiełło proposal).
 * Further, I'd suggest not to create on this talk page a third place for discussing the page name for this monarch, there is already:
 * Talk:Władysław II Jagiełło (several sections on that page)
 * Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Polish_rulers)
 * New impetus to the discussions in these places welcome!
 * Note also that it is possible to edit the table of proposals pictured above, just click the edit link... this changes the proposal on several pages simultaneously: the table is presently included in:
 * Naming conventions (Polish rulers)
 * Talk:Władysław II Jagiełło
 * Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles)
 * Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English)
 * Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Polish rulers)
 * Talk:List of Polish monarchs
 * feel free to contribute (don't forget to update the "rationale" explanation if you change/add proposals to the table).
 * Anyway, Olessi suggested the shifting of the discussion to another page in fewer words: I support! --Francis Schonken 19:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Copied to NC(Polish rulers). If someone wants to delete it here, fine. Septentrionalis 22:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I have proposed, at the talk page of the biography itself, to accept a somewhat exceptional article name for the person who currently resides under Władysław II Jagiełło. My proposal is Vladislaus Jagiello of Lithuania, King of Poland. Before shooting that down, please visit that talk page -you see there has been many conflicts and much contention regards to this guy, and a feeling has seemed to be that the stardard application will not work. One of the problems is his regnal number, which is unclear, and a battle can be fought of it. And of many other points. Talk: Talk:Władysław II Jagiełło. This sort of longer and more ususual variant of name is needed for example for disambiguation purposes, and to let warrinh nationalities to be at least a bit happy. ObRoy 20:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * He was king of Poland, and only Grand Duke of Lithuania. Wladyslaw II Jagiello of Poland would seem perfectly acceptable to me.  We don't have Charles V of Spain and the Holy Roman Empire or Charles V of Spain, Holy Roman Emperor, or anything like that. john k 20:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The regnal number is impractical, because it may lead to even editwarring, but at least to problem which of those two to use. Are you, then, suggesting Wladyslaw Jagiello of Poland?? That has one sad fault: all the words resemble very much those in Polish (only diacriticals removed from first names, not anglicized nor latinized - and the only country mentioned is Poland), and Lithuanians are then not happy at all. I am saying that compromise is needed with this guy. ObRoy 20:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I see no more need to appease angry Lithuanians than I do anyone else. We don't worry about "William I of England" offending Normans, do we?  Also, what's wrong with the regnal number?  I know there were earlier Wladyslaws than Wladyslaw the Short, but my understanding was that he is pretty much always "Wladyslaw I," Jagiello is "Wladyslaw II," his son is "Wladyslaw III," and Sigismund III's son is "Wladyslaw IV."  Why is Wladyslaw IV acceptable but not Wladyslaw II? john k 23:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Lithuania is not clearly of lower rank than Poland; it was a non-catholic state that didn't give a hoots about how some catholic countries had got together and classified it. In fact, Lithuania was a 5 times the size of Poland, and much more powerful in Jogaila's day, so putting it below Poland is preposterous. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Wladyslaw Jagiello of the Polish-Lithuanian personal union? --Francis Schonken 09:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Charles V's title as King of Spain arguably gave him considerably more power than his title as Holy Roman Emperor - certainly his son Philip II, King of Spain, was way more powerful than his nephew, Maximilian II, Holy Roman Emperor. Henry II of England's titles as Duke of Aquitaine, Duke of Normandy, and Count of Anjou and Maine, were arguably more important than his title of King of England - certainly those areas were more populous than England at the time.  Piedmont was much more important than Sardinia for the Kings of Sardinia of the House of Savoy.  The territories of the Kings in Prussia within the Holy Roman Empire (Brandenburg, Cleves, Mark) were more populous and important than East Prussia, which was small and backwards.  King is a higher title than Grand Duke.  And every person who was both King of Poland and Grand Duke of Lithuania was, in fact, a Catholic, so I'm not sure how the "non-Catholic state" comes into play.  Furthermore Jogaila was only Grand Duke of Lithuania for fifteen years.  He was King of Poland for forty-eight years.  john k 10:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Above you proposed Wladyslaw II Jagiello of Poland. I'd go for that one then (to end the returning discussion loops):
 * We can wait until eternity for a "compromise" (like, for instance, promised again at Talk:Władysław II Jagiełło)... I suppose neither of the sides will ever give in. Impossibility to compromise is more than apparent from a host of archived pages I need not list again I suppose.
 * Maybe also have a look at Shilkanni's work of the last 24 hours on List of Polish monarchs, - all in all an admirable job to sort this out in Polish and English names - yet for this royal the table leads to yet another additional English variant: Ladislas (V) Jagello.
 * So I suppose this leaves little other alternative than that the people who are most acquainted with the names & titles NC guideline, and who are preferably not particularily associated with either side of the Polish-Lithuanian border, but preferably very acquainted with English (i.e.: the language - which rules out myself), put their foot down, and propose a decision as per the most in line with the names and titles NC guideline (note that the "Polish rulers" NC proposal - lacking any prospect towards the tiniest bit of compromise - is as dead as can be). If John says Wladyslaw II Jagiello of Poland would be the most obvious choice as per the names & titles NC guideline, I believe him, I agree, and I would like to see the page moved there ASAP, so that those who have taken upon them to improve the article (see Talk:Władysław II Jagiełło) are no longer disturbed by this endless uncompromisable naming issue. --Francis Schonken 11:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * First of all, I believe that moving the page before the RM vote is unacceptable. The RM should start fromt he page the article spent its last half a year at, i.e. Władysław II Jagiełło, especially as that name has survived the previous RM. Second, if somebody is moving the page, you should at least take care of the double redirects, like Vladislav II of Poland. Third, I prefer the original Pmanderson proposal Władysław II Jagiełło of Lithuania and Poland with diactrics. . Fourth, we don't need 'of country' which were invented for disambigs since all proposed titles in 'W II J' format are unique.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

A new approval poll about how to name this particular noble's article has been started. Interested editors are invited to participate at Talk:Władysław II Jagiełło. --Elonka 18:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Inconsistency in names for British life peers
There is huge inconsistency in the names used for British life peers - some are named using their title and some not. The paragraph on the subject in this article does not clarify matters:

"Life 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.')"

That allows a vast amount of leeway as to naming, since pretty much no life peer is referred to exclusively by their personal name (even Laurence Olivier, somebody definitely known professionally by his personal name, was frequently referred to as "Lord Olivier", for example). It's interesting that Margaret Thatcher is used as an example. She's not referred to exclusively by her personal name at all - in fact, she is now pretty much exclusively referred to, by the British media at least, as "Baroness Thatcher" or "Lady Thatcher". I think we need a little more clarification on this policy. -- Necrothesp 17:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It's true there is inconsistency, but that's in the nature of the thing. I believe we normally come to a consensus if there is doubt (sometimes after quite a bit of debate).  I don't think a hard-and-fast rule is possible in these cases. Deb 18:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The point is really whether or not the many life peers who are listed only by their personal name should be moved to their name and title. This is particularly an issue when someone who already has an article about them is created a peer. -- Necrothesp 15:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Numbering popes called Stephen
I have a very very very long argument with Jerzy for a very very very long time.

At the begining, it was only about the oportunity to rename artcles from Pope Stephen III to Pope Stephen X. You can find the whole dispute on this page Talk:Pope_Stephen. Finally, we agree on it: those articles must be renamed. But we definitly don't agree about what the new titles must be.

I wanted to have the opinion of other users. I don't think it has to be dicided only by him and me. In short, here are our opinions:

Jerzy's opinion:
Pope Stephen III must be renamed Pope Stephen (II or III), ..., Pope Stephen X must be renamed Pope Stephen (IX or X). The "former" Pope Stephen II must be renamed Pope Stephen (unconsecrated). New disambiguation pages must be created for each Pope Stephen n entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Švitrigaila (talk • contribs) 21:57, 10 April 2006
 * That description suggests a burden of Dab pages being borne as a cost imposed by the desire for titles that are non-committal about the numbering.
 * The proposal will be better understood if viewed as a design for a disambiguation structure that (except for the familiar burden of Dab'd article titles) stays hidden from most users (since the easily built Dab pages will be seen only by editors and those who type in an article title starting "Pope Stephen..." -- but not those who follow links from other articles). This structure may be constrasted with Švitrigaila's approach, and the need that it imposes, for
 * a ToP Dab on each article but one, and
 * the unusual & IMO problematic structure of all but one of the ToP Dabs lk'g to a page that in turn begins with another ToP Dab that almost always is irrelevant, but may give the impression of needing to be read and perhaps lk'd thru, and may lead to reflexive or confused lk'g into an irrelevant article, or conceivably in turn into more than one.
 * It is, mutatis mutandum, the article titles that are the consequent burden, and the separation of Dab'n into separate files that is the benefit sought.
 * --Jerzy•t 05:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Švitrigaila's opinion:
Pope Stephen III must be renamed Pope Stephen II, ..., Pope Stephen X must be renamed Pope Stephen IX. Pope Stephen X must be kept as a simple redirect to Pope Stephen IX. The "former" Pope Stephen II must be renamed Pope elect Stephen. No disambiguation page has to be created. A simple disambiguation phrase is added at the top of each article (this line can already be seen in those articles: I wrote them myself and surprisingly Jerzy transformed them into a Template, that's a very good idea!)

Note I've renamed the old Pope Stephen II into Stephen (ephemeral pope). I know this title is awkward and the move was not wise.

Now, I don't want further historical arguments about the opportunity of changing the existing titles. The discussion is no more about historical facts. In theory all is explained in Stephen (ephemeral pope). I would like users to decide which system is better for numbering those popes.

Švitrigaila 21:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

"Pope Stephen (II or III)" or "Pope Stephen II"?

 * "Pope Stephen II" : My argument is there must be a choice in a title, and a title can't reflect all the possible variants for one name. Švitrigaila 21:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Historians use the designation "Stephen II/III". Let's not try to reinvent the wheel. The ambiguously numbered Stephens need both of their ambiguous numbers in their article titles. - Nunh-huh 22:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Some historians do. Some don't. The designation "Stephen II/III" is not at all universal. And can you find another example of a Wikipedia page with a dab in its title? Švitrigaila 22:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * All historians are familiar with this use, or they are inept historians. I'm quite certain there are similar examples in Wikipedia, but in any case they are irrelevant. We are here to use standard nomenclature, not invent our own. - Nunh-huh 22:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * If you consider "Stephen II/III" as possible variants of the name, it has nothing to do in the title, or else you can rename James I of England into James I of England/VI of Scotland. Variants must be only in the article's text and the title must choose only one. If you consider "Stephen II/III" as name by itself, so you must compare its frequency with other names used. I did it with all the sources I have at home and the results are here: "Stephen II" is far more frequent than "Stephen II/III". And don't forget Pope Stephen X signed all his documents "Stephen IX", not "Stephen IX/X". Švitrigaila 22:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * No, we do not use the most common ambiguous designation in preference to a common but unambiguous one. - Nunh-huh 22:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * So, we can rename the Volgograd page into Stalingrad, or better into Stalingrad/Volgograd. Švitrigaila 23:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Not at all the same thing, and I suspect you know that. No one refers to "Stalingrad/Volgograd", while "Stephen II/III" (etc.) is the standard designation for people who need to know which Pope Stephen they are talking about. - Nunh-huh 01:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * [written before Nunh-huh's 01:15 response immediately above] Švitrigaila is fond of arguments by analogy, and has shown no sign of appreciating the difference between a false analogy and relevant one. (Oddly, this has gotten worse rather than better: one of their previous analogies, citing Leningrad & St. Petersburg, was slightly more relevant, since at least there are multiple St. Petersburgs.) Offering this analogy of a city that has had two names overlooks the crucially relevant aspects that are missing in the analogue. The cities offer a classic example of a navigational problem that can be solved by a single redirect. We are dealing here with a especially perverse combination of the kind of problem we normally solve with a redirect and the kind of problem we normally solve with a Dab: each pope has two names, like the cities, but unlike the cities (where each name has one city), each name also has two popes. I've called it "especially perverse", because, as i have pointed out at Talk:Pope Stephen/Naming (Potential Solutions), the top-of-page Dabs that Švitrigaila admits their solution requires are an ugly, verbose blot at the top of the page, and a source of further confusion, since following any of the ToP Dabs (except one) leads the reader to another nearly identical (but confusingly different) Dab in the next "lower" article.  (The ToP Dabs may in fact need to be that verbose and ugly, which would be a further argument, beyond the confusion, for an approach close to mine.) --Jerzy•t 03:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It is essentially on Nunh-huh's "[less] common but unambiguous [designation]" reasoning that i advocated Pope Stephen (II or III); IMO it is immediately recognizable by those used to Pope Stephen II/III (first advocated by an IP), but
 * more quickly interpreted by non-experts, and
 * especially easier to interpret as a Dab'd title for those familiar with en:-WP Dab'd-title style.
 * I'd be quite happy with either. --Jerzy•t 03:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The article on the Pope elect makes the case that there is a present consensus on numbering II through IX. If there is, we should use it. If there isn't, please state your authority for present use of something else. Septentrionalis 22:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * To be perfectly honnest, I must say I'm the author of this article. It doesn't change anything to the discussion of course. Švitrigaila 22:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * A present consensus beyond WP is neither demonstrated, nor adequate (even if it had been) to show the simple names are desirable:
 * _ _ Švitrigaila believes that a Vatican list of 1961 put a stop to all variability. But Googling (English)
 * 931 -Wikipedia "Pope Stephen VIII" -"Pope Stephen VII"
 * gives "103 of about 176" hits, and
 * 931 -Wikipedia "Pope Stephen VII" -"Pope Stephen VIII"
 * gives "40 of about 58". So Pope Stephen VII/VIII (who died in 931) is probably called Stephen VIII about 72% of the time on the Web, and VII 28% (not the, say, 90% that Švitrigaila "consensus" suggests) of the time. That may not be typical; someone may want to extend that method to other popes than the 931 one. But it's hardly as simple as Septentrionalis construes the article as painting it. This 'graph by Jerzy altered by him at 05:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC).
 * _ _ But current usage is not IMO crucial. What is crucial is that the old mixed usage will never go away. In fact, i remember consulting EB1911, long before the Web and thus probably before it was on line, after a round of I, Claudius episoces: sources from that era often offer better coverage of out-of-fashion topics like Romans and medieval popes. That means we can't refuse to support decently the users diligent enough to consult old sources on even older topics. --Jerzy•t 03:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * There is a much simpler solution to oldfashioned usage: a header, warning the reader: This name has also been used for Pope Stephen II, and a paragraph (which should exist anyway) explaining the situation. Septentrionalis 04:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Though that's not a solution: an unqualified "Stephen III" means absolutely nothing, while "Stephen II/III" is perfectly precise. - Nunh-huh 05:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * This "oldfashioned usage" is just a term of abuse. The real situation is that by and large we don't need the Roman numerals to write our articles, and that the usually valuable numbering mechanism has been rendered worthless by centuries of political maneuvering disguised as theological hair splitting. We need to do something about it, not to "get the names right", but to properly serve the unfortunates who have no better way to get to the article than thru shabby mechanism of the Roman numerals. --Jerzy•t 05:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

And why not renaming Miguel Induráin into Miguel Induráin/Indurain? The answer is you never express variants in the title of an article. Never. You can't find even one counterexample on Wikipedia. And Nunh-huh says "Stephen II/III" is the standard designation for this pope: it's absolutely false. You may find in an encyclopedia a sentence such as "He added to that power after Pope Stephen II traveled all the way to Paris to anoint Pippin in a lavish ceremony at Saint Denis Basilica", or "He added to that power after Pope Stephen III traveled all the way ...", but you'll never find something like "He added to that power after Pope Stephen II/III traveled all the way ..." (this sentence is from the article Pippin the Younger). "Stephen II/III" is not his name. It's only two possible different names for the same person. As Induráin and Indurain are two possible different names for the same man. If you rename the article into Pope Stephen II/III, it would be against the naming conventions. And Jerzy's proposition to rename articles into Pope Stephen (II or III) and to use pipes such as  Pope Stephen II  seems to go expressly against Wikipedia's Manual of style.

He seems to think that if someone goes on Pope Stephen IX and reads Pope Stephen VIII is sometime called Stephen IX, he'll click on Pope Stephen VIII only to read Pope Stephen VII is sometime called Pope Stephen VIII, and the he'll click on Pope Stephen VII and so on... Does he really think a normal reader will conclude Pope Stephen II is sometime called Pope Stephen X? If I'm looking for an article about a man I don't know anything about, let's say "Pope Stephen VII" for example, and if I read his article and I found the phrase "Note: In sources prior to the 1960's, this pope is sometimes called Stephen VIII and Stephen VI is sometimes called Stephen VII. See Stephen (ephemeral pope) for detailed explanations.", that would be enough for me. I won't check all the Pope Stephen pages one by one. I'm stupid, OK, but I am not that stupid.

You all here seem to consider both numbers for each pope Stephen are equally correct. They are not. There is a good number and a wrong one. As I've already said ten times here, Pope Stephen IX was explicitely named "the ninth" during his reign, and it was by mistake he was renamed after. And yes, Jerzy, we have to "get the names right". It is the role of an encyclopedia. If I look for Miguel Indurain or Miguel Induráin in an encyclopedia, I hope the encyclopedia will give me the correct spelling of his name. It's normal to have a redirect from the misspelled entry to the good one, but it's in order to help the user and to correct him, not in order to mean both spelling are correct (and in fact, the English Wikipedia mistakes once again : the correctly spelling of his name is without the accent even in Spanish, but I suppose if there was somewhere on Earth another famous Miguel Indurain without the accent, some would find better to keep the racing cyclist's name with the accent according to Nunh-huh's principle "we do not use the most common ambiguous designation in preference to a common but unambiguous one", that is to say "a wrong information is better than a right one if it is better understood".)

Švitrigaila 23:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

"Pope Stephen (unconsacrated) (unconsecrated)" or "Pope-elect Stephen"?

 * "Pope elect Stephen" : He was elected bishop of Rome, what is now called "the pope", but died three days after, before he was ordained a bishop. He was not considered the bishop of Rome at his time for this reason, and he's not considered a pope today. Then he was exactly a "pope elect", that is a man "elected pope". Švitrigaila 21:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * _ _ I don't grasp the theological reasoning involved, but it's clear Švitrigaila wants us to take a PoV position on whether he was a "real" pope or not: they've even argued elsewhere on WP that to use the phrase "Pope Stephen" is to reject Vatican II, constitutes (IIRC) "Catholic traditionalism", and puts the speaker under suspicion of being a Catholic traditionalist fanatic.
 * _ _ NPoV means, for the title, respecting common-sense usage over counting the angels dancing on the pinhead. Many people have accepted him as a Pope, and even those who don't still know exactly who the "unconsecrated Pope Stephen", or, in a Dab-suggesting format, Pope Stephen (unconsecrated) refers to.
 * _ _ (Minor reasons for preferring "unconsecrated" over "Pope-elect": Each raises questions that have to be put off for the article to answer, but "unconsecrated" raises fewer (viz., "why not?") than "Pope-elect" ("How is that different, and why that difference?"); Pope-elect is not a familiar term, and is likely to cause the reader to pause to think about the (for Americans) familiar term, President-elect, the existence of a lame-duck President, the transition team, change of party in power, etc. "Stephen" then has to be grafted onto the construction Pope-elect. (In contrast Pope  is a construction so familiar that literary titles like Pope Joan roll off the tongue and most popes' names feel more like a single word than words concatenated, so that "Pope Stephen (unconsecrated)" feels like two rather than three words, and for many en:-WP users the parentheses graft on with very little ambiguity or thought about their meaning.))
 * _ _ This is BTW, the least substantial aspect of the Pope-Stephen problem, and here's the most valuable thing i can say about it:
 * I'd probably be happier if we used Pope-elect Stephen and no further comments appeared in this section, than if there is significantly more discussion on this aspect.
 * --Jerzy•t 04:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm in favour of Švitrigaila's proposal. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) Seen this already? 04:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Švitrigaila 15:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * So I rename now Stephen (ephemeral pope) into Pope-elect Stephen. I choose the hyphened spelling in accordance with thoses sites : and  but I'll make a redirect from Pope elect Stephen. Švitrigaila 15:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You certainly shouldn't rename anything until there's a consensus achieved that that is the correct thing to do. - Nunh-huh 20:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Why? I'm a registered user and I can rename an article if i want to. You have the same right. If you're not happy with that move, you can oppose it on Requested_moves and if you'll explain why the title Stephen (ephemeral pope) was better. To get a consensus on whatever subject, we need a vote. I've tried to create good conditions for a vote to take place... in vain. All my attempts at launching a vote have had no effect. The voting places are soon transformed into endless talk pages. I've launched this debate on 19 February 2006 and there has been only four persons to express thieir view on the matter. But there are pages and pages of debates. I'd like to see this problem solved before I go into retirement. Švitrigaila 17:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Why? Because that's not the correct way to do things, and may result in an edit war, which is not a good thing. If you can't get concensus for your proposed change - and so far you haven't - perhaps you should consider the possibility that it's an ill-advised proposal. - Nunh-huh 05:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Talk: Pope Stephen X continues this discussion. If Nunh-huh can convince some of these voices to change, fine; if not, he should read consensus Septentrionalis
 * No, that page doesn't "continue" this discussion, it discusses a single page. That discussion belongs here,. I know what consensus is on Wikipedia, thank you, despite your snide implication. - Nunh-huh 22:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Unsnidely: WP:Consensus also suggests what Nunh-huh's remedies are. Talk:Pope Stephen X is a discussion on the entire issue, as referred to WP:RM. It has to be somewhere. Septentrionalis 22:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't. Talk: Pope Stephen X is basically a vote, with precious little discussion, and is about renaming a single page, not a series of pages. - Nunh-huh 23:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It is about renaming the whole series of them, and the moves are currently being carried out. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 13:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Rename Władysław II Jagiełło to Wladyslaw II/V of Poland, Jogaila of Lithuania

 * Copied here from Wikipedia talk:Polish Wikipedians' notice board 16:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Please comment at Talk:Władysław II Jagiełło to stop this monstrosity from happening.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The above naming discussion was rejected. However, a new approval poll has begun, to discuss the matter of how to name the article currently at Władysław II Jagiełło. Interested editors are invited to participate, at Talk:Władysław II Jagiełło.

Saxe-Coburg & Gotha/Edinburgh
There have been a few moves of pages of the princes/princesses who were simutaneously the children of the Duke of Edinburgh and the Duke of Saxe-Coburg & Gotha. Now, the pages are at "of Edinburgh and Saxe-Coburg-Gotha", moved by a user who was moving more pages from "Saxe-Coburg and Gotha" to "Saxe-Coburg-Gotha". Since the use of the "and" is correct and was in the official name of the duchy (duchies), it should be used. However, does SC&G need to be used with Edinburgh? Charles 16:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles is referring to the children of Alfred, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. He had six children, five of whom have Wiki-articles.  "Prince Alfred of Edinburgh" has been renamed Prince Alfred of Edinburgh and Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (by Yakksta_x on March 27). "Princess Victoria Melita of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha" has been renamed Princess Victoria Melita of Edinburgh and Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (by Morhange on April 29). "Princess Alexandra of Edinburgh" has been renamed Princess Alexandra of Edinburgh and Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (by Yakksta_x on March 27).  "Princess Beatrice of Edinburgh" has been renamed Princess Beatrice of Edinburgh and Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (by Yakksta_x on March 27).  Only Marie of Edinburgh has not been changed (she became queen of Romania).  The four who have been changed are virtually never known as "of Edinburgh and Saxe-Coburg-Gotha"; this is just not the standard way of referring to these people in English-language works.  The convention states "Where a monarch has reigned over a number of states, use the most commonly associated ones."  Surely this must apply to cadet members of a house as well.  Or are we to rename the articles for all archdukes of Austria, to show that they were also princes of Hungary and Bohemia, etc.?  I agree with Charles that these pages should use the "most common form of the name used in English" (whatever that is - and it might be difficult to decide sometimes; and it might not be consistent for all five of them). Noel S McFerran 22:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Simply using of Edinburgh seems rather ignorant to the status of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha as a sovereign state of which Alfred was the duke. Alfred's article simply is titled Alfred, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha rather than a combination involving Edinburgh. Would it suffice, for the sake of using one designation and to match their father, to have the prince and the princesses at of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha? Granted, both were used at times, but if one is to be used over the other, I think the status as children of a reigning Saxon duke is more important that a courtesy designation from their father's UK peerage, which was a dukedom with no territory to reign over. All that being said, if Edinburgh was only used, I would find it to be much more acceptable than a long string of designations not even of equal standing (on the basis of territory/state). Charles 22:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * In the case of Marie (whose page name hasn't been changed), she is almost always known in English works as "Marie of Edinburgh". In the case of Victoria Melita she is usually known as "of Saxe-Coburg ((and) Gotha)".  I'm not nearly as sure regarding Alexandra and Beatrice.  I'm afraid that this is another case of common English usage not being consistent. Noel S McFerran 03:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Saxe-Coburg and Gotha for the junior members of the house is simply not English usage and should not be imposed upon this version of Wikipedia. (Charles appears, elsewhere, to be under the impression that it is somehow informal, but has presented no instances of the alleged formal use.) I have found no examples of this in the standard sources, including the Complete Peerage.
 * The head of the Bulgarian branch of the house is now calling himself Simeon Sakskoburggotski; the formulation at the head of his own article (Simeon II of Bulgaria) distinguishes between the English and the German forms, which may be a way out of this less-than-useful pedantry. Septentrionalis 04:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Does Simeon II himself ever use the English "form" of the name? That's like a John King going to Germany and being called Hans Koenig for the time. The German form is Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha. It's pretty straight-forward what the translation is. The article for the duchy was at the name and for the most part, the princes and princesses were at this name. Also, all the dukes are at this name. There is a clear distinction to be made between a form with the and and one with a hyphen. The form with the and (the correct form) indicates the existence of two entities (Saxe-Coburg and Saxe-Gotha, getting rid of the other Saxony gives Saxe-(Coburg and Gotha)). Saxe-Coburg-Gotha is chiefly and English invention and sloppy short hand for omitting an and. The Simeon II article states that S-C-G is an English form of his name. Yes, it is an English form, but it is an inaccurate form. Besides, the use of and in a name without a title or preposition is extremely pecular in English. If there were people called Victoria Melita Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, it would look extremely odd. Charles 13:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * He appears to use the Bulgarian form in all languages; he certainly uses it in Bulgarian, which therefore differs from the formal German usage.
 * Charles appears to assume that, because the translation into English could be straightforward, the straightforward equivalent must be right, and anything else must be English sloppiness. The two musts here are unjustified: English idiom simply differs from German, and Wikipedia policy is to follow it. Septentrionalis 21:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The distinction in German between - and and with regard to this Saxon duchy is an important one, such that this particular translation IS straight forward. I have no idea what you're trying to accomplish, if not to try to get under the skin of others. The version that differs from the direct translation from German is an informal treatment. Charles 01:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not trying to be irritating; I am trying to follow English usage, which is policy. Charles is attempting to import a distinction, which, as far as I can tell, no English source (however formal) makes, and which is unidiomatic. It may be that English could benefit from a change; but this is not the place to campaign for one. Septentrionalis 04:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Medieval members of royalty
The naming convention cannot push any such title to anyone which (s)he has not actually held. For example, prince/princess in titles of medieval cadet members of monarchical families are untenable. This leads to a funny situation, where a large bunch of people (mostly women) have articles which resemble closely those of ruling monarchs and deceased queens, though the individual in question may have been much lower. For example, daughters of the first and second duke of Prussia seem quite similar to later queens consort of various places. Sons of medieval kings that died young, resemble reigning monarchs of those same nations. Funny indeed. Shilkanni 14:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not disagree with Shilkanni. However, I think it totally unacceptable to edit the actual convention without previously raising the topic on the discussion page.  The particular wording used by Shilkanni, "Titles never held by them however cannot be postulated here" can certainly be improved. Noel S McFerran 01:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * How would you express the thought that "articles should not have titles that were actually not used of the subject in question". Shilkanni 20:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Your wording is clear and appropriate here, whereas your "postulated" version was both awkward and presumptuous. Perhaps surprisingly, WP naming conventions do not restrict a person's title to what it actually was in law or contemporary usage. Rather, the term that is most used currently in English is the standard -- even though the person to whom the term refers may never have been known by that name in life. Prince Henry the Navigator and Edward, the Black Prince are best known by their titles in English. Although Henry's article does not use his princely prefix (apparently because his true title was "infante"), a convincing case must be made for WP not to use the name and title that is best known in English.


 * However, the main point McFerran makes is that the convention you want to change has already been thoroughly discussed, vetted, approved and applied. If you want to change the WP naming convention from Where they have no title, use the form "Prince/ss {name} of {country}", to Titles never held by them however cannot be postulated here, that change needs to be proposed here, discussed, and approved by a new consensus. Therefore, I have reverted your change to Naming conventions (names and titles) rule #4. Like Noel McFerran, I think your proposal has merit, but it must be discussed, not imposed.Lethiere 09:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, in the partial question of medieval high women who never married a king, I would like to see a new rule: a rule that leads to "Elisabeth of Hungary, Countess of Thuringia" and analogously the others. Cos, if we apply the "pre-marital terrotorial designation only" to all sorts of royal women who became countesses and duchesses, we end up with a plethora of women "of country" (causing a number of disambig needs) - which also is misleading, making them look like queens and/or reigning monarchs. (and btw, this has me to suggest the ordinal to all of those who were the only monarchs of their name, besides.) The two-part title has the essential part of pre-marital (which is how they are usually known in their fiefs' histories etc) but also has the husband's fief as sort of disambiguation. Shilkanni 20:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable. At a later date, we follow usage to Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire without difficulty. Objections? Septentrionalis 22:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: We should, however, acknowledge that there are cases (like Margaret of Burgundy and Joan of Kent) where there is primary usage for a simple name. Yes, I am intentionally choosing a married name and a maiden name. Septentrionalis 22:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I like "Joan of Kent" and I think that is one of the rare names that do not need her husband's title attached. She, after all, was countess of Kent in her own right. Whereas I do not like "Margaret of Burgundy" at all - that is not fitting to our overall naming system. I will oppose attempts to move her to Margaret of Burgundy, which anyway may be a crowded place (= place for disambig). Elizabeth Margaret of York, Duchess of Burgundy would be acceptable. Shilkanni 14:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Is Elizabeth a typo for Margaret of York...? I think Margaret of Burgundy is one of the cases which show that our overall naming system is an an artificial and overextended generalization; but that's a separate argument - as long as room is left for actual common usage to override WP systems, I'll be happy. Make it Joan of Kent and Elizabeth of Bohemia, then. Septentrionalis 17:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Baronets

 * 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.

I recently create a page Harington Baronets which was a red link from Baronetage of England because I wanted to create a stub for the regicide James Harrington because the link went to his cousin of the same name James Harrington. The article name I initially gave the article about the man was: James Harrington, 3rd Baron of Ridlington. I now know that Baron was wrong and since then the page has been moved to Sir James Harrington, 3rd Baronet.

Looking through the first few baronetage only pages in the list Baronetage of England, it seems to me that the above guidelines are not being followed.
 * Bacon Baronets take the page name format of Sir Nicholas Bacon, 1st Baronet
 * Harington Baronets take the page name format of Sir James Harrington, 1st Baronet
 * Hobart Baronets take the format Sir Henry Hobart, 1st Baronet, of Intwood but this seems to be because there are also Sir Robert Henry Hobart, 1st Baronet, of Langdown lower down the page.


 * 1) The guideline seems silly to me to state this format should only be used when disambiguation is necessary unless one is very familiar with the subject how does one know if any of the other members of the family, or a notable other person has the same name? Why this rule for this specific hereditary title and not for the others like Baron? It seems to me sensible to alter the guidline so that all baronets include baronet in the page name. It simplifies the naming of pages and seems to to be the current practice.
 * 2) Should Sir be included in the page name? At the moment it seems to be, but the guidelines imply to me that it should not.
 * 3) As with the Baronetage of England, should the name in the text of the page include "of Ridlington" (Is it part of the title)? Should it be included in the page name other than for disambiguation? --Philip Baird Shearer 15:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I can certainly answer your last question: "of Wherever" should never be included in a Baronet's article name, even for disambiguation. It's not part of the title at all (plus it looks ridiculous). Proteus (Talk) 16:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

should not revert to "pre-marital TITLE", but to pre-marital simple NAME
The formulation of "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 & Denmark. 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." is not good when saying how the person reverts after death, as to the word TITLE. The established use in works of reference clearly does not use any title, it uses the simplified name precisely without any titulary. The word should be changed to "name" or equivalent. Queen Mary is not Princess Mary of Teck but Mary of Teck. Marie Antoinette is not Archduchess Maria Antonia of Austria but Marie Antoinette of Austria. There are some who did not have terrotory, then the surname or something similar is used, as Anne Boleyn. The wording should reflect that no title is used, but a formulation "first name in its usual version" plus "territorial designation or if not used, then surname". The formulation of "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." is not good as to the word TITLE. Shilkanni 15:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Referring to deceased consorts by the format of is used because that was their title. Royalty tend to use country as title for princes/ses of the blood. Sophia was Princess Sophia of Greece (the Denmark was not used generally until the abolition of the Greek monarchy to keep Greek republicans, who are a moody lot, happy) before marrying Juan Carlos. The only difference is that with consorts when returning to pre-marital title the Princess bit is dropped to indicate she was a queen consort somewhere. Name is only used if there was not a royal title to refer to. So the naming conventions are correct. FearÉIREANN [[Image:Map of Ireland's capitals.png|15px]]\(caint)|undefined 15:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You seem to agree that the TITLE is not to be used. I believe that the rule in NC should say it explicitly, as otherwise we get here all sorts of editors who are adding "Princess" there and here. The wording should say clearly that it is the "territorial designation", not any "title". Shilkanni 15:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * No. No. No. You don't grasp it. Country is title for royalty, unless they had a different one at the point of marriage (eg, Marie of Edinburgh is called that because that was her title at the time of her marriage.) FearÉIREANN [[Image:Map of Ireland's capitals.png|15px]]\(caint)|undefined 15:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think I grasp it, and to contrary, you use the word title for something that people usually do not use it for. Do you really have anything serious against being precise and wording the directive to say "territorial designation"? (Btw, do you grasp that there are editors to whom the word "title" means thgat they add "princess" and "archduchess" etc to these??) Shilkanni 15:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem with using territorial designation is that it would sound as though we are making up a name. Perhaps we need a footnote to explain that royalty use country name as a title. Re the princess stuff the NCs do make clear that that should not be used. FearÉIREANN [[Image:Map of Ireland's capitals.png|15px]]\(caint)|undefined 15:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The NC does not yet make it sufficiently clear, as there exist some editors who somehow believe that a married woman could be Princess Anne of Bourbon-Parma. Shilkanni 16:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

How about:" Past Royal Consorts are referred to by their pre-marital name, 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. 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 name, 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." The examples THEN make it quite clear that a territory is usual, not any digged-up surname. Shilkanni 16:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Almost any discussion here prompts a debate about how some biography is wrongly titled in today Wikipedia. Though often titles of biographies have been arrived by a thoughtful process and even a consensus of editors, that does not prevent some users wanting to criticize such, not in the talkpages of those articles but of course here in the talk about how to formulate general rules. See diversions and distractions e.g below. Shilkanni 17:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

An addition
Actually, I would like to add something to the text:" Past Royal Consorts are referred to by their pre-marital name (first name as usually used, and a designation, usually a territory, if nonexistent, then surname or equivalent - no actual title is ever used, such as princess), 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. 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 name (same as in past consorts: "first name as usually used, and a designation, usually a territory, if nonexistent, then surname or equivalent - no actual title is ever used, such as princess"), 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." Welcome to formulate the formula to be as precise as possible. Shilkanni 16:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Anne of Bourbon
(copied from above: The NC does not yet make it sufficiently clear, as there exist some editors who somehow believe that a married woman could be Princess Anne of Bourbon-Parma. Shilkanni 16:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC) )


 * Anne is the wife of a king. For the same reason that Princess Caroline of Monaco is the Princess of Hanover, Anne is Queen Anne of Romania. Charles 16:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Anne's title is not to be decided by Wikipedia. However, I would point out that Caroline is not titled here as Queen of Hanover. There are ample reasons why we should not title Anne as Queen either. Shilkanni 16:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Caroline is not titled Queen of Hanover because her husband is not titled King of Hanover. Anne's husband, Michael, however, is titled King of Romania. Anne is titled Queen Anne of Romania by various royal courts. Wikipedia can't decide titles, but apparently it can deny the title used by Anne and others to refer to her? What are these ample reasons? Charles 16:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I edited her opening paragraph and arrived at the following - it reflects my views what is the task of Wikipedia, which certainly is not to endorse any monarchical pretension. Shilkanni 16:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC) Anne (Princess Anne Antoinette Françoise Charlotte of Bourbon-Parma, born September 18, 1923), is the wife of the former King Michael I of Romania, however married after his loss of the throne. As such, she is by courtesy also sometimes styled Queen Anne of Romania and treated sometimes as if being a queen consort. As wife of a nobleman who undisputedly is a Prince of Hohenzollern, she is sometimes referred as Princess Anne of Hohenzollern. Their family has reportedly some decade ago taken the surname "of Romania", whereby she would be known also as Anne of Romania, the title of the book in English that her son-in-law published about her life.


 * I have seen little to no evidence of Anne being referred to as Princess Anne of Hohenzollern. All of her daughters are titled as princesses of Romania and her husband is, by courtesy, the king of Romania. As such, Anne is the queen of Romania. Sources from basic article up to the British Royal Family use this title. For instance, here. Type CTRL+F on this page and type Queen Anne of Romania. If the basis of naming her is that her husband is undisputedly a prince of Hohenzollern, shouldn't he be at Prince Michael of Hohenzollern? After mentioning Anne's marriage, her son-in-law (the auther of that book) refers to her as queen.Charles 17:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * To me, that "a little" evidence of her referred as "Princess Anne of Hohenzollern" is sufficient to mention it in the text of the article. Whereas I am not sure it should be the title of the article. However, I am against her article to be titled as "queen..." as it would be endorsement of royal pretension and not an undispited fact. Her queenship is a thing only to be mentioned in the text of the article, as are also other views of referring to her. You cannot make titles by what are titles of her relatives - that is at its worst, pure invention. How her son-in-law refers to her is immaterial as to titling, but a title of a published book is a (possibly small) sign how she is known. Her husbands article's location is directed by the scholarly usage to refer to deposed monarchs, and I accept it. That however says nothing to NPOV title to her, as she was not deposed but only maried afterwards, and was not an actual queen ever. If we want a specific NC for consorts married with deposed monarchs after loss of throne (such as Magda Lupescu), we shouold open a separate thread in this talkpage. I would possibly support something like "Margarita of Bulgaria", without any title, for living persons (as much as it may give an impression of being a reigning queen), and Jutta of Mecklenburg for deceased ones, as is conventional with decased consorts anyway. Shilkanni 17:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * All of this aside, the fact of the matter is that Anne is overwhelmingly referred to as Queen Anne of Romania against all other forms of a name. The name also conforms to naming rules for consorts (which she is, the consort of a king, whether reigning or not) and conventions for the use of the most common name. I cannot understand your opinion why endorsing Parma-based and Hohenzollern titles is fine, but using the title wby which she is most known is not. If she is a Princess of Hohenzollern by virtue of marriage to a Prince of Hohenzollern, then she is a Queen of Romania by virtue of marriage to King of Romania. If she were otherwise called Princess Anne of Parma/Hohenzollern/whatever, that would be fine. However, she is called Queen Anne of Romania. Charles 18:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * This is not the place to jadda-jadda about her precise naming, if you do not propose a change to naming convention. Could you kindly keep to issues at hand here, and not distract. And, I am of the opinion that the naming convention does not mean that she would be titled queen. That has never been the intention of the convention written in the NC page. As to "common name", she is so little known outside certain royalist circles that no conclusion should be drawn from what they like to call her - such would be the recipe to get incredible titles for quite little notable things, and the stupider the less known it is (Anne would be queen but Simeon II a Mr Sakskoburggotski, if I read the google results enough - and we would possibly end up with an Empress Concepcion and a King Rosario, or something like that). I was weakly hinting that "Anne of Romania" would be somehow possibly acceptable to me, without queenly titulary. Then, lastly, where have you got an idea that I push any sort of Parma-based title to her - I would be more happy if you were to refrain from misrepresentation. Shilkanni 19:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't mean things personally for the most part, but it can only come out sounding like this. First and foremost, this is the place to talk about it since you took the time to create a subheading and continue the discussion. Secondly, when you have little else to say, do not accuse me of distracting. It is not very courteous and it is slightly hypocritical to state that I am distracting and then continue on afterward. You are only speaking of what is acceptable to you. I have had to back down when I was wrong before simply because my opinions aren't the be all that end all. The same holds true for yours. If Anne is so little known, she should not have an article on Wikipedia under a name which she is further little known by. On what basis are you allowed to draw such a conclusion as to give her the name given to a deceased consort or a monarch? By keeping Anne at the name after she dies, it would acknowledge that she was a consort in the first place. Oh, and I wrote Parma on the basis of one of my other opinions. I thought the "whatever" at the end was fairly inclusive of other territorial designations. Charles 20:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Greece and Denmark not a good example - simplify
Under Existing Royal Consorts the example of Sofia of Spain is not well formulated and should be corrected: Sofia of Greece and Denmark is too convoluted and good works of reference will not do it in that way. Experts will name her simply as Sofia of Greece in the future. This has been seen in many earlier cases: Elena of Greece was the queen of Romania, and there have also been several princesses of two or more realms to become queens consort and deceased now - of them, only the most usual territory is regularly mentioned. For some reason, there is Marie of Edinburgh, not Marie of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and United Kingdom. This "pre-marital names rule" has always used the simplest territorial designation, thus is is untenable to convolute them here in Wikipedia. Shilkanni 15:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You miss the point. Marie of Edinburgh is called that because that was her actual pre-marital title. Royal House names generally are not added into royal titles by royalty. No-one ever writes Prince Charles of Windsor and the United Kingdom, Prince Henri of Bourbon and France. They write Prince Henri of France because that was his title. And of course Sofia will be of Greece. This of Greece and Denmark is used post-1974. She would be returning to her pre-1974 title, which was of Greece. FearÉIREANN [[Image:Map of Ireland's capitals.png|15px]]\(caint)|undefined 15:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The point is the example about Sofia of Greece. Readers may decide who is the person who missed the point. Shilkanni 15:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Saxe-Coburg and Gotha was not a house name, but rather a ducal territorial designation. Since the Greek royals are also Danish royals, both titles being derived from kingdoms, I believe both should be used when appropriate. Charles 15:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It, or a variant, was used as Royal House name in the UK from 1901 to 1917, however. FearÉIREANN [[Image:Map of Ireland's capitals.png|15px]]\(caint)|undefined 15:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The context in which Shilkanni used it was valid, as a title. There is a better case for it as it would be the closest title deirved from a sovereign in the princess' ancestry. Charles 15:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree here with Jtdirl: She woul be Sofia of Greece after her death. One of the reasons for that is that when she married, only Greece was used, and that's the idea of "pre-marital" designation as instructed in the scholarly usage. Another reason is pure "keep it simple". Shilkanni 15:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

non-british, untranslatable titles
We have been talking about this topic on and off, I am trying to at least get the parts out that we can all agree upon and which are most uncontroversial IMO. This one concern nobility that is not from the United Kingdom and have titles that are not translatable into English, or no English equivalent exists. Members of the non-British nobility, such as as Ritter, Edler, Chevalier, Sieur, Vidame'', etc. have their titles in the original language. Examples: Carl Ritter von Ghega, Richard Edler von Mises, Pierre Le Pesant, sieur de Boisguilbert, etc.'' Also concerning another point that exists for monarchs already 4. ''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...".''
 * Agreed. But non-English titles and honorifics should be italicized on first reference within the article, to avoid confusing style and name, e.g. Carl Ritter von Ghegal, Donna Paola Ruffo dei principi Ruffo di Calabria, Infanta Elena, Duchess of Lugo, etc.
 * Actually, the "base rule" reads: "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." King John Charles may be "English", but the Spanish monarch is known "in English" as King Juan Carlos. Lethiere 03:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * To that I would like to formulate the same thing for nobility, for example Marquis de Sade and Baron Haussmann as exceptions. Gryffindor  16:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with your desired rule, but I don't see it as new. The rule is simply often ignored here. The "English" form of the eponymous sadist's name would be "Marquess of Sade", which is the opposite of what I think you intend. Lethiere 03:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * My opinion on untranslatable titles is to keep them in their native language and append them to the end of the individual's given names. BTW, just a little note... Doesn't sieur simply mean lord? That is, Pierre Le Pesant, Lord of Boisguilbert? I am in agreement that cognomens can be used for nobles if that is what they are best known as. Charles 16:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Sieur is a style not a title, and well illustrates why care should be taken in determining whether to translate the particle "de" in what look like noble names. The "sieur de Boisguilbert" bore that style -- but may neither have owned nor been suzerain of a fief called "Boisguilbert", which may long since have been sold, had its name changed, or may even never have existed. On the other hand, seigneur, which is also habitually translated as "lord", was never a hereditary title, but a description of a person's legal relationship to an estate, i.e. owner of an ennobled demesne. A "sieur" was untitled but necessarily noble and, without specific information, one can only assume that his "de" is just part of his name and should therefore not be translated. Whereas a "seigneur" definitely owned an estate, but might or might not be a commoner, thus should not be titled "Lord". A burgher who bought, e.g., the viscounty of Boisguilbert could not assume the corresponding title (even as a titre de courtoisie) without first being ennobled. Instead, he became, technically, the "seigneur de la vicomté de Boisguilbert", although vanity would prompt him to discreetly drop the "de la vicomté" whenever he could get away with it in society. Thus any "seigneur", strictly speaking, should have that word translated -- not in right of his title, but in right of his property. But the most accurate translation would be "owner" or "proprietor" rather than "lord". As for turning "sieur de" into "Lord of", historically a member of the English landed gentry is only known as "John Smith of Townsley Hall" if his family actually owns that property (or did, at least, sometime during his lifetime). A Frenchman's particle should be translated as "of" only if the estate in question belongs to his family, and not if it is merely part of his surname -- unless WP wants to move a certain article to "Elvis Presley of Graceland". See sieur vs seigneur. Lethiere 03:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, exceptional names are allowed to be used only if that is really really overwhelmingly best known. We would not want countings and recountings of google hits, if difference is only one or some orders of magnitude. Such exception is George Sand. As much as it is possible to translate, translation should be made: sieur is "lord" and it should be translated. Whereas "vidame" and "captal" are non-translatable. I concede that it is best not to translate chevalier, ritter and edler, as translations would lead to unintelligible or undescriptive terms, but always when it is possible to translate (even somewhat artificially), a consensus should be required for decision not to translate. Shilkanni 23:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Whereas styles should not even be in the NAME of an article, see our existing naming conventions.We do not allow HRH in the article's name, and IF sieur in someone's context is not a lordship but a style, it does not have a place in name of article.
 * Sometimes it is hard to distinguish between a style and a title. For instance, "Lord" can be part of an office e.g., Lord Mayor, a courtesy title e.g., Lord Louis Mountbatten, a substantive peerage e.g., Lord of Parliament or, like the French seigneur, it can be an old term for a kind of property owner e.g., Lord of the Manor. In some cases it may be appropriate to use in an article name e.g., Lord Randolph Churchill, Lord Alfred Douglas or Lord George Bentinck. WP's Naming Conventions forbid use of an honorific that is a form of address, but nothing of which I am aware forbids use of other styles.
 * If you are proposing that the Naming Conventions should be changed to exclude such styles, fine, but let's be clear that it would be a change, and that the proposal becomes policy only if agreed upon here by consensus. Are you making that proposal? If so I would object that, since most royal and noble styles were of political and/or social significance when their possessors lived, stripping them in WP of styles which were habitually used during their lifetimes is POV, retroactively downgrading the importance of rank to conform to modern notions of egalitarianism. While I think some attention should be payed to that point of view lest we invite never-ending naming wars with those who deprecate what Arrigo used to call the obsequiousness of "royalty-romantics" on WP, we should compromise -- not capitulate.
 * As for sieur and seigneur never being official titles of nobility in France (and being closer, instead, to the German "Edler" or the Dutch "Jonkheer"), it's well documented. But trying to convince someone who already believes otherwise is usually a pretty hopeless endeavor. Lethiere 01:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Regarding the particularity of Sade, in case he really was Marquis, he does not deserve an exception, as the format "Jabba-Jabba, Marquess of Sade" would be quite good. However, I received information that in fact he was not a marquis in real life, but comte de Sade. In that pretension (or suchlike) case, as he is overwhelmingly known as marquis de Sade, it must be regarded as his pen name and be treated as George Sand is treated. These facts should be checked, preferably by opening a discussion in the article's talk page. It's not a proper place to make individualized decision regarding his article here. The principle stands and can be discussed here. Shilkanni 10:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, but about the Marquis de Sade case, apparently his grandfather was the marquis, and in the French version they talk about something how as the eldest son he took the marquis title? didn't quite understand that part, but it does seem to have been part of his family, not just something that he made up. Maybe I shouldn't have brought up these special cases, can we at least agree on the foreign noble titles that lack a clear translation? unfortunately I have not found any article with a "vidame", but obviously that would be included as well. Gryffindor  14:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe in the French system, the older son takes a title one grade lower than his father. Or maybe even every member of the house except for the head does that... There is a newsgroup called alt.talk.royalty that has lots of info on it. Most families with vidame seem to be extinct. If it did come up,they could be named like Henri-Louis, vidame d'Amiens. Charles 15:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I read French, also. However, the facts seem to be that Sade was son of Count of Sade and succeeded him as count. His maternal grandfather indeed was marquess, but Sade did not presumably succeed him (it would be somewhat unusual, as the title would be inherited by males of his mother's lineage and usually not by his mother's descendants) - thus the grandfather is not a good explanation as source of marquessate. Besides, then he would have not been marquis de Sade, it would have been marquis de Carman. I did not find anything proper to show that Sade's own (agnatic) family had held any marquessate - and if so, why was his father called not a marquess, but a comte instead - you know, highest title is used in French noblesse, not usually secondary. Besides, certain info about Sade's own publications tell that at least one of HIS was titled "...tales of Comte de Sade", not marquis de Sade. Marquis was a higher title of nobility in France too. It would never have taken place that a count's eldest son would have held a marquis-title as a courtesy - the situation would have been reverse. Re family members generally using a lower title as courtesy, it is true at least with French dukedoms - Duc d'Harcourt's younger sons were "comte d'Harcourt"s as courtesy. But a comte's (substantive comte's, not courtesy comte's) heir would have been vicomte, not marquis. The facts suggest that he actually was comte, but for reason or another he used sometimes marquis - and that stuck for literary fame. Shilkanni 18:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I recall something about a family tradition of alternating the title for distinctiveness; but it is perfectly possible in France that he was claiming a rank without warrant and got away with it. Septentrionalis 22:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)~
 * Improbable. Those marquesses (every second in sch a scheme) who would be just counts, very likely would not have followed that tradition (nor authorities extending invitations etc), so such a tradition lacks credibility. Btw, policeman who checked Sade's doings, reported officially regarding "comte de Sade". Shilkanni 16:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Improbable or not, Septentrionalis appears to be correct: This family alternated use of the titles marquis and comte, and it does not appear to have been legal. Gilbert Lêly's Vie du Marquis de Sade (English translation by Alec Brown, published as "The Marquis de Sade: A Biography" 1961) details the many properties, positions, names, income and titles of the family in precise detail from the family's origin to the current Count Xavier de Sade. But when it comes to their noble title, he writes only "It was Gaspard François de Sade, the eldest son of Côme, who was the first of this family to bear the title of Marquis. He was occasionally referred to as the Marquis de Sade, but more often documents refer to him as the Marquis de Mazan. This is the title we find in his marriage contract, in his will and in the Bull of Pope Innocent XII of April 3rd, 1693 giving him the office for life of Colonel of the light cavalry of the Comtat." Conspicuously absent is any reference to Sade's lands being erected into a marquisate for him or his ancestors, or an act of registration of the title of marquis (or count) by the parlement of Provence. Both of these acts would have been necessary for any title of nobility to descend legally. It shows impressively meticulous accuracy that whenever the Sades' possession of ennobled real estate is mentioned by Lêly, seigneur is always correctly translated as "lord of the manor and not sloppily as "lord". The fact that the family indifferently used marquis and count simply reflects the fact that the Sades were noblesse chevaleresque, that is, of such ancient nobility that they had no known non-noble ancestors. Given the loftiness of their ancestry, the assumption of a noble title was de rigueur. Lethiere 07:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Before we go fiddling with this, I would like some actual source, preferably a reliable secondary source in English, who refers to the author under any other title than Marquis de Sade, which is where almost all English-speakers will expect to find him. Septentrionalis 22:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the way to deal with all of these is to look up the subject in a few standard English references, and see what they say; rather than attempting to formulate another artificial WP guideline. In particular: if none of the actual editors of these articles mind the present form, and the form in the article is used in English, why worry about it? Septentrionalis 22:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Because there will always be some pesky user or even vandal who just love to move things around without reading the Wikipedia guidelines, trust me I've have had enough little battles with these sort of situations. So in order to preempt such conflicts for the future generations, I would rather we have it somewhere in writing, even if it means just to consolidate what we already have, just to be on the safe side. Another question, you guys seem to be more familiar with this topic, would this person Baroness Orczy, who is also not listed with her first name, be such a case as well? Gryffindor  00:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You should not battle so much. Shilkanni 16:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, that problem; again, the solution is to document the references for the English name on the Talk page. In the case of Baroness Orczy, that's not hard: she's only notable for her writing, and the title pages of her books use that form.... Septentrionalis 02:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Right, I am posting the proposed addition, anyone please feel free to polish the text or add/correct anything: Members of the non-British nobility, such as as Ritter, Edler, Chevalier, Sieur, Vidame, etc. have their titles in the original language. Examples: Carl Ritter von Ghega, Richard Edler von Mises, Pierre Le Pesant, sieur de Boisguilbert, etc. Gryffindor  22:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * But the language you want to use does not specify that this would apply only to titles/styles with no customary English translation. "Graf" should be translated since there is a word which is only used in English (as a title) to translate it and its continental variations: "count", which is never substituted for "earl" in English. And I don't understand what "the non-British nobility" clarifies? Lethiere 04:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The clause in the guideline page cannot be so open, to allow all titles to remain in native language. And, sieur is lord, and it can and should be translated, so it is not a valid example. My polishing gives something like: Members of the non-British nobility whose titles are excessively misleading or impossible to translate into English, such as as Ritter, Edler, Chevalier, Vidame; will have their titles in the original language. Examples: Carl Ritter von Ghega, Richard Edler von Mises; but Hermann, Prince of Wied, Pierre Le Pesant de Boisguilbert, Baron Heinrich vom und zum Stein, Frederick III, Burgrave of Nuremberg, Athenais de Mortemart de Rochechouart, Marchioness of Montespan - this however reminds me that possibly they do not need the title at all in most cases. Shilkanni 22:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

These two examples are better at Carl von Gheca and Richard von Mises - so they are not valid examples. No need to put their titles in at all. The guideline is possibly needed, but not for these two. Do you have any better examples? Shilkanni 22:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course titles are added, what kind of a question is this? Gryffindor  23:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You then have no better examples? It's a sign of failure if a question is responded by "what kind of a question is this". I feel that there is now some excess enthusiasm to use titles. Regarding these two examples, for titles really to be used in naming, we would need overwhelming evidence that their titles are used of them in those professional contexts they are notable for. It seems to me that titles are not generally used. When speaking of a scientist. Or of a technical constructor. They appear to be known simply as Richard von Mises and Carl von Gheca. Mises' brother is known simply without title, too. I oppose any attempts to mutate these persons from what they are usually known to a title-including version here by using this naming convention discussion as sort of decision about their correct names. Those two are not to be mentioned as examples, as they are at least controversial and I presume that actually these would be totally wrong if named with titles. It seems to me that a context where the proposed rule would have its place is if a titled person has been notable as a courtier (a context where nobility is and was a part of prerequisites and thus generally used) or as a hereditary officeholder a few centuries ago. Of non-hereditary officeholders, it is totally clear that Colbert should be Colbert here, not that marquess or count or whatever he ended up to be endowed as sompliment for his work and career. It may be questioned whether Metternich needs a princely title, but I am willing to let him have it in article name - he was known under it when notable "prime minister", after all, contrary to Colbert. Shilkanni 10:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Hanoverian claimants Ernest Aug.
There is an obvious need to find a NPOV way to disambiguate the Hanoverian claimants with name Ernst August. It seems to me that all attempts to designate one of the various styles to each of them is doomed to fail. More or less, each of them was/is "prince of Hanover" and "duke of Brunswick" and therefore, if one is called by such designation, that name actually should always be a redirect to dab of all of them (= designating any of the names to only one of them is arbitrary). Now, we have a sort of ban to use a monarchical ordinal to any of them who were just pretenders. And however, currently (as of 16th May), thanks chiefly to moving efforts of editor"Cooldoug", all of them enjoy an ordinal.

I am asking whether it really is such a sin to allow them to have ordinals. After all, US bourgeoisie uses quite much those I, II, III... (instead of Sr and Jr) in legal names of commoners. And, one of the sources of ordinals in works of reference has actually been a retrospective assignation by genealogists to persons of antiquity (e.g Ptolemies and Seleucids) and of Middle Ages (Williams of Montferrat...) in order to disambiguate those persons though THEY never themselves used those numerals nor were such in use in their own time. Still, scholarly works are currently full of them. Regarding some of feudal families, the numeral in scholarly use actually sometimes is not the ordinal to show one's number in being a lord of a given territory, but rather a numeral showing that person's sequential place in their genealogy, the ruled territory having been variable (such as some William Nth of Montferrat did not actually rule Montferrat but another Italian place, and Welf Nth does not signify Nth Welf to rule Bavaria but Nth Welf of that pre-Guelph family, and also some female members of a family have got numerals though they did not reign nor rule in any way). Besides, in works of reference, there are numerals applied to holders of "peerage" titles, although some of them have never ruled any territory, them having been just holders of the title (and possibly some seat in a House of lords/peers/grandees/magnates). I admit that now, using numerals (which seem identical to regnal numbers) when a pretender is in question, seems as a support to that pretension and not only a genealogy-scholar way to disambiguate. I oppose giving endorsement to pretensions.

However, it seems to me that the only way to reach a s ustainable disambiguation with those Ernst A:s will simply be some use of numerals. And they have themselves used numerals, so it is not against the requirement not to use anything totally artificial. How about using numerals to those pretenders, but in a form which is not directly resembling a monarchical ordinal, such as Ernst August 4, Ernst August 5, Ernst August 6 and Ernst August 7, or Ernst August 4th, Ernst August 5th, Ernst August 6th and Ernst August 7th?? (you got the idea of the principle, details can be sorted later) - Comments, please. Shilkanni 09:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * If there is need to disambiguate people further than what there names and functions allow, years of birth and death should be used for disambiguation. ie. Ernst August (1600-1700). Zocky | picture popups 11:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Dates are a possibility; but so are ordinal numbers. When ordinal numbers are assigned by an author of a work to distinguish people (instead of being ordinal numbers actually used by the people themselves), they are often indicated by being enclosed in parentheses: e.g. Ernst Augustus (II) vs Ernst Augustus II. This would at least keep the article names short, making for easier linking. Of course, this would require agreement on which ordinals to use, and Wikipedians can't agree on anything. So perhaps dates would be the path of least resistance. - Nunh-huh 13:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Dates are messy. (Do you use birth-death dates, dates when they were claimants, what happens when someone is looking for someone they know by ordinal, but by years, etc? I think an ordinal in parentheses is much more workable. FearÉIREANN \(caint)|undefined 13:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Personally, I do not appreciate (years) in article titles. But I do not appreciate parentheses in article titles, either. Both are messy. Shilkanni 13:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Nunh-huh, use Roman numerial ordinals. I don't understand why this topic seems to be so difficult.... Gryffindor  14:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * To me, there is nothing wrong with the ordinal in this case because Ernest Augustus' titles are not in the form of a monarch's. Hanover is not a principality, but he isn't named as a king either. So the use of the ordinal is fine. The issue now may possibly be whether to use Ernest Augustus or Ernst August. I'm a fan of the former, but common usage may sway in the other direction. But I have to ask, what of Ernest Augustus II? Are we depriving him of his crown princely title here? Can he not be Ernest Augustus II, Crown Prince of Hanover or must we use the Cumberland title? May both be use? That is, Crown Prince Ernest Augustus, Duke of Cumbberland? Or is that Cumber-some? (hehe) Charles 15:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Parentheses around Roman numerals seems optimal to me. In terms of the Duke of Cumberland, he deprived himself of his "Crown Prince" title when he succeeded his father in 1878.  Until that time he was known as "The Crown Prince of Hanover," but after his father's death he became known as "The Duke of Cumberland."  Ernst August III, by the way, should probably be "Ernst August, Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg."  Or what not. john k 16:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Wasn't Ernest August (III) simply created Duke of Brunswick though? It gets rid of some length to the title. It seems before he was given that title, he was as much a Duke of Brunswick as he was of Lunenburg, as all members of the house were. I think simply Brunswick would be sufficient. Charles 17:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC) Forgot to sign my comment

It seems there is some opposition against giving ordinals to those claimants, and some support for giving them ordinals. There is some opposition against parenthetic titles, but also support for it. Nunh-huh has suggested that ordinals that are different than those which the pretenders themselves used would be acceptable. Shilkanni 17:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Ernest Augustus 3rd Cumberland's case should be discussed at his article page - the overall solution is not dependent upon it (were he either E.A, 3rd d of C, or Ernest Augustus, Crown Prince of Hanover, we see that both names are unique). Whereas Ernest Augustus the reigning duke of Brunswick's ordinal is quite necessary (and acceptable, if we know what it factually was) since if he is without ordinal, the name is the same who belongs to the whole bunch - they all are "E.A.,duke of Brunswick" (or "B-L"). Shilkanni Shilkanni 17:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * If I were to decide what numerals to use of those pretenders, I would make it on genealogical grounds and name them as follows: the guy who lived 1914-87 would be Ernst August VI,

the guy born in 1954 would be Ernst August VII and the guy born in 1983 would be Ernst August VIII. Those are genealogical numerals which are (as I understand) maximized to highest possible. And they have the advantage of being such which were not used by the actual pretenders, but higher. I cannot accept endorsing pretension, therefore the numbers should not be the same. Shilkanni 17:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * If I were to decide what dates to use of those pretenders, seeing that two of themn are alive and only one deceased, I would use birth year only: the guy who lived 1914-87 would be Ernst August (1914), the next Ernst August (1954) and the youngest Ernst August (1983). Shilkanni 23:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I would add the death date for the first of these; its what we do for ambiguous nobles who died long before Wikipedia. Septentrionalis 03:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

There are several problems here.

There are several titles involved. There is no consensus that they, or anyone, are Dukes of Brunswick or Brunswick-Lüneburg (since 1918). There is consensus against their being Dukes of Cumberland (since 1919). WP should not impose such titles if they are not consensus. This leaves Prince of Hanover.

Roman numerals are useful for
 * Reigning families, even such bizarre cases as the two houses of Reuss
 * Clearly non-reigning families, like the Bernouillis (or, for that matter, the Berkeleys).
 * They are undesirable for families whose royalty is disputed. (We do not, for example, have an article called Henry V of France; that's a redirect, unless somebody's been meddling with it.) I think inventing our own Roman numerals is excessive subtlety; most readers will see them as an endorsement of the pretence, and miss the point that we are using nonstandard values.

What we do do for other pretending houses is to list them under their generally accepted courtesy titles (Duke of Anjou, Count of Paris, or whatever). Fortunately, this has not (yet) produced ambiguity in the French cases: the names are long, and the titles of pretence are getting flashier as the hope of restoration dims.

I would be bold, not bother to disambiguate, and have the following articles:
 * Ernest Augustus I of Hanover
 * George V of Hanover
 * Ernest Augustus, 3rd Duke of Cumberland
 * Ernest Augustus, Duke of Brunswick (this is the usage of the 1911 Britannica )
 * A section of House of Hanover, devoted to the father of the above and his now-deceased son; these should not have more than a few sentences of notability.
 * Ernest Augustus, Prince of Hanover. Septentrionalis 21:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * And if it is not clear: I would not use either Georg or Ernst August for any of these; that's for the German Wikipedia, which uses Ernst and Georg for all of them, and for George III too.
 * I really dont see whats worng with leaving the titles at Ernst August V, Prince of Hanover, since this is his legal name translated into english. (Ernst August Prinz von Hanover V) would be his German name. And I also dont see how this is a POV issue since there never was any legal title called Prince of Hanover, I can however see how it was a POV issue if we were to constantly use styles. But as I see it calling him Ernst August V, Prince of Hanover is the most correct way to title an article. Since the title of Prince of Hanover never really existed in the legal or political sense, then how is he claiming to be something. I mean his legal name is Ernst August Prinz von Hanover. Mac Domhnaill 21:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia articles are not decided by legal or official name; and this is a perfect example why. "By what law, Bezonian?" English? German? Austrian?
 * If Prince of Hanover is not a title, asserting that he is the fifth Ernest Augustus to be Prince of Hanover is nonsense. The use of that numeral is a pretence to the Duchy of brunswick. Septentrionalis 22:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, I doubt that even their legal names contain that "V" or "IV". Besides, if we follow the legal name, then they are NOT translated, they are Ernst August Prinz von Hannover - Shilkanni 22:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh people, I just realized that Ernest August born in 1914 actually was officially something like Hereditary Duke of Brunswick until 1918, i.e the equivalent of crown prince of that duchy. That was not his main title of pretension, in use, but at least in our current rules, he truly was that and that title can be assigned to him personally also after loss of that monarchy, as they do not lose titles because of revolution. What do you think: a title which he did not use particularly much, would it be the article title here in this situation? Shilkanni 11:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Prince of Hanover is a title which has been somehow in real existence, as their ancestors were Prince-Elector of Hanover, i.e "Reigning Prince of Hanover", in same sense as their neighbor was Prince of Wolfenbuttel. Shilkanni 22:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The English for that is Elector of Hanover; long since merged with the Kingdom of Hanover, now extinct. Septentrionalis 02:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * And however, these claimants derive their that "prince of Hanover" partially just from that title. These situations are such where deposed heirs regard all merged titles to belong to them and having ability to use them, in form which is convenient for them. You know: when title "reigning Duke of Bavaria" merged in Elector of Bavaria and then both merged in King of Bavaria, we see that after 1918 loss of monarchy, the heads of that dynasty have regarded themselves entitled to use Duke of Bavaria (as their chief title of pretension). The pattern seems to me to be simply that using King or Elector would get them laughed at, but Duke being "credible". Shilkanni 11:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, there was a Weimar Republic law that stated that only those titles that were shared by all members of a family could become surnames. The King of Bavaria was the only one in his family with this title; his sons and brothers would use duke. Hence "Herzog von Bayern" became their legal surname after the abolishment of titles. Chl 20:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

There is an alternate, simple solution. We have two articles for people named Ernest Augustus, Prince of Hanover who have short articles, and are in part notable as father and son. Consider Easley Blackwood, which deals with the same situation by conbining the two articles. Why not the same here? Septentrionalis 03:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, three. There is the grandson, born in 1983, too. However his article is IMO an example of zero-articles, as it does not comtain anything else than non-notable trivia about him personally and then some slight amount of notable information that can very naturally be put into his parent's article. This has been a problem: all sorts of non-notable royals get an own article, usually on basis of them being XXXth on the line to the British throne, and that is often the only individual fact mentioned in the stub. And some people here prevent deletion of such stubs! Shilkanni 10:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe that would be the cleanest solution. Charles 03:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

It would be clean, provided it were stable. But it probably will not. I predict: if we combine two articles, sooner or later someone will create them anew. Separate them. Resulting in several separate stubs for the same biography. Pessimistic but realistic. If we arrive in that sort of solution, it is not any general rule, and should be talked in these two guys' talkpages (too). A general rule from THIS discussion could be the unconditional ban on ordinals of persons who are pretenders (actually, that rule already exists here). The name of that combined article is not easy, either, as "E.A., Prince of Hanover" is a name that may refer to other biographied persons too. Shilkanni 11:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I would at this stage again remind that this discussion is for seeking opinions and possible consensus about naming the CLAIMANTS with names E.A. - King George V remains what is correct for him, as well as King E.A. I. And duke E.A. III, having been reigning monarch of another state, is presumably named on that basis, though he also claimed Hanover. We can even say that E.A.II, i.e the one currently under Cumberland, is a separate case as he can be Crown Prince of Hanover and there is no ambiguation in that. Effectively this leaves us with decision about policy to the THREE most recent Ernests Augusts. Shilkanni 11:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Currently we have the following situation:
 * Ernest Augustus I of Hanover (1771 - 1851) has the first ordinal. He is clarified as a King of Hanover and there is a succession table below pointing to predecessors and successors.
 * Ernest Augustus II of Hanover, 3rd Duke of Cumberland (1845 - 1923) has the second ordinal and the clarification he was Head of House.
 * Ernest Augustus III, Duke of Brunswick (1887 - 1953) has the weird case of the title merging his ordinal as Head of House with the title of Duke of Brunswick. I would consider Ernest Augustus III of Hanover, Duke of Brunswick to be a more natural name. He is again noted as Head of the House of Hanover in the succession table.
 * If he is not Ernest Augustus III as Duke of Brunswick-[Wolfenbuettel], we should not use the number. Septentrionalis 18:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Ernest Augustus IV, Prince of Hanover (1914 - 1987) also seems reasonable since it as it points out the German version of his name and the succession clarifies that he was Head of House instead of King, Prince etc.
 * I find it extremely implausible that he would have been created Prince of Hanover before 1918. The number is unnecessary and misleading. Septentrionalis 18:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You're thinking British here. There was no such thing as creation of princes (Prinzen) in Germany. It was most likely a title he inherited by birth. Chl 20:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Ernst August V, Prince of Hanover (1954 - ) has the curiosity of turning from English to German name. Otherwise the only issue is that we do not clarify that Prince of Hanover is part of his legal name. The pretendor box and succession table both clarify his position.
 * Arguments about legal names remain contrary to policy; the validity of the law is PoV. What is he called? Septentrionalis 18:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Then we have Ernst August (VI) of Hanover who has not yet succeeded as Head of House. Again the German name and this time no clarification that this means the House of Hanover and not Hanover, the capital of Lower Saxony.
 * Has he any claim to notability other than as the son of his father? This is what redirects are for. Septentrionalis 18:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest either renaming the first four from "Ernest Augustus" to "Ernst August" or the last two to "Ernest Augustus". The ordinals seem fine as they are with only III needing the clarification of Hanover as his family name. We don't accept any pretense by noting who has Head of House and their order as such. There is no confusion when somebody actually opens the article.

"This has been a problem: all sorts of non-notable royals get an own article, usually on basis of them being XXXth on the line to the British throne, and that is often the only individual fact mentioned in the stub. And some people here prevent deletion of such stubs! "

I would be one of them. All the articles you mention are linked from the Line of succession to the British Throne and are part of a series. They do not stand alone and we might have a chance to expand them sooner or later. However I am curious how come there are examples of minor members of a House getting articles even when the Head of House or their direct ancestor do not? How for example did we manage to have an article on Victoria Luise of Prussia when we do not have articles on her father, three brothers, two nephews and four nieces who are all ahead of her in that line? User:Dimadick
 * I have entered some objections to the numbering above. Septentrionalis 18:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

About ordinals: For practical reasons, I don't like ordinals that aren't in common use. To assign the correct ordinal to a person, one has to know how many ancestors with the same name there were, and this is often hard to establish, or may even be a question of historical research (in the case of Ernst August: do we start counting in the 19th century, or do we include Ernest Augustus, Elector of Brunswick-Lüneburg?). After all, there is no guarantee that all ancestors with the same name lived shortly before the person in question. Hence, parenthetical years are better; one can establish them without much difficulty.

About translating names: For consistency, only the names of rulers or historic nobles should be translated unless a translated version is in common use. Only in very rare cases people still do it with non-rulers. I don't see the need for an exception for pretenders here.

About the Ernest Augusti:
 * As per Shilkanni, the first three are out of the scope of this discussion.
 * Ernest Augustus IV, Prince of Hanover (1914 - 1987): Should have no ordinal, since no ruler. Wasn't even especially notable, so disambiguating by years works fine. Should probably be considered a historical noble since he was born before the abolishment of monarchy (assuming 1918 would be the proper cut-off for nobility-caused name translations in Germany), so I'd support Ernest Augustus, Prince of Hanover, with parenthetical years if needed.
 * Ernest August V, Prince of Hanover (1954 - ): No ruler and not historical, so no ordinal and no translation of given name. A difficult question is whether the surname should be translated. So he might be Ernst August, Prince of Hanover or Ernst August Prinz von Hannover. No parentheses should be needed since he is the most famous of the three.
 * Ernest August VI (1983- ): Not very notable, if he needs an article, then it should have the same title as his father with added parenthetical years. Chl 20:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * My version (with kudos to Shilkanni for wading through all the detritus, both that of history and WP!)
 * Ernst August I, King of Hanover 1771-1851
 * Ernst August, Crown Prince of Hanover (highest title ever held) 1845-1923
 * Ernst August, 3rd Duke of Cumberland (title of pretence he used)
 * Ernst August, Duke of Brunswick (as reigning monarch) 1887-1953
 * Ernst August, Hereditary Prince of Brunswick (highest title ever held: "Erbherzog" not used ) 1914-1987
 * Ernst August, Prince of Hanover born 1954
 * Prince Ernst August of Hanover born 1983
 * Lethiere 05:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

It must be remembered tthat those who wish an ordinal to be used, have the burden of showing it being overwhelmingly used in real life, and the burden of gathering a clear consensus, as using an ordinal of these three latest guys IS against the guideline. The naming convention forbids ordinals from pretenders. An exception requires consensus. I conclude that there is a numbe of discussants who have opposed ordinals for these three latest guys, and therefore there is no consensus to allow that exception. The rule (no ordinal to pretender) stands. It will be respected and anyone is allowed to move these articles from locations which incluse an ordinal.

Holy Roman Emperors, Kings of Germany, King of the Romans
Question: I'm probably opening up a can of worms, however why are some kings named "name of Germany" when Germany did not exist back then? I know that this discussion has been raging on back and forth. The format Charles VI, Holy Roman Emperor is fine. However we have "Albert II of Habsburg" who is under Albert II of Germany, but it's Philip of Swabia, and Adolf of Nassau-Weilburg. So why is Philip of Swabia not "Philip of Germany"? I think that Philip is in the right category, however then it should be "Albert II of Habsburg", etc. IMO. Then we have this case here Wenceslaus, King of the Romans. My proposal is to get rid of the "of Germany" part, since I know that creates alot of controversy and confusion (didn't exist, etc etc.) and have a format similar to the Holy Roman Emperors. Either keep them with the dynastic name, such as "Philip of Swabia", or have the format "name, German King", "name, King of the Germans", "name, King of the Romans" or "name, Roman-German King" (Römisch-deutscher König). Gryffindor 18:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Roman-German King isn't a particularly good title, in my opinion. It seems needlessly complex. Would "Name", Roman King be a better title? If not, I think we ought to stick to "Name", King of the Romans. The format "Name", German King looks good to me though. Charles 19:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Germany most certainly did exist (it was one of three component kingdoms of the Holy Roman Empire, the other two being Italy and Burgundy), but I agree that it's probably best not to include it in article titles (this would also allow us to move Kaiser Wilhelm's dad to Friedrich III of Germany or Frederick III of Germany). That said, I think we should use the dynastic name if that is the most commonly used, otherwise "Name, King of the Romans." john k 22:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. Use the dynastic name, in other cases "Name, King of the Romans". So "Philip of Swabia" remains where he is, and it would be "Albert II of Habsburg". The only problem I see arising from that is that users could confuse him to be the ruler of Habsburg, Switzerland (the place) and he was the second Albert of it. Maybe add something behind the name then? "Rudolph I of Habsburg, King of the Romans"? I am trying to go with the most common name, because it really is overwhelmingly "Rudolph of Habsburg" in literature and books. So that dynastic part has to be included, otherwise no one would recognise who this is. Gryffindor  09:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I oppose using those "dynastic names". They are kings of a country, and are to be named equally. There is no sense in putting one to king Philip of Swabia and another to Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor - and also because an article text very easily goes to express "king Sigismund of Luxemburg" as has happened all too often with consorts, I remember seeing articlev texts resembling "queen Anna of Braganza", "Empress Maria of Savoy" and "queen Frederica of Anhalt" just because it is all too easy to put the title before the name which does not include the name of the kingdom and not to pipe it. Those roman kings who did not have emperor-confirmation, could be format Adolf, German King or rather Adolf, Roman King, which also is good becaise it resembles those emperors who are format Louis IV, Holy Roman Emperor. I actually oppose that "of Germany" because it is anachronistic - they were rather "Gunther of East Franks" and "Henry of East Franks", but presumably we do not want to start use the nice name of Kingdom of East Franks or Kingdom of Ostrofrancia and all perquisites then created here. And, besides, I do not like formulation Wilhelm II of Germany as it rather should be "Wilhelm/"William, German Emperor"
 * Please don't forget to sign your comments. You seem to be confusing two things here, we are not talking about Holy Roman Emperors, but the category below that, rex romanorum which means King of the Romans. Philip of Swabia is universally known under that name, not as "Philip, King of the Romans", unless we want to get dangerously close to original research. That's the issue we are trying to solve here. Gryffindor  22:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think am not confusing anything. Whereas a person who does not want to see a larger picture, is in a wrong track. When formulating a policy for a subset of monarchs, we should definitely relate that policy to the policy that produces names for the nearest subset. HRE is actually the nearest subset. We do not want to end up with policy where these are treated in a totally different way than the nearest subset is. Such would cause all too much confusion. Hope you did not get too confused. Shilkanni 16:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The French Wikipedia has a great overview of the titles the various kings used:. Basically, until Otto III they called themselves Kings of the East Franks, and starting with Henry II they called themselves Kings of the Romans instead. So, what to name our articles for the ones that were kings but not emperors? I agree that this is an issue that needs to be decided; it it is confusing that there is no consistent naming scheme. This leaves the issue of how to fit "King of the Romans" (or "King of the East Franks", for the early ones) into our naming scheme. The problem is that our naming scheme assumes that kings are titled after their country, but "of the Romans" is not immediately a country name. We have a similar situation with the Kings of the Scots, which we have listed under "of Scotland" (see King of Scotland, e.g. James V of Scotland). In analogy, this would give us "of the Holy Roman Empire", e.g. Philip of the Holy Roman Empire. For the earlier ones, it would be "of East Francia" (a separate question is whether East Francia should redirect to Holy Roman Empire). This solution has the advantages that it matches conventions used for other countries, that it is close to the correct historic original, and that it makes clear which country these guys are rulers of (unlike ", King of the Romans", which is more precise, but will make most people believe they are dealing with ancient Rome). Chl 01:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * With dynastic name (e.g. "of Habsburg"): contradicts the conventions used for other monarchs, and so not good.
 * With "of Germany", which according to our conventions means "King of Germany": not good, because this was usually not their primary title. The title of King of Germany was less important than their title of King of the Romans, because Germany was smaller than the (Holy) Roman Empire. We have the naming convention that when an individual has several titles, the highest is used, and so King of the Romans should prevail.


 * I prefer "Roman King", i.e Albert II, Roman King. Shilkanni 10:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree with you Chl, because it will remain Philip of Swabia and Adolf of Nassau-Weilburg, so those versions are definetly legitimate. Moving it to "Adolf, King of the Romans" is original research. Therefore we have to use in this case dynastic names, or a combination of both, something that I stated earlier above. Gryffindor  10:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Whereas I believe Weilburg to be actually incorrect and anachronistic when Adolf the king is in question. Shilkanni 14:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Adolf, King of Romans and Philip, King of Romans are hardly something like original resarch, since a multitude of material, including documents from their own eras, call them such. I have seen transcripts of old documents where these kings call themselves "rex Romanorum" - and there are sources that call them Roman kings, as they are calling crowned ones as Holy roman emperors. I suspect that several accusations of "original research" tend to go too far and may nowadays be used perhaps for non-acceptable purposes. Shilkanni 14:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, for example, see -- one can clearly see the words ROMANORVM REX (Latin for "King of the Romans") on Rudolf's tomb. Chl 17:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

"X, King of the Romans," which analogizes to "X, Holy Roman Emperor," seems like the best option. "Roman King" is rarely used in English - "King of the Romans" is by far the more common usage. I am also not certain why Gryffindor believes "Philip, King of the Romans," to be original research. In cases where someone does not have an ordinal and is well known by their dynastic name, though, I'd prefer to include it. Perhaps Philip of Swabia, King of the Romans, Adolf of Nassau, King of the Romans... john k 19:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The dynastic names really should be mentioned in the article. Ok, quick Google search: "Adolf, King of Romans" 0 hits. "Adolf of Nassau, King of the Romans", 0 hits. "Adolf of Nassau-Weilburg" has 275 hits and "Adolf of Nassau" has 20,900 hits. Indeed, using "Adolf, King of the Romans" does smack of original research. Another case, 368 hits for "Rudolf I of Habsburg", 447 hits for "Rudolph I of Germany", but 19,000 hits for "Rudolf of Habsburg", I mean what is going on here? How did Wikipedia get it so wrong? Gryffindor  13:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * If you look at it like this, the problem is much deeper. "Victoria of the United Kingdom" (our name): 30,000 hits. "Victoria of England": 40,000 hits. "Queen Victoria": 8,000,000 hits. There is a tension here between using common names and having a systematic naming scheme. Chl 18:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * As a professional librarian, I'm a great advocate of following usage to determine the authoritative name for a person. This is what the Library of Congress has done for decades in determining what subject heading should be used for a person.  But Google hits are different from scholarly usage.  If we followed Google then we would have to rename articles on human bodyparts to various colloquial terms.  Rather, we should look at how somebody is named in, for example, other encyclopedias and in published monographic biographies of that individual.
 * Current usage in scholarly literature is far more important than coming up with some artificial usage which tries to create consistency where there isn't any. Noel S McFerran 20:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I am interested in your proposal then Noel S McFerran, what does the LoC say, under what names are these kings filed under?

Brunswick
Aside from the Ernest Augustuses, there seems to be irregularity in the titling of the dukes of Brunswick, Wolfenbüttel line. I have always seen them titled as Dukes of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, not simply as Dukes of Brunswick-Lunenburg. All members of the house of Welf were dukes and duchesses of Brunswick and Lunenburg, mostly always shorted to Brunswick-Lunbenburg in English. Additional dignities and territories within the family usually took the a form with the territory hyphenated at the end, (i.e. Brunswick-Lunenburg-Wolfenbüttel, shortened to Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel). The form Brunswick-Lunenburg in the article titles for ruling members of the Wolfenbüttel line seems to be misleading and against conventional usage. Can they be renamed to Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel? Charles 22:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * These are two different titles, relating (after the High Renaissance) to different territories. (I would deprecate use of Lunenburg instead of Lüneburg unless current usage can be shown; it is as least as obsolete as Leghorn.) Septentrionalis 17:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the Lunenburg... It's a habit I won't drop outside of Wikipedia as I consider it the best formal English usage, but I digress. As I have noted before regarding Brandenburg, it was a frequent practice to combine divisions of a territory with a main title shared by all members of the family (I brought this up with Brandenburg-Bayreuth, which peculiarly affixes a territory in Nuremburg to Brandenburg, which wasn't particularly close. Charles 19:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a somewhat complicated situation. The dukes of all subdivisions of Brunswick-Lüneburg always used the title of Herzog zu Braunschweig und Lüneburg (Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg). But since at most periods, the duchy consisted of several, almost completely independent parts (such as Wolfenbüttel, Calenberg/Hanover, and Lüneburg/Celle), people often use different territorial names to make clear which subdivision a certain duke was ruler of, e.g. "duke of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel", or "duke of Brunswick-Celle". There are three problems with these subdivisional designations though: Additionally, it frequently happened that the same duke ruled over several subdivisions at once, so that naming would become more complicated if he was to be designated by subdivision. Chl 18:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) They were never official.
 * 2) There is no standardized form for them. While Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel is pretty common, the rulers of Calenberg, for example, are called "Brunswick-Calenberg" or "Hanover" or "Brunswick-Calenberg-Grubenhagen"  in various texts.
 * 3) They are easily confused with genealogical designations such as "Brunswick-Bevern". There never was a territory or subdivision of Brunswick-Bevern, instead this was simply a junior line of the dukes that originally did not rule (see Ferdinand Albert I, Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg).

At the very least, Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel should be designated by subdivision. Other commonly used ones should probably also be used, like Brunswick-Calenberg, or Brunswick-Celle, and so forth. Obviously, it can get confusing, but better to use the subdivisions than to leave it all as just "Brunswick-Lüneburg". john k 18:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. I was going to post something similar, but there was an editing conflict :-) In all actuality, it isn't too hard once the basic, common designations are put down, as John noted (Celle, Calenberg, Wolfenbüttel). It is a lot better than leaving all at Lūneburg/Lunenburg, which I suppose is similar to putting all rulers of Saxon duchies, the Saxon grand duchy and royal Saxony at "of Saxony". Charles 19:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Those who are requiring that official, legal names and nothing else are to be used, remember that these "b-Wolfenbuttel" etc were NOT legal nor official names of principalities. They were and are just practical expressions of such. Used in historiography, and in informal contemporary material, but not legally. However, I support the use of simple and practical usages, also regarding those. If we were not in need of disambiguating things (there were a bunch of those with identical or almost identical first names), I would support using just "Brunswick". However, many dozens of these dukes are notable in terms of them now or in near future having articles here. Therefore I concur in using "Brunswick-Wolfenbuttel". I am not so sure about "Luneburg-Celle", but it probably should be used. Hanover is self-evident to be used. Whereas I say that those genealogical (re)constructions, such as Brunswick-Bevern, shall not be used. After all, no one actually was Duke of that - it was nothing that was governed/ruled. Our usual habit has been to put Duke Ferdinand of Brunswick to those who did not reign but were just titled, or just enjoyed a shared right together, e.g with a big brother, the nominal co-rule, whereas Ferdinand, Duke of Brunswick denotes a real ruler. Although those differences should not be used as disambiguators, that cutom is good to continue when naming a biography as knowledgeable readers deduce from the beginning already whether the guy was ruler or cadet. However, the post-Napoleonic dukes of B should be just B, nothing added. And, actually the HRE recognized Wolfenbuttel and Calenberg and a few others as "principalities" - see relevant published lists of vote-entitled principalities of imp.diet. Those, in my judgement, are substantive principlalities and could ven be used alone in biography names, which would make it easier. A telling example would be that, weas it George William, Duke of Luneburg-Celle and others could be George, Duke of Calenberg, Ferdinand, Duke of Wolfenbuttel, Henry, Duke of Grubenhagen. This would be acceptable if those entities were recognized as own votes in the diet. A different point, a rebuttal to a sideline allegation at the atart of this thread: It is just a very recent concoction that ALL they were (dukes and) duchesses. Duchess was not used of daughters until somewhere from 17th or 18th century. Earlier they just were, in usage and in titularies, "femalename + of + Bsomething". I oppose putting anachronisms here. The whole fabrication that medieval German hihg-noblesse women were born as countesses, duchesses etc is an extrapolation of -here- intressents of current and recent royals, eager on titles, who think that the recent noble titulary practices have always been in use. Go check material from 16th century and earlier: these girls were just "filia regii" and got usually their first titles when married ones. Shilkanni 18:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) About Duke Ferdinand of Brunswick: It should be either "of Brunswick-Lüneburg" (if we use the official title), or "of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel" (if we use the informal name of the territory). There is no point in complicating things further by having a third possible designation, an abbreviated "of Brunswick".


 * 2) "Duke of Lüneburg-Celle" or "Duke of Wolfenbüttel" etc.: these titles would be new inventions by Wikipedia -- probably not a good idea. Chl 22:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, a number of the Brunswicks have been moved around lately. Same for the Oldenburgs (Schleswig-Holstein). It seems that in practice all of these divisions and additional territories were hyphenated to Brunswick, whether official or not. Charles 22:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * One quick note: keep in mind that the official title, Brunswick-Lüneburg, is hyphenated too... This is what causes part of the confusion. For example, Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel was a subdivision of Brunswick-Lüneburg. But there was also a Lüneburg subdivision (which later came to be known as Brunswick-Celle, when the capital was moved from Lüneburg to Celle). So there is really no good hyphenated/abbreviated name for the Lüneburg subdivision, because Brunswick-Lüneburg is already the name for the whole, undivided state. Also, I do not think that in practice the hyphenated/abbreviated names were always used (Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel etc.). I have never seen them used before the 16th century or so, and Brunswick-Lüneburg and its subdivisions were around long before then. Many German history books use Brunswick-Lüneburg instead of the subdivisional names. Chl 17:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * What's wrong with "X, Duke of Brunswick-Bevern" as a title of an article? Why does it matter that Brunswick-Bevern was never an estate of the Empire with Landeshoheit?  We have Thomas Howard, 3rd Duke of Norfolk, and the Dukedom of Norfolk was never a sovereign or semi-sovereign entity.  That German noble titles without properties of sovereignty can be hard to distinguish from German noble titles with properties of sovereignty is neither here nor there? john k 22:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It's a problem because this adds yet another possible name for the articles -- yet another level of confusion. If we allow genealogical designations too, we have (counting all namings proposed in this thread), four possible names for, e.g., Ferdinand Albert II:
 * Ferdinand Albert II, Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg if we use his official title
 * Ferdinand Albert II, Duke of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel if we use the subdivision he ruled
 * Ferdiand Albert II, Duke of Brunswick if we use an abbreviated form
 * Ferdinand Albert II, Duke of Brunswick-Bevern if we use his genealogical designation
 * Who's supposed to be able to figure out which one is the best in each case? It seems to me the point of having a naming convention is to be able to assign a name to an article in a straightforward, unique way. BTW, usage won't really help us with the decision here, because all of these are actually used. The comparison with the Duke of Norfolk does not hold, because Duke of Norfolk was his official title, even if he never ruled over anything, while Bevern was invented by genealogists. Chl 17:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Er, no. We should use the subdivision he ruled. He was Ferdinand Albert, Duke of Brunswick-Bevern before inheriting Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, perhaps, but he inherited the higher title, and should be known by that.  We only use the genealogical designation if there's no alternative actual title.  Are you seriously suggesting that we call all of them "Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg?  That's deeply confusing. john k 14:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, while he was "Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg," it is not as though the Wolfenbüttel title was made up. As I recall, the full title would have been Herzog von Braunschweig und Lüneburg, Fürst zu Wolfenbüttel, or else just Herzog von Braunschweig und Lüneburg zu Wolfenbüttel.  Either way, abbreviating it as "Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel" seems perfectly appropriate. john k 14:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I must disagree with Charles here. "Duke of Brunswick" simpliciter is what is actually used for Ferdinand, Duke of Brunswick and his nephew, Charles, Duke of Brunswick (So the New Cambridge Modern History. As an example of why hyphenation is so dangerous: when they do hyphenate him, in the indes, it is as Brunswick-Bevern.) Septentrionalis 22:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Consorts
The title of the article Margaret of Connaught is presently under discussion. There are two issues here:


 * 1) How do we fare with consorts whose pre-marital title was a UK courtesy title, like Princess Maud of Wales? She is presently at Maud of Wales, while other ways to go would be either Princess Maud of Wales or Maud of the United Kingdom.
 * 2) What to do with a crown princess consort that never became queen, such as Margaret? Should she be treated as a "royal consort" (and possibly be either Margaret of Connaught or Margaret of the United Kingdom) or as normal royalty (and be Princess Margaret of Connaught)? And if the first line is agreed upon, what to do with her daughter-in-law who was not even a crown princess — accept her too as Sibylla of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha or draw the line there and have Princess Sibylla of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha? Basically, who should be treated as a "royal consort"?

As whatever decision arrived at might affect other articles as well, I thought it would be a good idea to inform here about the discussion. Any input is, of course, appreciated. -- Jao 21:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe that crown princesses should have their title affixed to the front of their maiden name, i.e. Princess Sybilla of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. That is the way it is generally done now on Wikipedia and I see no reason to change it. Directly before Maud's marriage, she was "of Wales". That is how she ought to be titled on Wikipedia. Charles 03:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The question above loads too many issues into one discussion, imo. Also, it is loaded in another sense: there seems to be an incorrect underlying assumption that some consorts need a title and others do not. That is simply not true. I predict that this discussion, mostly because of having too many elements and too many wrongly loaded assumptions from the beginning, will not lead to anything constructive. Well, I try to address those multiple concerns presented above: In history books and in other encyclopedias, all wifes of dynasts tend to follow the naming convention here given for "royal consorts". (Royalist cruft material is another thing - there any royal usually is referred with a layer of titles, styles and honorifics. Things we usually regard as POV.) Wifes of junior members of royal dynasties are not basically any different from viewpoint of historians: Francis I of France's mother has been always referred to as Louise of Savoy, despite of the fact that she did not become a queen (queen consort or reigning) at any point of history. George III's mother, who neither became a queen, is usually referred to as Augusta of Saxe-Gotha. Cicely Neville is referred to as such and not as any kind of "Princess Cicely Neville", although she was mother of Edward IV and Richard III, and wife of a royal duke. Blanche of Lancaster is that and not Princess Blanche of Lancaster. Joan of Kent is referred to as such and not as Princess Joan of Kent or as Joan, Countess of Kent, etc etc. It is simply not in accordance with academic standards to put pre-marital princess titulary in their names - as they in most cases are referred to in context of their marriages or widowhood. Sibylla (not Sybilla, don't know who that is) of Saxe-Coburg was not a crown princess, she was wife of a prince who was heir-apparent of a then crown prince. However, in history books, Sibylla is generally referred to as Sibylla of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, as we can see even in texts abounding around internet. There is no principle difference between how history books and other encyclopedias name Maud of Wales and Margaret of Connaught - some books name them both as "of Great Britain" or something like that. Most usually, they are treted similarly, whatever is the treatment the academic referencer has adopted. I leave further discussion of British courtesy princesses to a separate thread, as it actually is not helpful for this issue, and however this issue does not depend on its decision. This has gone to the level of instruction creepism. My opinion is that it goes simply too far to try imply or signal anything with elaborate choice whether to put princess or not before these names/ the subtlety is lost on most readers, and probably only those who anyway know who they were, understand that subtlety, whereby it actually is unnecessary. So, it is relatively funny how such a big duffy number is made of whether to put a title or not. Such distinction does not belong to an encyclopedia to decide upon - the discussion of which of her titles are to be mentioned and in what way, is dangerously close to decision-making of colleges of heralds and ceremony-masters in monarchical courts. This resembles a lot that sort of wrangling which takes place between persons who elaborate for external signs of their privileges, such as those of nobility who in past fought each other on who gets which seating place in a church and who is entitled to sit in presence of a royal prince/ss, who not. People with any sense would predictably ignore such "rules" here. Shilkanni 10:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I must concur: We should not attempt to invent a system; we should use what she is actually called in English. (In advance of the evidence, Margaret of Connaught is probably reasonable; short article titles are good things.) Septentrionalis 17:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Not if they are inaccurate. Margaret of Connaught implies she was a queen consort. She wasn't. So under NC rules she goes in as Princess Margaret of Connaught. As for so-called instruction creepism that is nonsense. All encyclopaedias and sourcebooks develop their structures for name usage. WP is no different. If it didn't it would be the sort of amateurish mess that it was famously was on royalty until about 2 years ago when an attempt was made to co-ordinate name usage and end the farce of 17 (yes 17. I counted them) different formats being used, with the Prince of Wales in as Charles Windsor, the Queen of the United Kingdom referred to as Queen of England (a title not used officially since 1707), French monarchs in under 3 different formats, consorts in in different formats for each, etc. WP was regarded in that area as a complete joke. (It was mentioned in an academic conference I attended, with the royalty pages mentioned as examples of what happens when people who don't know what they are doing make up things.) What Shilkanni may think of as instruction creep is actually what other people regard as professionalism and co-ordination. FearÉIREANN \(caint)|undefined 18:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia should not invent a system for these crown princesses.. I predict that similar academics will regard this as a joke when they realize that an elaborate titling has been invented here, to include both "princess" and "historical name". Archives reveal that a person above was two years ago among those who also then were such who had to be convinced that academic world already has a usage of "historical name" (and consequently, Wikipedia gets laughed when contrary usages are in use). Afterwards, certain persons here have been repeating the doctrine of "historical name" (as soon as they finally comprehended it) and funnily enough, have tried to claim that their all attempts are in accordance with that system - now here you again see how well those have understood the academic usage. Perhaps it will take just some 17 months and as many versions, before those certain ones will be convinced that the academic usage should be followed. What a sad prospect of much much work - btw, Jtdirl, are you soon going to attend any conference where some knowledgeable academics would be present. Academics know that these women are generally under the historical names, similarly as are queens-consorts, and the specific rule here invented will create hilarity. "Margaret of Connaught" is accurate, contrary to allegations above. Shilkanni 18:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * That implication exists only to those who trust in Wikipedia's naming system, which is broken. Margaret of Connaught no more implies a queen consort than Joan of Kent. I will agree that it is (given the choice) preferable to have people who do know what they are doing make something up; but it would be better still to report English usage. Septentrionalis 18:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Wrong. Early mediaeval naming used a form   in the absence of surnames for a host of people; royalty, nobility, clergy, saints, theologians, etc whether real of mythical (eg, Robin of Sherwood for Robin Hood). Wikipedia uses those forms of names for early mediaeval personages. By Margaret's era that format was no longer used. In historiography it is generally used now to indicate consorts because it carries the standard format for monarchs ( of ) but uses maiden title rather than consort name because of the impractibility of using the latter given that consorts have no ordinal and so if using consort names would be indistinguishable from each other. It is used widely. Contrary to Shilkanni's claims (and his made up link to "instruction creepism") that format is widely used by biographers. Wikipedia based its rules on a thorough analysis of formats used, and after consulting with experts. Wikipedia faces a problem in so far as while most source books have limited numbers of individuals, we have the broadest range of any sourcebook ever published, reflecting multiple cultures, eras and formats. To establish a workable system experts were consulted. For British royal naming, for example, Buckingham Palace was approached for guidance and the naming formats used reflected their observations. Buckingham Palace and St. James's Palace gave the WP format thumbs up for accuracy, co-ordination and functionality. The Wp rules were debated extensively on talk pages and in thorough detail on the mailing list before being introduced and had an overwhelming consensus behind them. Putting someone in Margaret's era in a format used prior to her is factually incorrect and not an option.  FearÉIREANN [[Image:Map of Ireland's capitals.png|15px]]\<sup style="color:blue;">(caint)|undefined 19:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Experts use the term Early medieval of things before 1000 CE (or the endpoint even earlier). Are you implying (putting your credibility on line) that Robin of Sherwood and Joan of Kent lived before 1000 CE ? Shilkanni 19:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Have you run out of steam? Except for that, Jtdirl has many, many very valid things to say. Charles 19:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * A thought here, which is that we've never had a clear rule for how to name royals who marry into another royal family, but do not themselves become queen or empress. This includes both those who never became consorts at all and those who became consorts to rulers with lesser titles, like Grand Duke or Duke or Prince. I think there tends to be a serious imbalance between how we treat British princesses who married continental royals and continental princesses who marry British royals. In the latter instance, there is clearly no uniformity even within that subcategory - the Prussian princess who married Frederick Augustus, Duke of York, is at Frederica Charlotte of Prussia; the Waldeck princess who married Leopold, Duke of Albany, is at Princess Helena, Duchess of Albany; the Prussian princess who married Arthur, Duke of Connaught is at Princess Louise Margaret, Duchess of Connaught; Victoria's mother is at Princess Victoria of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld; the wife of Prince Adolphus, Duke of Cambridge is at Princess Augusta of Hesse-Kassel. Clearly Victoria's daughters-in-law are listed in a completely different manner from George III's. Also note, George III's mother is not at Augusta, Princess of Wales (which oddly redirects to the article on George IV's daughter, who was not, of course, Princess of Wales), but at Princess Augusta of Saxe-Gotha.  This all ought to be made unitary. Either they are referred to by their husband's ducal title, or they are referred to by their maiden name. john k 19:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't have a particular view on crown princesses, but the wikipedia guidelines have never precluded exceptions. The main thing is to argue these out individually and achieve consensus. Deb 19:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem is that there's no reason for the inconsistency - why is Princess Augusta of Hesse-Kassel who became Duchess of Cambridge sufficiently distinct from Princess Helena of Waldeck-Pyrmont who became Duchess of Albany that their articles should be named in different ways? This is clearly something that should be in the naming conventions - do articles on dead foreign princesses who married British princes with peerage titles go at their maiden name, or at their husband's peerage title?  There's no reason to treat this on a case by case basis. john k 19:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, and perhaps my statement above is unclear. I just think that when there appears to be a reason for an exception, we should look at it carefully rather than trying to apply a blanket "rule".  We developed these conventions to give guidance, not to beat people over the head with. Deb 22:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Logically, as there are potentially numerous other spouses of peers with the same title and name, they should all be in at maiden name & title. We do need to become less anglo-centric in naming. FearÉIREANN \<sup style="color:blue;">(caint)|undefined 19:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

It's much more likely that there's multiple people known as "Princess Augusta of Hesse-Kassel" than that there's multiple people known as "Princess Augusta, Duchess of Cambridge." (I'm quite certain that there's only been one "Princess Augusta, Duchess of Cambridge", and only one "Princess Frederica, Duchess of York," for instance). I cannot, specifically, think of any examples of overlapping names of royal peers' wives, but perhaps you can provide some concrete examples. john k 20:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The principle is based not on specific examples in specific cases but on something that happens a lot, hence the creation of a generic format. It gets messy to have one set of rules with a PS: It doesn't apply to the Duchess of Cambridge line below it. If there are multiple Princess Augustas then we can work out a disambigulation format. Maybe we should devise a general format for disambigulating names where there are a number of people with the same maiden title. We could include the marital title in parenthesis, for example. It is rather important as Wikipedia grows that it does try to co-ordinate name usage and not have too many opt-outs. We would look amateurish, for example, if we listed US presidents under different formats, for example Washington, Abe Lincoln, President McKinney, FDR, Ronnie Reagan, George II of the United States, etc. Encyclopaedias need co-ordination through manual of style and naming conventions usage, not "we do this page this way, and that page in another way, and we'll make it up as we go along". Wikipedia already has had to untangle the mess of royal namings twice. We need to avoid having all the work of untangling things a third time by following a clear set of generic rules on naming, disambigulation, etc. FearÉIREANN \<sup style="color:blue;">(caint)|undefined 22:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Jtd - it seems to me that with royal peeresses, there are going to be very, very few repetitions, if any, while with German princesses, there's going to be a fair amount of repetition, even if we don't always have articles on the repeats. It would seem perfectly reasonable to me to put all the articles in their "Princess X, Duchess of X" format, and to have this as a standard. This would a) mesh with naming standards of non-royal peeresses, and b) would be perfectly consistent and unproblematic. And I really don't think there are any repetitions. Starting in the 18th century, when this becomes an issue, we have:


 * 1) Augusta, Princess of Wales
 * 2) Princess Frederica, Duchess of York
 * 3) Princess Victoria, Duchess of Kent
 * 4) Princess Augusta, Duchess of Cambridge
 * 5) Princess Mary, Duchess of Gloucester
 * 6) Princess Louise Margaret, Duchess of Connaught
 * 7) Princess Helena, Duchess of Albany
 * 8) Princess Marina, Duchess of Kent

That's pretty much it. I don't really see any especial problem with using this format for that small number of women. There might be a few Plantagenet cases that are more awkward, but the Plantagenet situation is more complicated, anyway. john k 12:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Your continuing argument that the way you'd prefer not to do it is "amateurish" remains unsupported by anything save assertion. That said, I don't especially care either way. I'd prefer it be made consistent either way to leaving it in the current mishmash form. john k 12:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Male consorts
Am I right in thinking that the lack of a prefix for royal consorts only applies to female ones? I stumbled across Prince George of Denmark and Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha and noticed they have now been moved, dropping the Prince. George and Albert were always referred to as Prince G/A when I was at school and Mary of Teck and Alexandra of Denmark as such, amongst others. Have the page moves been a bit overzealous, or was I mistaught? Craigy (talk) 17:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm, in Canada, I always hear Albert referred to as Prince Albert or The Prince Consort. No one I've heard uses Saxe-Coburg and Gotha because they don't know how to say it. However, under the current rules, consorts are to be named a certain way and Albert and George are no less consorts than Mary of Modena, Alexandra of Denmark, et cetera. Charles 18:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Btw, I changed this to have a heading. I hope you don't mind. Charles 18:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The consort rules were not originally made thinking about male consorts. The reason we don't use "Princess" with Alexandra and Mary is because they attained a higher title - "Queen."  This is not true of Prince George or Prince Albert, who remained princes throughout their lives.  Trying to apply this policy to male consorts is misguided.  (It should be used, perhaps, with king consorts like Francisco d'Assis of Spain or Ferdinand of Saxe-Coburg in Portugal, but certainly not with consorts who are not given the title of "king") john k 14:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * There is nothing in the conventions that makes a distinction between male and female consorts, or between kings-consort and "mere" princes who were consorts. I believe that the naming convention is appropriately applied to male consort. To draft exceptions, additional rules, etc, is needless when the convention fits. Charles 20:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Deceased Royal Consorts
The current convention reads as follows: - Deceased 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. - Despite what many people seem to think (indeed, I only realised this myself today), there is nothing in that convention which advises against using the word "Princess" in the title, e.g. Frederika of Hanover instead of Princess Frederika of Hanover. Indeed the convention specifically refers to pre-marital title. The only reason, it seems, that a practice has developed of calling an unmarried princess, "Princess X of Y", and her sister married to a sovereign "X of Y", is that the example given is Catherine of Aragon. It makes no sense to me to have a convention distinguishing between an unmarried princess and her married sister - particularly one which forms the titles of consorts so that they appear to be sovereigns of their birth countries (i.e. the article title Frederika of Hanover makes her look just like the sovereigns of Hanover). I suggest that we alter the example of the convention to make it clear that the word "Princess" may be included in an article title for a consort (e.g. Princess Frederika of Hanover). I specifically say may, since I am not advocating the re-naming of hundreds of articles, especially in the case of somebody like Catherine of Aragon who is generally referred to as such without the word "Princess". Noel S McFerran 18:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it would be much more practical in general to go ahead and specifically state that Name of Place is the form for consorts and that the title should be omitted. Since that is how the convention is used for the most part, it is how it should remain. Charles 19:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised that the "champion of consistency" would advocate such inconsistency. Why should a princess who never married be called, for example, "Princess Anne of Amazia", but her sister who married a sovereign be called "Mary of Amazia"?  It's particularly confusing if Amazia allows female sovereigns; Anne and Mary's mother the reigning queen of Amazia would be "Elizabeth of Amazia" (no different construction from her daughter).  Can someone come up with a good reason for treating the unmarried and the married so differently? Noel S McFerran 22:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Trust me when I say that not many people these days know of Alexandra of Denmark or Mary of Teck. Would any of those people think of Alexandra as the queen of Denmark? Maybe, maybe not. The name "Princess Anne of Amazia" makes it pretty clear that Anne was not a sovereign. "Mary of Amazia" invites the person to either be ignorant and decide on their own as to whether she was sovereign or not, or invites them to read the article and learn, as with any WP article. There is no need for the slight, hostile remark ("champion of consistency"). Charles 03:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It is quite simple, Noel.


 * Consort title can't be used because it lacks disambigulation features, notably an ordinal.
 * To distinguish between people who were consorts, and those who were not, it is standard to mark the former by dropping the opening title. Hence, as has been mentioned, we say Mary of Teck not Princess Mary of Teck. The maiden title rule is applied generally in a way that allows the format used to indicate a consort of a monarch as opposed to a consort of someone else. Princess Mary of Amazia means someone who was not a consort, Mary of Amazia means someone who was. It is perfectly simple and perfectly consistent. FearÉIREANN [[Image:Map of Ireland's capitals.png|15px]]\<sup style="color:blue;">(caint)|undefined 14:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * That's not consistent; that's different. The convention is to treat a princess of country A who married a sovereign of country B EXACTLY the same as a sovereign of country A.  If we actually did this, then that would be very confusing to ordinary people who haven't read the conventions.  E.g. there was a lady who ruled Britain in the nineteenth century who has an article titled Victoria of the United Kingdom; her eldest daughter was married to the German Emperor - according to the convention for deceased royal consorts she should also have an article titled "Victoria of the United Kingdom" (we don't do this because it would be downright confusing).  The same is true with Anne of Great Britain and the wife of William IV, Prince of Orange.  If we actually did what the convention says to do, then it could be even more confusing with male consorts.
 * I know that the convention says to have an article title for the married wife of a sovereign without the word "princess", but to use the word "princess" in the article title for her sister. What I'm asking is WHY have a convention which says that.
 * If one wants to highlight the fact that the lady was a consort, then there are better ways to do this (e.g. article title saying "Queen of Amazia" or "Queen Consort of Amazia").
 * I'm not specifically suggesting any of these changes. What I would like to see is an open discussion of how well the convention is working.
 * The present convention works wonderfully for somebody like Catherine of Aragon. But how well is the general public currently served when they want to find an article on, for example, Queen Frederica of the Hellenes or Queen Ingrid of Denmark? Noel S McFerran 15:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the convention works fairly well. for the most part, people know tha sovereigns were male. For the females, these confusable individuals you speak of would simply have to read. If one wanted to look up Queen Frederica, one would most certainly know a little bit about her background (her father, her husband, etc) and find her from there or by one of the redirects. Charles 16:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The convention works well for Catherine of Aragon, because that is usage. Septentrionalis 17:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * An encyclopedia is where people go to discover what they don't know, not to be confused or discouraged because they arrive without knowledge. This is like directing someone to look up a word in the dictionary to learn how to spell it! The Naming Convention directs us to subordinate correct titulature in favor of used titulature so as to maximize access to and uptake of Wiki's articles by unknowledgeable readers. It shouldn't be presumed that readers have any information about the subject they are looking up other than having stumbled across a name that gets them to a re-direct page -- and I'd rather they didn't Google on past Wiki because the article that pops up looks like it's not about the person they're trying to research. I do agree that once readers conclude that they are at the bio of the person they were seeking, the content of the article can and should be used to teach, among other things, proper titulature.
 * The best reason I've heard for not using a title in article names for royal spouses is Shilkani's argument that it is implicitly POV because it legitimizes social hierarchy. Although I reject that reasoning for historical personages (because hereditary rank was deemed relevant in most societies prior to, say, World War I. Thus stripping it from Wiki articles is anachronistically egalitarian, and therefore POV), I prefer to avoid waving red flags in front of zealous egalitarian and anti-monarchist Wiki editors, and thus setting these articles up for future edit wars. Therefore I'd recommend conservative use of simplified versions of such titles in article names (e.g. "Princess Beatrice of Edinburgh" rather than "Princess Beatrice of the United Kingdom and Saxe-Coburg and Gotha" and "Princess Maria of Bourbon-Sicily" rather than "Princess Maria of the Two Sicilies"). That said, I have heard no argument in this discussion that justifies Wiki preserving an inconsistency that is misleading and easily rectified (i.e. she is known, pre-maritally, as "Princess Alice of Battenberg" not "Alice of Battenberg". And I can personally attest to having searched in vain as a youngster among Germany's principalities to find the realm of Battenberg!). I'm not sure this is an alteration of the Naming Convention, so much as an addition thereto. Lethiere 18:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Background of historical naming: This comes from a long usage starting at least from Middle Ages. Usual works of history were so-called chronicles. They were usually written and used in approximately one country. And were almost epos of that country. They were not usually much used in other countries. Naming of persons had the perspective of the country in question.

Their princesses, duchesses and queens came almost always from something else than the ruler's seat of that country itself. They may have come from some foreign country. They may have come from the bunch of daughters of a vassal. Or they may have had a surname. The chronicle, usually narrating history about ten or twenty generations, and about many consorts in the same generation (wives of the monarch and wives of important vassals, dukes, counts etc, and there may have been two or three brothers each having a wife), liked to disambiguate these women. They realized the same thing as we here: using consort titles (within that one country), they get a bunch of Queens Marias, etc.

Those writers needed to use names that were respectful enough, and recognizable enough, but sufficiently disambiguate. A natural disambiguation was the name of the country a consort came from. They cannot have been discourteous: when they were not able to add "queen", "duchess" or whatever was the marital honorific, they left it totally away. It is some discourtesy and also misleading to give a honorific that was lower than the highest one the woman actually held.

If you look around at also older literature, all sorts of duchess-consorts and countess-consorts are there without title, just with "name ¨of + country". There are Isabellas of Portugal, some of them wives of dukes. There is Louise of Savoy, mother of Francis I.

Middle Ages is not any exception to the historical naming of consorts, it is the source of it. Shilkanni 22:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Quite true. Deb 13:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Need of particular exception/ convention for Polish monarchs
In my opinion, Polish monarchs do not need a special system. They are well enough to follow the general naming convention. Shilkanni 12:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. Švitrigaila 15:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree too. All Polish monarchs should be moved/moved back to standard names, in "X N of Poland" format; contrary to the beliefs of some Polish contributors, Polish kings were not emperors of the universe, so there is no reason not to have "of country" in the title. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 15:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * With regards to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Polish rulers), I'll summarize my POV. What I proposed at Talk:List_of_Polish_monarchs/Archive_01 was: Polish first name, roman numeral if any, royal second name/nickname in English (if translatable at all, Poniatowski is not, being a normal surname). No 'of Poland' or 'King of Poland' needed unless there is a disambig issue. Why?
 * 1) Polish first name beacause for vast majority of Polish kings there is no single most popular English name, there are several. This varies - sometimes there is ineeded one dominant (as is the case in Sigismund - this more of an exception to the rule. This was shown by an analyzis which I did a year ago and which led me to the formulation of this proposal. Here are some conclusions and links, based on three other popular first name for Polish kings: Talk:Bolesław I the Brave - Bolesław is about as popular as Boleslaus; Talk:Kazimierz I the Restorer - Kazimierz is more popular then Casimir; Talk:Władysław I Herman - Władysław is vastly more popular then the seemingly only used on Wiki Wladislaus. Note that in all of such cases we have about 10 choices for first name, with various combination of Englicized names based on Polish and Latin versions. Given the choice between a) using always Englicized names even if they are not the most popular 2) using a mix of English and Polishchosing always the most popular or 3) using the Polish name, which is alawys used by some historians (Norman Davies, God's Playground for a popular example) and which often is the most popular one in English publications anyway, giving us a consistent feel throughout the Polish monarchs (and consistency with Polish sources too) I have decided to chose Polish first name. As for the argument that Englicized names are easier to pronuce for English leadere, I somewhat doubht that Sigismund is that easier then Zygmunt, or Władysław is more difficult then Wladislaus. Finally I have found at least one academic piece which suggest such course of actions (using Polish first names for Polish rulers), while those who disagree with me have yet to present a single academic source advocating the use of Englicized first names.
 * 2) Numeral. It seems to be used by approximately half the available sources. In addition it is very handy to readers giving them additional piece of information. And they are tiny. I see no reason not to use them, and several for.
 * 3) royal second name/nickname in English. Those are usually short and distinctive, and are often used in the historical literature. For example, in the analysis of Bolesław I the Brave the usage of 'the Brave' beats hands down any and all alternatives (nothing, Chrobry, of Poland, etc.). Same with Herman. In case of Restorer there was a parity in English sources between Restorer and Polish Odnowiciel, but since this is English Wiki I decided to go with English translations as long as we are not dealing with real surnames (Leszczyński, Poniatowski, Wisniowiecki).
 * 4) no 'of Poland'. First the 'of country' was introduced as a Wikipedia convention, any search will prove that it is a relatively rare addition in historical texts. It was introduced here beacuse of the needs for disambigs. The informative function of it is disputable, as in text it can be easily added when it is not clear from context what country is that monarch from, and when sb is reading the very article it is not really needed, as it can be mentioned in lead and expanded in text. For the same reason the country, state, and such names are used only in disambig forced cases with city names. However by using Polish first name, numeral and nickname we eliminate the need for 'of country' disambig. Still, I'd not oppose it strongly if not the two problems: lenght and correctness. First, 'of Poland' is not correct: many of those monarchs were also kings of Lithuania, and it can be argued it was at least as important as Poland. 'of country' becomes not very useful when you have two (or more!) countries (Władysław IV Waza could claim to be Władysław IV of Lithuania, Muscovy, Poland and Sweden. And to further complicate matters, 'of Poland-Lithuania is not as clear as 'of Austro-Hungary' (just follow the links). Władysław I of Poland-Lithuania was a king of a quite different entity then Władysław IV of Poland-Lithuania.
 * On those grounds I believe we need a special naming convention for Polish monarchs. They have been moved according to my proposal in Dec'05, before any major opposition to this move arose. I apologize for not consulting this with the community earier, but I was acting in good faith, and put the spirit of encyclopedia building over the letters of (this) law, which I felt and still feel was not appopriate for this case.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus <sup style="color:green;">Talk 15:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The "of Poland" formula is simply wikipedia convention. It is not there because of its popularity (as you have been trying to make out), but simply as standardization. All the reasons you've tried to find to justify subverting wiki convention are equally applicable to other monarchs, of other countries. I'd suggest if you don't like wiki convention in this case, go try and change that; there are simply no grounds for making Polish rulers exceptions. On the name front, I have more sympathy. Names of Polish monarchs should be decided on an individual basis; I strongly oppose anglicization for the sake of it; I think, for instance, the name Wladyslaw (i.e. not Władysław!) is preferrable to Vladislaus. But in terms of these monarchs, Sigismund and Casimir are quite clearly much more prevalent in English sources than Zygmunt and Kazimierz; what I really don't like is you, Piotrus, using the existence of more than one English form for a name as an excuse for absurd Polonizations like Władysław II Jagiełło for Jogaila/Wladyslaw VI. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 16:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:IAR. It is up to the community to decide whether to discard my arguments, apply them to Polish monarchs only or refeorm the entire NC for monarchs, the existence of this NM is no reason for denying the possibility of exceptions (and note that this very convention is an exception to WN for people). While Sigismund seems to be more popular then Zygmunt in English sources, the last time I checked for Casimir vs Kazimierz it was Kazimierz who won (see my link above). As for Władysław/Jogaila, the last RM preserved the current variant with 8:1 votes. It does appear that this 'absurd Polonization' proved quite popular...--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus <sup style="color:green;">Talk 16:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Casimir certainly didn't win; your whole argument was rigged because you were finding every way you could to find an excuse to use the Polish name. As you know, Casimir is the standard English name, Kazimierz is only used in English when the writer is purposely introducing the Polish name. Google fights with forenames don't count, the individual monarchs are the ones who count. Just quickly, "Casimir the Great" has 825 hits on google books, "Kazimierz the great" has 37. Your assertion that Kazimierz is more popular is quite frankly a joke. I admire your commitment to the cause of Polonizing the English language, but to be honest, I don't see what you get out of it. Are you worried Polish monarchs might be thought of as Germans or something? - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 18:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * As I have linked all the reults, they can be easily verified. A year ago GB was not very popular and I was using standard Google limited to English pages. If you'd look at them you'd notice that I was not dealing with C/K III the Great, but with C/K I the Restorer. At that time Casimir vs Kazimierz ended with Kazimierz wining by 3200:2600. It should be stressed that majority of hits come from names either totally English (Casimir I the Restorer) or totally Polish (Kazimierz I Odnowiciel), with hybrids like 'Kazmierz I the Restorer' being less used by the order of several magnitudes. Therefore your "Casmir the Great" should be properly comared to "Kazimierz Wielki" (443 hits), not "Kazimierz the great". You can of course claim that this gives 2:1 advantage to the English variant, but I'd ask you to count the dozen of so other variants as I did in the talk page of Kazimierz I and sum them all up. For another example, "Casimir the Restorer" gives 9 hits, while "Kazimierz Odnowiciel" gives 25 hits. All said, I strongly object to the use of Polish nickanmes; unlike firstnames which are unlegible to an English user whether Polish or 'Englicized' (Władysław or Vladislaus, big difference?), the nicknames should be kept in English on English Wiki.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus <sup style="color:green;">Talk 23:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I support moving all people to their appropriate English names. The English name of the current king of Spain is Juan Carlos and the English name of a certain famous Greek ruler of antiquity who lived before there was an English language or even widespread use of the Latin alphabet is Alexander the Great. Go figure. The Polish monarchs are best known by Anglicisations and should be titled in articles as such. These are convenient for two reasons: they are pronounceable to those unfamiliar with Polish (there are some of us) and they are more common in English literature, especially of the nonspecialist variety. Wikipedia, though it should be scholarly and factual, is nonspecialist. Srnec 18:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I am going to clarify the above comment of mine. Even if modern popular histories are using Polish forms, that doesn't mean Wikipedia should. Older books may be outdated in many respects (or may not be), but in the choice of a nomenclature they are simply following the trend of the times, as are modern writers. I'll be damned if you can find many English refernces to "Władysław" before 1950. Why must Wikipedia become faddish? Finally, I notice that the Polish Wiki uses Polonisations for the monarchs of England. Who's "Ryszard Lwie Serce"?

As for the use of "of Poland": its a policy and a good one to prevent ambiguity. But, if it is impossible to apply (Poland or Lithuania or whatever), please find a happy middle ground for only those which do not fit conventions. Srnec 18:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Post refactored per mediation discussion. Original version can be seen here. --02:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If you wanna know about Piotrus' sentiments, see for instance, his vote on Talk:Elisabeth of Austria (d. 1505), where he originally wanted this woman to be Polonized. For his frequent lapses in admin integrity, see User_talk:Renata3/archive3, where he deliberately levelled a false accusation at me, and refrained from apologizing. Piotrus wants to Polonize as much of wikipedia's content as he can, he'll seek any method, any excuse to do it, and all other considerations are secondary. It's a shame he has this passion, because he is a wonderful content contributor, and if he didn't go around pushing nonsense names like Władysław II Jagiełło, he'd probably have my support for most of his Polonizations. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 20:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Re: Elisabeth...., I guess it is not worth mentioning that I eventually abstained from the vote, when it is so much more thrilling to use my participation in the vote for speculation about me and my 'followers' trying to Polonize wikipedia (I voted on a naming of a Polish-related queen - I suggested using a Polish variant of the name - evidently I intend to Polonize the entire Wikipedia with "any method and excuse"...). As for my "frequent lapses in admin integrity" example, it would be more beneficial if you asked me for clarification in January when it happened. Honestly I cannot recall why I mentioned your involvement in Gediminas_move now, as for the second 'false acusation', looking at the this edit I believe I accussed you of messing up the talk page because of your series of moves have created double redirects and for a time the article's talk page was not connected to the article but on one of the redirects, although I'll repeat it was months ago and my memory of this is somewhat fuzzy. Next time you or anybody else feel offended by any of my remarks, please, tell me about it, instead of digging them up months after everybody forgotten about the relevant issue.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus <sup style="color:green;">Talk  23:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The Elisabeth page is, nevertheless, a good example of what would happen on wikipedia if you were left to your own devices. RE:Renata accusation I asked you to prove it, and you never returned. If I remember correctly, it was Molobo who caused all the problems by cutting and pasting text across different pages, being unable to actually move the page back to the name he wanted. This you should remember. Anyways, despite this, I get the blame. Thanks Piotrus. Anyways, relax, I forgive you, so you needn't worry about me digging up all the other stuff I could so easily find. I suggest you try and appease Elonka though; with all these intelligent people already suspicious of you, the last thing you need is her on your back. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Since Elonka has decided to bring lot's of "evidence" putting my editor's integrity in question, I will reply here to defend my good name, event through it may be OT for the current debate. I will be also taking formal dispute resolution steps, as I have already asked her to decist with her allegations (a request to which she has not replied). So, going 1 by 1 (it will be long).
 * That I have suggested the move "in the middle of the (American) holiday season (meaning that it was likely that many editors were distracted with real-life...". Being a Pole, I was not aware end of November was US holiday season. To suggest that I suggested the move on a specific date as to limit the number of replies borders on paranoia, not to mention that I waited a month before moving anything (or do all Americans leave for a month-long holidays without the net access?).
 * "Consensus" was then artificially constructed within a couple weeks because Piotrus advertised these moves to sympathetic voters (other Polish-speakers) via the Polish Wikipedian's Noticeboard. While in retrospective I should have mentioned the discussion here, I assumed that interested users will be watching the list of monarchs page and/or the Noticeboard (now more aptly renamed Poland-related) which contains, among other issues, news on Poland-related renamings. I don't deny that more Poles are interested in this issue then non-Poles, but to suggest bad faith in a national of a given country being interested in his country's related issue is a logic that escapes me. The consensus was not artificially constructed, not any more then on score of Wikipedia page which generate little attention.
 * such as when he referred to POV disagreements on Poland-related articles as "vandalism. This is, as far as I see, irrelevant to this discussion. As is clearly visibile, the box lists article vandalized or in need of attention. Adding articles there does not imply that they have been vandalized (logic of 'or' particle) and I cannot see how anybody could see an article being listed there as 'needing attention' offensive.
 * He then conveniently ignored all objections as regards the Polish monarchs, such as those by JohnK, and rapidly proceeded with the moves in mid-December. First of all, majority of the moves were done not by me but by User:Logologist. The moves were also done not by mod-December but by late December (27th - thus about a month after the move was suggested). Finally, a cursory glance at Talk:List of Polish monarchs/Archive 01 will show that I and others have replied to many of John's comments, and the only 'ignored' ones are the likes of 'Once again, see nothing wrong with the current title', which were basically Jonn's votes at the later monarchs. His arguments above were addressed. Not to mention that such a formulation does not clearly state: "I object" to the move.
 * I don't know if I can call the 'argument' of 'name-calling', based on my use of the word 'n00bie' to describe 2 editors who have moved some rulers and didn't fix double redirects as anything more then further slander designed to create the impression that I am an uncivil editor, especially as I have explained my behaviour at the very link Elonka cites as her "evidence", as well as more recently at our noticeboard, where Elonka has brought up this very issue again. Considering that she has not replied to my explanations but instead continues to bring up this issue again and again at various public forums, I wonder if terms such as slander and character assasination would be applicable here.
 * He also frequently uses the Poland notice board to make "calls to action" to other Poles to engage in Talk page disputes or attack other Wikipedia users. First, as pointed above, this noticeboard is also frequented by non-Polish editors. Second, I would very much like to see where I make a call to action for an "attack" on other Wikipedia editors. I see nothing wrong with reporting various Poland-related votes and disputes and the place where editors interested in Poland would be most commonly found.
 * One individual who raised questions about the Polish issue was accused by Piotrus of a "racist attack"  Yes, and I stand by this accusation, anybody is welcomed to look at the cited comment from the very link Elonka provides and judge for themselves whether it was racist or not. Looking back, perhaps it was more of an 'ethnic slurr' then 'racist attack', as it attacks not a race but rather an ethnic group (Poles). I would also note that the user in question is well known for his uncivility and personal attacks, I'd refer interested parties to his RfC.
 * As for accusations of slander against myself, I believe this posts bests illustrates why I use this term.
 * The issue of Elonka's moving pages without consensus, to which she replied here as she indicates, does not deny that she moved it without a consensus. As she writes herself, in the first instance she "believed" there was a consensus, and in the second, where her belief was questioned by several editors, she nonetheless proved ready to engage in a move war to keep the article where she believed it should be. As far as I see it, she has admited to moving the page without consensus, and thus my usage of this example is not an "unbased accusation".
 * As for her "multiple attempts to talk to Piotrus about my concerns", we can see one attempt to contanct me on my talk page (to which I replied as quoted above by herself, unfortunately she seems to classified my reply as 'name calling'), and a series of comments at Portal_talk:Poland/Poland-related_Wikipedia_notice_board. I and other members of this noticeboard in civil way replied to her comments and made several of the changes she suggested, up to and including renaming the noticeboard, apparently this have not proven enough to her satisfaction (anybody is welcome to judge how we replied and comment there). Elonka seems to view our reaction as "exacerbation of the behavior, plus heavy sarcasm, ridicule, and further false accusations", criticizing not onl my person, but those of some other editors and the entire Poland-related noticeboard. She is of course entitled to her views, but as she seem to continue to publicly question actions of myself and others, my next edit is the mediation board. Hopefully some neutral mediators will help us see who is right here. I apologize for this OT entry here, but I felt I had to reply to some of the above accusations. Now I hope this OT subthread will end and we can go back, as Halibutt suggested below, to discussing the pros and cons of the proposal, not the personas of the involved editors.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus <sup style="color:green;">Talk 00:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Calgacus, Elonka and others, focusing on the problem rather than describing some alleged conspiracy of Polish editors or some Piotrus' wrongdoings would be much, much more constructive. Having said that, I don't think Polish monarchs need a special convention and the XY of Poland seems fine to me. However, Piotrus' points cannot and should not be ignored. The case of the Polish names (I mean Polish Christian names of Slavic origin like Władysław or Stanisław) is indeed quite problematic.  // Halibutt 20:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Two things I want to address:
 * 1) Should we use the Polonized form of the name because there's usually "no standard English version"? I think this rationalization on Piotrus's part is completely unjustifiable.  Most names quite clearly have a standard anglicization - Kazimierz is anglicized as "Casimir," Zygmunt as "Sigismund," Jan as "John," August as "Augustus," for instance.  Others clearly do not have Anglicizations - Leszek, Mieszko - and are always referred to in England by their Polish name.  There's only a few where there are multiple possible names - for monarchs of the last 700 years, I'd say that only Wladyslaw and Stanislaw qualify.  Leaving these in Polish form seems acceptable to me - it is not as though "Ladislas" is a particularly common English name, plus it provides confusion between the Polish Wladyslaw and the Hungarian Laszlo, which are not in fact the same name at all.  At any rate, basic point is, a lot of monarchs are almost never referred to by the Polish version of their name, and are referred to almost universally by an anglicization.
 * 2) Is there a need for any exceptions to the usual "Name Ordinal of Country" rule for Polish monarchs? I think here the answer is "quite possibly yes."  A goodly number of Polish monarchs after 1575 are known by their given name and surname - Stephen Bathory, Michael Wisniowiecki, John Sobieski, Stanislaw Leszczynszki, Stanislaw Poniatowski.  (That is to say, the non-Vasa and Wettin rulers of Poland in the elective monarchy era).  Titles like Stephen of Poland and John III of Poland seem distinctly problematic to me - this is simply not how these monarchs are usually called.  I'd prefer something like Stephen Bathory, King of Poland, John III Sobieski, King of Poland, which would analogize to the way articles on Italian (sub-royal) monarchs with surnames are titled - e.g. Cosimo I de' Medici, Grand Duke of Tuscany - but I don't think this somewhat cumbersome solution received too much support in the past.  john k 20:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * John, I have given a series of examples that virtually every monarch is reffered in at least *some* English sources by their Polish name. I'd be happy to go case by case, again. It is likely you are right on some cases (Michael Korybut Wiśnowiecki seems to be such a case, IIRC), however not for all 'Casimirs/Kazimirs or Sigusmunds/Zygmunts'. And I always opposed giving titles to anybody unless there is need for a disambig. In many cases this convention, which was meant to help with disambigs, now ends up being used to defend too long and thus user/editor unfriendly version of titles, in essence putting the 'letter of the law' above the 'spirit of the law'.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus <sup style="color:green;">Talk 15:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Piotrus - I'm sure most Polish monarchs are at least occasionally referred to by their Polish name. But that's no reason to ignore the naming convention, which says we follow most common usage.  Pretty much every monarch anywhere in Europe is at least sometimes referred to by the native version of their name.  This is certainly far more true for French, Spanish, and German monarchs than it is for Polish ones.  But still, most French, German, and Spanish monarchs (not all, of course) are at the English version, because this remains rather more common.  I don't see any reason to think that Casimir IV is more commonly referred to as "Kazimierz" than that Henry II of France is as "Henri" - in fact, I think quite the opposite.  As to "of Country" - I agree it can be too complicated, but in most cases it won't be. john k 07:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Polish monarchs should be treated as any European ones, particularly because so many of their first names are common with other countries. Sigismund, John, Vladislaus, Casimir, August, Henry... Also, I realized that a can of worms, Pandora's Box, in other words Jogaila of Lithuania got a new location recently. (Or how many times was it moved...) I foresee a huge cry from certain of our Polish contributors. And probably Piotrus feels strongly that he has to intervene. But it also seems that certain others (warnings are in air, at least from Elonka) may then draw Piotrus to de-adminning procedure (Arb??). I belöieve that poor Jogaila is a very specific case, which should be solved by some agreement, but that should not be used as precedent in any other naming of Polish monarchs. There sipmly is no systematic exception that could be good for all Polish monarchs, and the problem of Jogaila should not be used as any reason to demand an own system for Polish monarchs. Jogaila is special, because he changed first name, ruled a bigger country with a possibly lower title, did not himself use an ordinal, and as a first name, Wladyslaw Jagiello is very ambiguate, meaning father, son and a grandson at least. Shilkanni 13:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd ask you not the repeat the allegations by Elonka. I have alraedy filled a mediation request and if needed *I* will take it as far as Arb to stop this flood of incivility against the Polish editors. Perhaps you should concern yourself with the people who have just moved this page despite there being any consensus for such a move.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus <sup style="color:green;">Talk 15:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Piotrus, again, since you are an admin, I would have thought that you would have a better understanding of Wikipedia guidelines in these cases. Please review Dispute resolution (don't just link it, read it).  You will see that one of the first actions recommended, is to talk to an individual on their talk page when you have a concern.  To date, I have no record of you expressing any such concern on my own talk page.  Further, you went ahead and filed a request for mediation at Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-07 Polish Cabal and myself as its leader, but without informing the parties that you were complaining about, that you were bringing their names there.  Again, this shows poor judgment.  It is my recommendation that you take a break for awhile.  Walk around the block, have a cup of tea, or do whatever it is that you need to do to not think about Wikipedia for awhile.  Then, when calm, review dispute resolution procedures, and try to express your concerns in a calm, constructive manner.  In order to proceed to mediation, you need to first show an attempt at working things out in good faith, instead of immediately resorting to name-calling and escalation.


 * In the meantime, I would advise other readers of this message to check the mediation request, to see if their own names are mentioned there, since to my knowledge Piotrus has not bothered informing anyone. Correction: I just noticed that he did place one notice, on the Polish noticeboard, (again) asking for support from other Poles . --Elonka 18:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Elonka, I have tried to talk to you the noticeboard and at various talk and discussion pages, but to no avail. You use the instance when I contaced you at your talk page to explain one of the issues as an example of 'name-calling and stalking'. Your above post just further confirms that you think that this entire issue is entirely my fault and you are not ready to compromise even a little, therefore I feel that any attempt of me to contact you directly would be counterproductive and that we need a third party to help us communicate. Certainly you would benefit from reading the WP:RD pages, because considering your accusations about my work to undermine Wikipedia certainly you should have taken steps up to and including RfArb long ago to prevent me from further damaging this project. I am not aware that Mediation Cabal requests notification of involved parties at their talk pages, correct me if I am wrong. I have nonetheless stated in this discussion, attended by all editors who I believe would be interested in this, that I will be filing mediation request in my next edit, my contributions are publicly visible and I see no reason to further elaborate on this almost entirely OT discussion on this page. On the final note that your apparent unwillingness to accept the need for mediation is not encouraging.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus <sup style="color:green;">Talk 19:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there's no need for systematic exceptions for Polish monarchs in general. I see no reason for exceptions for the vast majority of Polish monarchs - certainly not for the Piasts, Jadwiga, the later Jagiellonians, the Vasas, or the Wettins. I'm willing to consider the possibility that Jogaila/Jagiello/Wladyslaw II/Wladyslaw V needs some kind of special treatment (I do think that "Jagiello" is by far the more commonly used form in English, though). But what about the monarchs known by their surname? Sobieski is surely better known as "Sobieski" than as "John III". How do we deal with them? john k 14:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Them? Well, as far as Sobieski is concerned the choice if between John III Sobieski and Jan III Sobieski. Although I'd prefer to have all Polish monarchs standarized per my old proposition, if people feel more happy with John then Jan, then RM is the way to go.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus <sup style="color:green;">Talk 15:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey Piotrus - I know what your opinion is on that one - in fact, the monarchs like that are the only decent part about your preferred naming scheme. I was more interested in what the folks who agree with me that Polish monarchs should mostly follow the normal conventions thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Kenney (talk • contribs)

Treatment of Lithuanian pagan monarchs
There is the clear mentions that "this convention applies only to European and Muslim covilization, because there the same first names are shared between countriues and disambiguation by using of+country is useful". This disambiguation need does nopt extend topagan Lithuanian monarchs, whose first names are shared ny no other country. Thus of+country is redundant there, systematically redundant. I understand if there were one or a few with names used also in other countrues - then consistency would be a nice thing and alm the others get the of+country too. But none among these. Accordingly, editiors have created their articles under first names only, it means Algirdas, Vytautas the Great, Kestutis, Skirgaila, Jaunutis etc. I think I'll add one example to the guideline page of these and/or mention pagan Lithuania among those where of+country is not needed and not to be used in article names. Maed 10:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Isn't Lithuania part of "European civilization"? Most of its inhabitants were Christian, at least. john k 12:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Whether they were part of European civilizaton in days whe their last rulers were pagan, can of course always be discussed.A clear line cannot be drawn from that, as it can be disputed. My idea is based on the fact that of+country is not needed for their disambiguation (none of them are ambiguate), and of+country is used because (and if) it is needed for disambiguation. We should not extend these cumbersome conventions to dynasties where the ground for the cumbersome system does not apply. Maed 12:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Surely the last ruler of (technically) independent Lithuania was Sigismund Augustus, a Christian. And the last ruler of Lithuania who wasn't ruler also of Poland was Alexander I, also a Christian. It also strikes me that Wytautas was at least nominally a Christian. I don't think it matters terribly, but I think that the use of the country name is not terribly problematic. john k 14:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * We do not use technicalities here in Wikipedia, we use realities. For example, in names, such that are used, not such that are just the legal name but (almost) unknown. Therefore, the technical independence up to Sigismund II August does not mean very much. I limited my exampling above quite much to the pagan period. Which was something they did not were fully part of European civilization. And did not share same first names with other countries. I am not saying that Sigismunds the Old and the August, nor Casimir IV nor Alexander are to be named so - I listed some of those examples I mean. Thanks for criticisms, it hopefully helps to write a sentence which is not too open. Maed 19:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe one of those Lithuanian monarchs would be put as example in that litany with Roman emperors and Pericles. Quite similar cases, firts names were not shared between countries and most of then were pagan. Maed 20:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The overall ground for territorial disambiguation (=same first names shared between several countries), as mentioned in the preamble of the NC itself, is actually a very good criterion to reason this issue also, i.e what are exceptions from the pre-emptive naming rule "firstname+ordinal+of+territory". Maed 23:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Is it "obvious" that Algirdas is from Lithuania? In any case, this cannot be generalized to an exception for non-Christians. The early Germanic rulers used the same name-stock as their Christian descendants; and this policy is intended to apply to Moslems. (The reason that the Hellenistic kings do not, and should not, come under this rule is that they are disambiguated by a set of nicknames which is generally used and does disambiguate; virtues which are not found elsewhere. Even so, there is Antiochus IV of Commagene.) Septentrionalis 21:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

It does not need to be obvious. A reader comes, learns about Algirdas from the article. No need to list Algirdas' all sorts of characteristics in the title. Besides, when not alloewing "country", we avoid potential "edit discussions" between Lithuanians and Belarusans, both regard themselves, rspectively, Lithuanians and Litvins; "Ruthenia" was mentioned as one of the two main peoples n those monarcs' official title (V.K. of Lithuanians and Ruthenians) - soon we should admit that Algirdas of Lithuania and Ruthenia is more sensitive culturally, and other demands ensue. Besides, these were monarchs more like "of the Goths", so possibly we need to allow Algirdas of the Lithuanians and the Ruthenians... and where will it end? Sigh. Let them be at places like Algirdas. There is anyway no need to disambiguate because names were not shared in those cases. Maed 22:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Wladyslaw II Jagiello of Poland
Sorry about my typo higher on this page. Wladyslaw II Jagiello of Poland was John's proposal, and that was the one to which I agreed. After two passes of eliminating all double redirects, and then yet another change by Maed (making the move to John's choice impossible), I started a WP:RM at Talk:Wladyslaw II Jagiellon of Poland, and await the results of that vote before risking doing useless redirect-cleanup again. Unless some sysop moves Wladyslaw II Jagiellon of Poland to Wladyslaw II Jagiello of Poland, in which case I'd be glad to assist with the double redirect cleanup.

Again sorry for the typo I made higher on this page. This simple typo proved to be an energy drain. --Francis Schonken 14:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * First of all, I believe that moving the page before the RM vote is unacceptable. The RM should start from the page the article spent its last half a year at, i.e. Władysław II Jagiełło, especially as that move survived the previus RM. Second, if somebody is moving the page, you should at least take care of the double redirects, like Vladislav II of Poland. Third, I prefer the original Pmanderson proposal Władysław II Jagiełło of Lithuania and Poland with diactrics. Fourth, we don't need 'of country' which were invented for disambigs since all proposed titles in 'W II J' format are unique. All things said, this article should be moved back to Władysław II Jagiełło; and the votes should concern moving it from that name. PS. As mentioned in the discussion I would not object to moving it to 'Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus <sup style="color:green;">Talk 15:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * While I do not have an opinion yet of the ideal title for this ruler, I agree completely with Piotrus' comments about the page moving procedure. Olessi 15:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Regarding Piotr's comments:
 * If - as a non-sysop - I'd still have had the possibility to move back to where we came from, I'd have preferred that to Wladyslaw II Jagiellon of Poland. The fact that Maed had first moved to Wladyslaw Jagiello of Poland with "per suggestion of John Kenney, which got support" as edit summary was maybe partly due to an error of mine, while I supported John Kenney's proposal, and not Wladyslaw Jagiello of Poland. By the time I discovered the error, and after some attempt to correct my error which had only made things worse, the only thing I could still do was to initiate a WP:RM.
 * As the last move was mine (I think... Maed in the mean while continued with some page moves as I discovered afterwards) of course I'd be glad to clean up double redirects for a third time. If we can agree to either (1) have the vote at Wladyslaw II Jagiellon of Poland, where the vote started, or (2) if a sysop is going to move the page anywhere else/back, which should suspend the current vote(s).
 * That's your preference, not mine, nor John k's, nor anywhere near to conforming with naming conventions (names and titles);
 * "... of Country" format (and that being a *single* country, not two) follows from the current naming conventions (names and titles), and from the fact that the naming conventions (Polish rulers) proposal ended in a situation where noboby still wanted to make any compromise, so we're back to an unmitigated naming conventions (names and titles), with no special rules nor exceptions for Polish monarchs. It is my opinion the names & titles NC guideline should now be effectuated on all Polish monarchs, and that we should start anew from there (if it would still need changing afterwards, which I don't think I'd support - that is: after my experiences with the uncompromising attitude of some participants in the debate).
 * In fact I think conducting WP:RM votes from the place where the page *should* be according to naming conventions (names and titles), is the only sensible procedure. Only then we know whether there's *consensus* for a particular exception to naming conventions (names and titles).
 * Also I think that basically you're wrong when saying "'of country' [...] were invented for disambigs". No, they were invented to stop short the useless & endless article naming debates, as far as I know. --Francis Schonken 17:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I think I mostly agree with Francis. Also, there are plenty of articles on monarchs with unique names that still include "of Country". One of the purposes of "of country" is to disambiguate, but it also serves other useful purposes, I think. john k 17:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * There is a ton of double and even triple redirects and misdirects now. This must be amended. But how can it be when the page title is not known? I propose that the monarch best known to English people as "Jagiello" be moved to that simple title. It ignores giving preference to either Poland or Lithuania. It ignores any ordinal. It ignores the Polish name he adopted. It is, I believe, a Polonisation of his Lithuanian name Jogaila and it is the name by which I believe most English people recognise the person. Therefore, why not use that simple one-word page title, which currently redirects to the Jagiellon dynasty. I believe most links to it, however, refer to the person, not the dynasty. I think that in this instance extenuating circumstances make the Manual of Style recommendations inapplicable, as in the case of Charlemagne. Srnec 17:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * This is certainly a novel solution. The Charlemagne exception seems quite interesting, especially as Jagiello certainly refers more to the person then to the dynsaty (Jagiellon should redirect to de dynasty). This may be a Solomon solution - although I would still recommend going through formal RMs for various names in order to avoid claims that any editor or group has influenced the move without publicly visible discussion or such.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus <sup style="color:green;">Talk 19:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, I did the double redirect cleanup. Then Maed still continued disruptive moves, leading to a second "page move" warning on user talk:Maed.

Then Nightstallion moved Wladyslaw II Jagiellon of Poland back to Władysław II Jagiełło. Cleaning up double redirects (but as far as I can see not yet on the talk page... - could someone follow that up?)

Then I archived the talk page, making clear that I never initiated a vote to move Władysław II Jagiełło to Wladyslaw II Jagiello of Poland, which I didn't. As far as I know, page moves *during* a WP:RM vote break of that WP:RM vote. I have no intention to start another vote, or "revive" a past WP:RM vote under any form. Instead, I'd like to come back to what I said above, yesterday:
 * Above (john k) proposed Wladyslaw II Jagiello of Poland. I'd go for that one then (to end the returning discussion loops):
 * We can wait until eternity for a "compromise" (...) I suppose neither of the sides will ever give in. Impossibility to compromise is more than apparent from a host of archived pages I need not list again I suppose.
 * Maybe also have a look at Shilkanni's work of the last 24 hours on List of Polish monarchs, - all in all an admirable job to sort this out in Polish and English names - yet for this royal the table leads to yet another additional English variant: Ladislas (V) Jagello.
 * So I suppose this leaves little other alternative than that the people who are most acquainted with the names & titles NC guideline, and who are preferably not particularily associated with either side of the Polish-Lithuanian border, but preferably very acquainted with English (i.e.: the language - which rules out myself), put their foot down, and propose a decision as per the most in line with the names and titles NC guideline (note that the "Polish rulers" NC proposal - lacking any prospect towards the tiniest bit of compromise - is as dead as can be). If John says Wladyslaw II Jagiello of Poland would be the most obvious choice as per the names & titles NC guideline, I believe him, I agree, and I would like to see the page moved there ASAP, so that those who have taken upon them to improve the article (see Talk:Władysław II Jagiełło) are no longer disturbed by this endless uncompromisable naming issue.

So again, inviting the sysops most acquainted with the names and titles NC guideline, with royalty and with the English language, to put their foot down on this one and move the page. And then, probably again, move-protect the page. Please do some off-wikipedia negotiation with Polish/Lithuanian/etc sysops that they not try to wheel-war over the decision to move this monarch to the page that is most in line with naming conventions (names and titles). If they would: desysop them. Piotr has already started a procedure on himself that might soon lead to his desysopment - no problem for me. --Francis Schonken 06:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The amount of bad faith I see here is staggering. Perhaps I should mentioned yet again that I have never been engaged in a move war and never moved the page without a majorty support, unlike some of your *allies* who have been moving the pages during or after RMs, without a clear majority support and making a terrible mess with double redirects. But of course I am sure this will not stop you and several others of bad-mouthing me and every action I take. Seeing my request for mediation as a basis for my desysoping is so *way out* that I will not even comment on your logic.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus <sup style="color:green;">Talk 18:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * While I disagree with some of the naming choices, I've always believed (and continue to do so) that your naming efforts have been in good faith. You might have been a little hasty with the original moves, but they were well-intentioned, and I have not been convinced of improper deeds since. And, of course, there is no cabal... Olessi 19:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the article sometimes mentioned as Wladyslaw II Jagiello of Poland (sic!) needs a unique solution. This is to state clearly that any decision where to put that article, is no precedent to give names to any other articles. On the other hand, this is to state that the "Charlemagne" treatment is acceptable to the "Jagello" we speak about (I am later going to add Jagello to the example list at the Charlemagne exception). Recurring move wars are an obvious result of longer names being always repugnant to some camp involved in some of the nations relevant here, and combined with "so-called Polish cabal's" determination to keep Polish monarchs at names with Polish spelling, disaster is waiting for any attempt to apply any of the formal NC guidelines, as any of such will prefer one natio over others. Shilkanni 11:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Why on earth are you going to add Jagiello to the example list when it has not yet been agreed that this is the best place for it? And we shouldn't worry about preferring one nation over another.  We should worry about what the most common English usage is.  Basically, we put in the most common english usage and then add "of Poland" to the end, because "King of Poland" was his highest title.  And then we're done.  There's no reason to worry about it any more than we would worry that Henry II of England ought to be at Henri II d'Anjou, King of England, Duke of Normandy and Aquitaine, or something similarly ridiculous. john k 16:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Etymology of Ladislaus
BTW, we should never refer to Polish monarchs named "Wladyslaw" by the name "Ladislas" or "Ladislaus". This is deeply confusing, because the two are not the same name. "Ladislas" is the traditional Latinization of the Hungarian name "Laszlo." However, when Polish "Wladyslaw"'s became kings of Hungary, they were known not as "Laszlo" but as "Ulaszlo" - the two names are not the same. Wladyslaw could be Latinized as "Vladislaus," I think; I've also seen "Vladislav" which is more phonetic to how the Polish name is pronounced in English. But that's stupid. We should just leave it at "Wladyslaw", since there's no clear English alternative. john k 16:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Nope, they are basically the same name. See Ladislaus - a relatively good account of the name and its evolution throughout Slavic cultures (although it can be improved yet, there are some unused pieces of info in German etc wikis). (and this whole etymology issue could rather be at Talk:Ladislaus.) The difference you refer to, is just a 15th-century quirk with a bunch of (V)Ladislases floating in different places and a slight pronouncing difference - a difference that is much smaller than the variants flowing around in all these countries. Laszlo, which you mentioned, is a Hungarian spelling of Vladislas (Ulaszlo is another), which name originally came to Hungarian presumably with the first king Laszlo who was born in Poland and got to return his ancestral country only when adult. It is very clear that he got his first name when in Poland and guess what is was. The small difference you referred to is a thing that is even nowadays treated in different ways in different works of reference. You see, many encyclopedias and history books put Polish Vladislases to the variant Ladislaus too (which leaves possibly only those two funny Ulaszlos as a different animal.) We are talking about Middle Ages now, and the renditions of names have so many variances in different sources (have you seen those medieval documents where the same person is written differently in one sentence and in another way in another sentence of the same pergament?) that we cannot put so much value to them as we now treat as different if a currently living American is Juan or John or Jon or Johnny in his birth certificate. We can just do what works of reference have done, and at most, try to keep some consistency with naming of articles (which hopefully is also the main appellation in texts here), mentioning all other variants somewhere in the explanation sections of the article. Shilkanni 17:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * They can be considered the same, and certainly are by Poles. But on the other hand, they are considered different by Hungarians. The difference is that László was borrowed earlier, not necessarily from Polish (in fact, Polish and German Wikis you quoted at Talk:Ladislaus claim that it was borrowed to Polish from Hungary!) and Ulászló later, this time undoubtedly from Polish. So we can consider Ladislaus a represantation of an earlier Hungarian form, and Wladislaus/Vladislaus of a Polish one. (Although all forms share the same saint patron - St. Ladislaus) Cyon 21:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, the same saint patron is one of the crucial points whether names are truly different or just spelling variants. And, because we cannot do anything to differentiate fully two names which are not fully differentiated in all relevant literature, we are stuck in a situation where they go as variants. So, John, there are legitimate referrals of Polish monarchs as "Ladislaus", and that's a fact. Shilkanni 23:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It just seems unnecessarily confusing to me. Whether or not they're "really" the same name seems irrelevant - the Hungarian monarchs "Ulaszlo" are undoubtedly numbered differently from the monarchs "Laszlo", and anglicizing it all to "Ladislaus" would make that situation impossibly confusing. john k 12:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

General discussion
(transfered from User talk:Švitrigaila)

Would you care to visit at Talk:Wladyslaw_II_Jagiellon_of_Poland. The simple "Jagiello" - for that there is now a formal listing going on to sign support or opposition. ObRoy 21:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, those disussion is to long. I can't read it at all. My opinion about the subject is that every "title" should be excluded from the articles's name. For exemple, Pope John Paul II should be renamed into John Paul II. In Jagiello's case, I'm in favor of a simple article name, with no title. Either Ladislaus II, or Jagiello, or Jogaila... (I don't know what is the most commonly used name in English). I strongly oppose:
 * Any variants in the article's title itself (for example Ladislaus V/II...) As a rule an article's name must chose only one variant, or else, you can rename Tighina into Tighina/Bender/bendery or 2003 invasion of Iraq into 2003 invasion/liberation of Iraq...
 * Any title that is not part of the name itself (for example Ladislaus II of Poland  or  King Ladislaus II) Or else, why not writing  President George W. Bush or Benedict XVI of Vatican ?
 * Any foreign forms for kings' names or historical figures only, when an English form exists (for example Władysław II) Or else, we can rename Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor into Carlos V.
 * If this system produces serveral articles with the same name, and only in this case, let's use disambiguation in parenthesis as for any other such articles. Let's write Alexander I (pope), instead of Pope Alexander I, as there are Chicago (band) and Chicago (poker game).
 * The naming conventions as they exist now are a mess. You find articles' names like Švitrigaila (no title), Pope Alexander I (with a title), Antipope Gregory VIII (as if antipope were an official title!), Avignon Pope Benedict XIII (why not Avignon Antipope?), Emperor Meiji (official posthumous name, with the title before the name), Hirohito (familiar first name never used in Japan), Charlemagne (without a title or a country name), Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor (with the title after the name), Charles X Gustav of Sweden (English name), Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden (Swedish name)... I think we really need a coherent system.
 * Švitrigaila 08:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I concur that we need a new one, aye, the current system is rather... incongruent. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 09:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

You actually favor "Ladislaus II" as an article title? That's completely absurd. By the way, I notice that some of your problems are based on the supposed inconsistency between monarch naming conventions and those for everything else. But, at the same timie, you complain about Charles X Gustav of Sweden and Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden...but this is a direct result not of this page, but of Naming conventions (common names), which tells us to use the name most commonly used in English - Charles X is usually called Charles, and the current king is always called Carl. Charlemagne is also the result not of this naming convention, but of this naming convention deferring to the fact that he is always called "Charlemagne" - note that we also have Charles the Bald, and Louis the Pious, for instance - the Carolingians are difficult to associate with a single country, and are best, known, anyway, by their cognomens (and that includes Charlemagne, which of course just means Charles the Great.) As to the Popes, I don't see the use of "Antipope" or "Avignon Pope" as being a result of this page at all, but of compromises made on individual pages. The Japanese Emperor inconsistency results, also, not from this page, but from the common name rule - Meiji is usually known as "Meiji" in English, while Showa is usually still called "Hirohito" in English. This page is not what is causing inconsistency at all. What is causing inconsistency is the compromises between this page and the common names rule. If you went back to the common names rule, alone, you'd have much, much greater inconsistency in article titling. john k 16:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem isn't the naming conventions. It is individuals making up their own unique versions contrary to the NC that cause the problems. Every so often individuals arrive and do a host of unilateral renamings contrary to the NC. They are the problem, not the NC, which are cohesive and workable if followed. FearÉIREANN \<sup style="color:blue;">(caint)|undefined 19:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus proposal
I agree that the conventions should be revamped. I actually thought that we can work from bottom up (revise the convention for Polish monarchs first) and when that would gain consensus, we could use it as a basis to reform the main nc for monarchs. Apparently it was not as easy as I suspected, but I am glad to see there are others who agree that the current NC are not good (even if we disagree on the various parts they are not good). Let me shortly propose the following naming scheme: Comments?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus <sup style="color:green;">Talk 19:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * first name: widely accepted English name, as proposed and seems acceptable at WN(GN) (all encyclopedias and 75%+ of academic souurces use a single name). If this is not the case, then the local (most relevant country the ruler ruled) name should be used, as otherwise we will quarrel until the end of universe which of the several applicable English names should be used, and there is only usually only one stabilshed local name.
 * use roman numerals because they are tiny and informative
 * second name: use only one - either nickname ('the Old') or a surnames, as per above. In case of nicknames English ones should always be used, as they are easy to understand by readers of en-Wiki. In case of surnames, they are not translated usually, although in case of dynastical surnames if the waEn as described above would be satisfied, we can use the translated surname
 * use 'of country' only when there is a need for disambig, OR if it is commonly used as waEn, OR determine on a country per country base if it is not too long


 * I think it would be quite irksome to have Henry IV of France succeded by Louis XIII. The current naming conventions work perfectly well in 95% of cases.  And most European monarchs have neither surnames nor nicknames. john k 23:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * As I wrote, it may be changed per country basis; most Polish monarchs have either surnames or a nicknames (actually I can't think of a single one who doesn't, with the exception of Mieszko I).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus <sup style="color:green;">Talk 01:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Most nicknames of Polish monarchs are completely unfamiliar to English-speakers. Certainly "Augustus the Saxon"/"Augustus the Corpulent" are not commonly used named for Augustus III in English. Your proposal means that we abandon both the common names rule and the names and titles naming convention. This seems absurd to me. john k 12:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * What is commonly used then? As I have shown here (the Brave), here (the Restorer) and here (Herman) at the very least 3 out of 3 comprehensive analysis I done indicate that indeed nicknames are very common for Polish monarchs. Perhaps those three are aberrant exceptions - prove me wrong by doing similar analaysis on several other monarchs. Perhaps Augustus III the Saxon is an exception, although I can certainly find some references using his nicknames (Augustus the Saxon (4), August III the Saxon (2), August III Saxon (2)) although it does appear that 'Augustus III of Poland' is more popular (76). However before you tick this one for 'your side', please consider that 'Augustus III of Saxony' is EVEN MORE POPULAR (87). August seems to be less popular then Augustus, although 'August III of Saxony' still wins (17) against 'Augustus of Poland' (11). So shall we renaim him to 'Augustus III of Saxony'? This shows well the folly of following our guidelines and 'sticking to the letter of the law' instead the spirit, as we should. His Polish nickname is Sas which basically means Saxon, indicating he was of Saxon dynasty (kind of like Jagiełło part in Władysław III Jagiełło refers to the Jagiellon dysnasty), but apparently it was translated into English as 'of Saxony' (and coupled with refs to him before he was elected), mean that his most popular nickname is 'of Saxony'. This however collides with our guidelines which would treat this as 'of dominant country'. For that reason I think that the nickname we decided, 'the Saxon', is the best of both worlds: preserves the original meaning (relation to the dynasty), means basically the same as 'of Saxon' yet should not confuse the reader to think he was the King of Saxony.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus <sup style="color:green;">Talk 17:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Er, he wasn't "Augustus III of Saxony" he was "Frederick Augustus II of Saxony" (a name which he shares with a later King of Saxony, his great-grandson). The title "Augustus III of Saxony" is deeply misleading as a title. john k 22:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus's claims differ radically from my experience. I have never seen a case in which "Which name is used in English?" for a foreigner is either difficult or the real point of contention. I see three overwhelming classes of name dispute: I am therefore opposed to this doubtless well-meant and good-faith proposal. Septentrionalis 20:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Cases in which the real question is whether the "local language" in question is Fooian or Barian (for a fictitious example, whether Charles V is Spanish or German). This is often disguised as an English usage claim, but the disguise is usually transparent.
 * 2) *Following English usage offers a way to decide this issue; often it offers (as with Charles V) a neutral decision, which is a good thing.
 * 3) Cases in which one side actually holds: "Correct Fooian usage is X; we don't care what English usage is." This is a bad thing, contrary to clear and long-established policy, and the usage of every other wikipedia. (Look at the translations of London, United States, George III of Great Britain, and Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington.) Piotrus's proposal would strengthen this sort of political correctness.
 * 4) Cases in which the correct form of an English (or American, or Australian) name is under dispute; for a real example, see Lady Byron, wherever she is now.
 * 5) *Piotrus's proposal would do nothing about these. Instead it would import all the disputes about the correct Fooian form of a Fooian name, which are much more difficult to decide, and which the present policy should allow us to evade. (This is not always successful, but it is better not to aggravate the problem.)
 * As I said above, perhaps the current NC is good for many cases, but it is certainly not good for Polish (and Lithuanian) monarchs. If we leave it as it is, then we need specific exceptions for them.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus <sup style="color:green;">Talk 20:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Opposed, per Septentrionalis. --Elonka 21:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

John's proposal
My proposal is to stick with the current policy. It has its problems, but is still basically sound. john k 13:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. --Elonka 17:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. FearÉIREANN [[Image:Map of Ireland's capitals.png|15px]]\<sup style="color:blue;">(caint)|undefined 20:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Disagreed. It may work for some countries, but is not practical with Polish monarchs, producing strange and sometimes controversial and completly ORed names.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus <sup style="color:green;">Talk 20:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If it produces OR, then it is being misapplied; a policy which consists largely of following English usage should not produce anything original. It will, and I think should, produce different results than the Polish wikipedia. Septentrionalis 20:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. With the proviso that "basically sound" has a lot of elasticity. But I am not yet ready to propose, much less argue for, useful revisions. Septentrionalis 20:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed. My basic position is that any revision should build on the current naming convention, rather than jettisoning them and starting anew. I'm open to sensible revisions. john k 22:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I am very sympathetic to John's intent and reasoning here, but am disheartened by the frequency with which the current rules are flouted. I'm not talkling about the occasional difficult case where reasonable people may reasonably disagree (e.g. Victoria, Princess Royal or Alexandra Fyodorovna of Hesse). Rather, I refer to cases where the best-known name in English is rejected to apply criteria not in the naming conventions at all or openly contrary to them (e.g. Ernst August V, Prince of Hanover or Caroline, Princess of Hanover or Princess Astrid, Archduchess of Austria-Este). There just doesn't seem to be enough "buy-in" to these current rules for people to feel bound to comply with them. That leaves those who do feel so obliged frustrated that the "rule-breakers" have, by default, become the "rule-makers" because they're willing to make unilateral moves prior to discussion, to ignore discussion when they can't refute it, or to jettison rule-compliance the moment they get to vote on a name whose look they don't care for. Note, in recent votes on re-naming, how seldom the in-force conventions are cited as grounds, versus some criterion which the voter thinks should be the applicable naming convention. Abandoning the current rules would 1. confer upon those who tend to be "rule-compliant" the same license as the "non-compliant" exercise; 2. allow wide notice to be given of discussions and votes here that currently engage too narrow a group of editors in choosing rules "outsiders" won't respect. The nature of this page is such as to draw editors who have some current or historical interest in matters monarchical or noble. But most of those who object, for example, to ex-royals retaining monarchical page names tend, rather, to follow articles on particular nations in which they're interested. They won't weigh in until they stumble across articles that (they feel) treat their nation's deposed royals too deferentially. Why not invite them here before we vote on new rules, and avert future edit wars? 3. Allow a period of "official" anarchy here that may exhaust editors sufficiently for them to be willing to adopt new conventions (albeit the same as the old), to comply with those adopted, and to refuse to support the non-compliance of others. Sorry, John. Lethiere 00:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Support John's position and agree with Septentrionalis. -- Philip Baird Shearer 22:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Septentrionalis' proposal
Now I see what Piotrus actually wants. A large part of that is obtainable without drastic revisions, thus:


 * Add to the rule on pre-emptive disambiguation something like:
 * This is an exception to the usual rule of most common English name. Nevertheless, Monarch and Country should both be the most common form used in current English works of general reference.
 * Add the following permissive clause:
 * If a monarch is already disambiguated by some epithet (for example Ptolemy II Philadelphus or Matthias Corvinus), that form may be used without mention of country, but only if:
 * The name is consensus in current English works of general reference.
 * The name actually disambiguates. (For example, William of Orange, although quite likely consensus for at least one of its major claimants, does not disambiguate between them.)
 * Numerals should be used, but only if they are consensus and they do not distinguish between countries. (For example, James I of England is acceptable, but James I Stuart would not be; he's James VI of Scotland.)

Please refine. Septentrionalis 23:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This seems like a good idea to me. I would only add: that probably surnames should be included as possible acceptions, so we can have Stanislas II Augustus Poniatowski or John III Sobieski.  Articles like John III of Poland or Matthias I of Hungary are awkward and unpleasant.  I would suggest, though, that such exceptions only be made in cases where the absence of the epithet is more distracting than the deviation from the general naming convention.  William the Conqueror is very commonly used and disambiguates him from all other rulers named "William."  But there is value in the basic naming convention, and William I of England is not a disconcerting form.  Same deal for, say, Philip the Fair/Philip IV of France - although I think in that case there may be a couple of people called "Philip the Fair."  The basic naming convention should only be broken in situations where it looks really odd to follow it - this is true of Matthias Corvinus, or Ptolemy II Philadelphus, or John Sobieski, I think.  It's much less true of William the Conqueror or Richard the Lion-Hearted.  If we have a policy, we should abide by it whenever it's reasonable to do so.  But the naming policy isn't a suicide pact, and there's every reason to allow exceptions in cases where following the naming convention seems silly. john k 00:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This works for me. Deb 16:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I oppose taking Ptolemy II Philadelphus into this discussion at all. These conventions are intended for monarchs and nobles of Western culture where same first names are shareds between countries. It means, basically, later medieval period and era after Middle Ages. It does not mean European countries when they were pagan, as sharing same first names was not usual. It does not fit well to early medieval monarchs, whose "country" is a tribe or something like "of the Goths". This NC should be kept limited to where it has clear disambiguation value and does not produce oddball results. Examples which does not fit to the limits, are not to be used. Marrtel 20:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The question of which examples are to be used in the policy is one of the last we should settle; I was simply trying to be clear what I meant and what point there was to this. No medieval case, except Charlemagne himself, is quite as clearcut as the Ptolemies. Septentrionalis 20:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Besides, I say that one point in the conventions is stupid and OR: no medieval younger member of monarch's family should be automatically put under "prince", "princess" or like. I hope that clause in conventions is not written to extend automatically to anyone before 17th century. Marrtel 20:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with this. Septentrionalis 20:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The use of "prince/ss" was allowed here not to indicate personal title, but to help disambiguate. Otherwise, it becomes exasperatingly time-consuming for the user to figure out which "Marie of Austria", "Louise of France" or "Alexandra of Russia" was a sovereign, a sovereign's consort, or a junior dynast by blood. Royalty (outside Italy) seem to have been appallingly limited in imagination when it came to children's names, guaranteeing confusion for readers struggling to nourish a love for history. Let's not make it worse. "Prince" is not merely a title, but a position: it identifies at a glance what role a person played in a country's dynasty and/or history. If we want to prevent it from being mistaken for a legal title, then don't use it as a prefix, or don't capitalize it, e.g. "Henry the Navigator, prince of Portugal". Lethiere 03:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Lethiere is right on capitalization; but surely it is preferable to call Henry the Navigator Henry the Navigator?
 * It would be if that were how he is most commonly known in English usage. But in fact he is best known as "Prince Henry the Navigator". We violate the "best known in English" rule to retro-egalitarianize him. He was actually an infante, so his prince is not a retro-active assignation to him of a title he never bore, but of a position he actually held. Soon to follow, no doubt, will be edits based on these naming conventions that de-prefix Prince Valiant and Prince Charming to spare readers their anachronistic, classist titles. I say let's adhere to the "best known" and "disambiguate" principles, and not be afraid to deploy titles where readers would expect to rely upon them to find who they're looking for.Lethiere 03:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Septentrionalis 14:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Seems like a good direction. I would note that according to my research English texts quite often use nicknames for Polish rulers, therefore I suggest that as a general rule all of them should use either a nickname or a surname. This however does not solve the issue of what we do with the first name, especially as often it appears there are several to chose from, with none having a clear majority. The only rule I have spotted here is that the Polish one is among the most popular - so why not use it? Władysław is not that much difficult to prounce then Vladislaus, or Stanisław then Stansislaus... (I'd expect all of those are difficult for an English speaker who first stubles upon them). Instead of inventing strange spellings, use the Polish one and give the pronouciation guide. That's friendly to the end user and consistent with many English sources (check Google Print when in doubt).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus <sup style="color:green;">Talk  22:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * This would require documentation and consensus on a case-by-case basis. Piotrus ignores one clear problem, which he may not be aware of: Władysław is much more intimidating to the monoglot anglophone than Vladislaus. Septentrionalis 02:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, because monoglot anglophones don't know that the "W" is pronounced as a "V". That said, We are meant to use the most common form used in English.  The problem is, there doesn't seem to be such a form.  If we don't use "Wladyslaw", there's a half dozen different variations - Ladislaus, Ladislas, Vladislaus, Vladislas, Vladislav...how do we pick which one to use?  In such instances, it seems to me better to stick with the original.  As to Piotrus's comment about nicknames and surnames for Polish rulers, this is why I stuck in my "only don't use the normal naming convention if it seems weird to use it.  I think this applies to John Sobieski or Michael Wisniowiecki or Stephen Bathory.  I don't think it applies at all strongly to the Piasts, much less to the Jagiellons, Vasas, and Wettins. john k 11:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I could actually even stand Wladislaw; it's Władislaw, with the crossed ł, that I balk at calling the English form. But my own standards here require (mostly off-line) consultation of secondary English sources. I shall return. Septentrionalis 14:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that we shouldn't use Polish diacritics in article titles. My basic feeling on the subject of kings named "Wladyslaw" is just that looking at the sources will give you no idea of a consensus form - there's so many different latinizations and anglicizations and so forth, and there's no actual consensus.  I think in such instances it makes sense to stick with the original name. john k 17:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that unusual (from an English perspective) diacritics in article names are problematic. This gives me pause in endorsing Władysław.  On the other hand, if an appropriate redirect leads one from typing the relvant Wladyslaw, Vladislav, Vladislas, Vladislaus, Wladislaus to it, this should not be a problem.  There is, however, something unsettling about perpetuating a form like "Wladyslaw" -- it is attempting to be faithful to the Polish without actually doing that.  It only exists because someone is unable or unwilling to cross the ls.  So this would be tantamount to inventing yet another artificial form.  Unfortunately the choice between these forms is almost equally impossible, and there simply is no standard English (or for that matter Latin) form. Imladjov 16:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Other proposals
Please list your proposals as level three subheadings above. I suggest waiting for a straw poll at least a week so others can work out their proposals and we will see if any of them have more support then the current one. I suggest using first choice/second choice votes wort 2 and 1 points respectively.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus <sup style="color:green;">Talk 19:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Another Polish question - Province v. Voivodship
Since this seems to be a more centralized discussion location, I thought I'd bring it up here. There seems to have been another Polish-language issue which was being discussed on a fairly isolated page, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography of Poland, which could probably benefit from a more cross-cultural review with a wider variety of participants. As a quick summary: The discussion there is lengthy, but seems to be comprised mostly of members of the Polish noticeboard, and in places even lapses into the Polish language itself, as Piotrus quotes an "expert opinion" from a Polish official, but as near as I can tell, the question is whether the word "Province" should be replaced by the word "Voivodship", with a vote started in March 2006 at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography of Poland. Should this discussion perhaps be moved here instead? I'd like to ensure that it has the opportunity to be reviewed by a genuine cross-section of the Wikipedia community. A related move war seems to be going on at other pages such as Małopolska Voivodship (aka Lesser Poland Voivodship), and a discussion at Talk:Voivodships of Poland, which appears (to me) to have a consensus for the word "Province", though admin Piotrus disagreed. --Elonka 19:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * This issue would certainly benefit from a review. Two notes: 1) the "expert opinion" which Elonka put in quotes for some reason is an opinion of the president of the Polish translating society which basically sais there is no golden rule and all variants have pros and cons and can be debated forever. 2) Could you elaborate where it appeears to you there is a consensus I disagree with? I don't recall a single vote on that page... On the other hand there was a vote at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Geography_of_Poland in which I did not participate, although I agree with the consensus reached.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus <sup style="color:green;">Talk 19:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi. This is NOT the correct place for geographical designations. The guideline procuced and maintained by this convention deals mainly with "royalty and nobility" and always with persons. Our rubric is "Names and Titles", which means that this is the place sto seek advice, and to try change guidelines, about namings of such articles that are about persons who have names AND titles. And this is a really lively place, full of enthusiasts, presumably because honorifics are really the interesting, important, flattering and conversational topic over much else in this world. (No wonder that for centuries, even judicial courts have adjudicated cases to decide who is entitled and how and who is not to some honorifics). Anyway, not because I didn't want to deal with Polish provinces (lovely they are, no doubt), but: because this talk will not have so-called jurisdiction over that matter, hush, go away. I presume that the current, valid guidelines for namings of articles about geographical entities is Naming conventions (places) and consequently its talk forum is at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (places). Shoo... I might visit also there if you start a debate. Shilkanni 22:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Related polls on Polish monarchs
Interested editors are invited to participate in: a poll on whether or not to use diacritics in the titles of Polish monarchs. --Elonka 18:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Interested editors are invited to participate at the approval poll to decide on an article title at Talk:Boleslav I of Poland. --Elonka 00:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Poll closed. Consensus was to rename to "Boleslaw I of Poland" --Elonka 04:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

German Emperors
How strict must the form Name of Territory be? The three German Emperors (William I, Frederick III and William II) are currently up for move. As one may note, my current vote is at weak support. I really feel that the naming conventions (Monarchial titles 3.1) should be amended to allow these emperors to be titled in the same manner that the Holy Roman Emperors were; that is Name, German Emperor. Since there are only three of these emperors, I feel that it is very non-controversial... Indeed, the use of an anglicized forename seems more controversial than the title itself. Does anyone feel strongly that they should be kept at of Germany? The reason I ask is that I can foresee re-application of the Name of Place rule after a possibly successful move. Charles 05:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * See Talk:Wilhelm_II of Germany
 * The difference as described in Wilhelm_I,_German_Emperor, seems to me, 130ish years after the events, to be navel gazing. I thing the name in this case should reflect common English usage. These type of diplomatic nuances are not really of much relevance unless they have a practical implication. For example the British nearly always called the Soviets "Russians", but because that could be confusing to some and is technically incorrect, Wikipedia tends to use Soviets. But in this case:
 * The title "German Emperor" was carefully chosen by Bismarck and under discussion until (and after) the day of the proclamation. Wilhelm accepted this title grudgingly as he would have preferred "Emperor of Germany" which however was unacceptable to the federated monarchs, and would also have signalled a claim to lands outside of his reign (mainly Austria, even Switzerland, Luxemburg etc.).


 * I think is a bit OTT for naming considerations, and if it sets a precedent we could end up with lots of exceptions to this guideline. For example should Vicky be moved to "Victoria Empress of India" because the country is larger and the title more impressive? However like Charles in this case I have no strong opinion either way and will not take part in the RM survey unless someone persuades me that I should have a stronger opinion on the issue. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * We should not be amending these guidelines for all sorts of little things. Holy Roman Emperor, a bunch affecting several dozens of article names, has only an example witten there, not a fullu written rule with reasons. Three Germans do not deserve even as much space. That said, someone has written Wilhelm there as an example, and it should be changed to accordance with this proposal. Actually, this is an application of the rule "You can use a clear placename instead of an obscure official designation". I say that "German Emperor" is not obscure (its difference is well known to many people), it has a clear difference in meaning we should respect, and finally it helps to avoid a stupidly-messy parenthses in case of Fred III. In my opinion, for these German Emperors, that official usage is preferrable to regarding it as obscure. Let's just change that one simple example and be done with it. Shilkanni 10:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * "Empress of India" should definitely not be included, because British monarchs only used the title in India. Everywhere else they were the King/Queen of the UK - both within the UK, and diplomatically.  I think that makes the non-imperial title the more important one.  In terms of the German emperors, I think that a) the analogy with Holy Roman Emperors makes this less awkward and disruptive than, say, moving all the Belgian and Greek monarchs to Leopold I, King of the Belgians and Constantine II, King of the Hellenes would be.  And it also solves, as Shilkanni notes, the stupid parenthesis around Frederick III. john k 11:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * To repeat it: "of Germany" is wrong, "von Deutschland" was never used. All three were "King of Prussia", and the additional "German Emperor" describes more or less the primus inter pares role of "President of the United Kingdoms, Duchies etc. and Cities in Germany". Friedrich III is named and numbered after the Kings of Prussia, as this was their main "job", not by German Empire (that would have been Friedrich I) nor the HRE (Friedrich IV then). There is no President of America, either, but an American President. Any "common English usage" is sloppiness at best, a lie at worst, and needs to be corrected, not confirmed. Why not move the HR Emperors to "Emperors of Rome", if that is interchangeable, but the city is better known? BTW, I'm sorry that Philip Baird Shearer feels the need to get involved here, as he already made controversial edits regarding Memel and Klaipeda region, and exhausted my patience there. His remarks like "130ish years after the events, to be navel gazing", "diplomatic nuances are not really of much relevance" are not helpful. --Matthead 11:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The idea that the "main role" of the German Emperors was as Kings of Prussia seems dubious to me. Very dubious.  Both roles were important, of course, but I don't see how we can say that the older one is noticeably more so.  In terms of Frederick III, as I understand it, if he hadn't been in the process of dying of throat cancer when he came to the throne, his plan had been to take tha name "Friedrich IV," taking his numbers from the Holy Roman Empire.  Since he was in the process of dying, he didn't have much time to worry about this when he actually became Emperor.  And, er, the title of the American president is not "American President," but "President of the United States of America." john k 18:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Just as an aside: Given that the US constitution says "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States", I find it odd that the Americans use the term President like a title; and it is even stranger to my ears when the Americans do the same with the term Prime Minister. In Britain it is unusual to write about "Mr Prime Minister"(  – unless the copy editor had spent too much time watching FOX/CNN. --Philip Baird Shearer 13:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It's a shame that nothing official was ever really proclaimed, but is he most commonly referred to as the Third? To me, it makes sense... It's continuation of the numbering of the kings of Prussia. The First would make just as much sense to me, but it doesn't seem to be used at all. The title of German Emperor wasn't a transformation of a title, but the addition of another (e.g, not a case of going from archduke to emperor of Austria). Frederick was certainly entitled to I and III. The Fourth makes little sense to me, I'm afraid. It even seems controversial. If it was proclaimed, I'd bite my tongue. However, I don't think that the German Empire was a true successor to the Holy Roman Empire. It seems to me to be a mere solution to semi-unify various statelets and small kingdoms and duchies. Charles 18:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Is it really true that there were no official proclamations? Even if he only reigned for a few months, it seems likely that there would be some official documents that would give an ordinal.  I agree with you that "Frederick III" seems to be overwhelmingly the most used name.  The issue of things making sense is not necessarily that important.  As far as I am aware, Frederick III never actually proclaimed himself "Frederick IV", but I've definitely read that this is what he wanted to do.  I don't see this as any more ludicrous than the numbering of the Bulgarian monarchs, who took their numbers from the line of medieval Bulgarian tsars.  the first Frederick III lived much closer to our boy's time than Boris II of Bulgaria did to the next in the line, and the relationship of the two states to one another is at least as dubious as that between the Holy Roman Empire and the later German Empire.  john k 00:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Matthead does not appear to understand the policy he is discussing nor the reasons for it. Wikipedia expressly chooses common usage rather than any pretense to correctness; when we have failed to do this, the results have been long and pointless quarrels over correct usage. (He also misunderstands American usage; and oversimplifies the Second Reich: When William II abdicated "as German Emperor but not as King of Prussia", he did not in fact keep "his real job".) Septentrionalis 18:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

William, German Crown Prince
Now, I forgot one thing: What of "Crown Prince Wilhelm of Germany"? Shouldn't his titled be affixed to the end of his forename, as with all other past crown princes (who never acceded?) and current crown princes? Depending on whether William or Wilhelm is more appropriate (I prefer William, of course, but common usage may say otherwise), he would be at William, German Crown Prince or Wilhelm, German Crown Prince. Charles 17:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

We should not join the crown prince into this equation. I see nothing serious against him being at "W, Crown Prince of Germany". How about first seeing the result of the emperor naming, and then, if any question remains regarding crown prince, return to that. Shilkanni 17:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I've taken the liberty to make this a subheading, so that it will remain and will stay placed under the "emperor discussion" for reference. Charles 17:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * how was he styled? "Crown Prince Wilhelm" or "The Crown Prince". that should determine with title to use.--Jiang 21:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No, it wouldn't. The Crown Prince could have been called Crown Prince William, The Crown Prince or, outside Germany or in other German states, The German Crown Prince or German Crown Prince William. Whether or not his forename was included does not determine his title. Charles 23:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * why not? It is the difference between Charles, Prince of Wales and Prince William of Wales. The former is "The Prince of Wales" and never "Prince Charles of Wales" --Jiang 00:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Crown Prince is not a title that is shared amongst members of a family. There is only one Crown Prince for any given royal/imperial family. For instance, the children of a Crown Prince are not all crown princes and crown princesses in the same way that the children of a King and Queen are not all kings and queens. Charles 01:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * But frequently "Crown Prince" isn't an official title, unlike "Prince of Wales" or "King of Prussia". john k 19:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. Prince of Wales is an actual title and as such belongs in proper usage, expecially for those princes of Wales who never lived to become king. Imladjov 16:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Was there ever a proclaimation as to the title of Crown Prince of Prussia with regard to the German Empire? I am certain that there was never such a person as a "Crown Prince of Germany". Charles 01:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If he was not crown prince of Germany, that's clear enough reason to move him to crown prince of Prussia. Would you continue the discussion about naming of precisely one article at its talk page, Talk:Crown Prince Wilhelm of Germany, please. There, all evidence about what he was called in English sources, and what he was proclaimed and what not, should be given. This individual's naming is obviously not a question of principle, but about individual facts. Shilkanni 19:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Sovereign monarchs of unclear level
There are a bunch of monarchs in mists of Middle Ages whose titles are not very easy. Possibly the title has no established version in English. Or the translation may be misleading. Or not very much distinguishes these from kings - all we know, they may have been regarded as kings contemporaneously, and only later reconstructs of titles have lead to something else.

And then, totally another example, is William I of Albania whose title in Albanian was King, but abroad Prince.

I recommend to treat those medieval monarchs like they were kings. That would be simplest solution to uncertainty of translation of title, SINCE KINGS ACTUALLY DO NOT HAVE A TITLE IN THE ARTICLE NAME. Doing this, Wikipedia avoids quarrels over the proper title, its translation and its level. In my opinion, it is bad to put something constestable into the article name. With these monarchs, there is a systematical possibility of the translation or interpretation of their titles getting contested.

Examples include Nemanja of Serbia, a reigning prince whose son was the first to be officially crowned as king; Dan I of Wallachia whose realm now is regarded as principality though he was without any real subjugation to any higher king, and therefore much like king in his realm; Boris I of Bulgaria whose son was the first to be officially crowned as Tsar; Vladimir I of Kiev who (titled "grand duke") was more powerful than many kings and was undoubtedly regarded as sort of high king at his time. One of rather common characteristics for those examples is they were Eastern Europeans and their titles only got much later constructs and analogs, which themselves are not necessarily unanimously accepted. Marrtel 12:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree. The purpose of the "lower level monarchs include their title" rule is particularly to deal with things like Electors of Saxony, and so forth.  I think that for early eastern rulers, who often had a title like "Grand Duke" while being very powerful, we should stick to treating them like kings. john k 09:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I also agree with Marrtel. Boris of Bulgaria was actually king and Vladimir I the equivalent, although that usage never made it to Russia (technically the title "grand prince" -- or less accurately "grand duke" -- is a late 12th-century invention). Imladjov 16:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

European rulers whose English title is unambiguous and below that of King (e.g. Grand Dukes, Electors, Dukes, Counts, 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; but Dan I of Wallachia and Vladimir I of Kiev. Marrtel 19:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Russian Grand Dukes and Grand Duchesses
How are we to name the titular Emperors and Empress of Russia? For instance, we have Grand Duke Cyril Vladimirovich of Russia, Grand Duke Vladimir of Russia and Maria Vladimirovna of Russia. The latter I moved to Maria Vladimirovna, Grand Duchess of Russia following the format usually used for pretenders or exiled heads to a throne (i.e, George Frederick, Prince of Prussia and Ernest Augustus, Prince of Hanover). I feel the move was consistent with what is on Wikipedia already (the pretenders and Maria being referred to as Grand Duchess), however I feel it still needs to be discussed. Should we include patronyms and should the title remain in front of the forename or should it be appended to the end? I feel it should be tacked on the end. Charles 04:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Her title "Grand Duchess" is not above controversy. There are reasonable opinions that she is entitled to just "princess of Russia", or only to morganatic titles, and also that is controversial what is used of her. At one time, the article seems to have been at Maria Romanov. In my opinion, the article name should not endorse any of these titles. Grand duchess is therefore dangerous, POV. And, by the way, look what happened to the article and to the place, quite immediately, after Charles made that undiscussed move. That seems to confirm that endorsing any title to her article name leads to problems and potential warring. ObRoy 08:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I did now my best to help Wikipedia out of potential problems related to giving titles to this pretender. Firstly, there is now the disambiguation page of several similarly-named at Maria Romanova. All general names are intended to redirect to that. And then, the pretender herself is now at Maria Vladimirovna, which does not endorse either her being "of Russia" or only "Romanov/a", not either "Grand duchess" or "princess". Probably not a perfect solution, but contains less inherent POV than most of the other alternatives. And, the fork creations of coolwate, triggered by Charles' move, are now reverted, and the page's edit history is with the actual page. (Pessimistic question: how many minutes does it take until there exists again at least one fork..) ObRoy 09:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, it took 29 minutes. User:Watercool seems intent on persisting with the cut-and-paste fork, despite the warning given. Congratulations, Charles. ObRoy 09:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * If you have a problem with what I do, take it to my talk page, rather than leaving snide remarks in a place where policy is discussed. You're the last person who should be doing that and seem intent on accusing me, as seen in the page edit for the fork that Watercooler created, not I. Charles 18:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's "endorsing" someone's pretensions to use the title of pretension they use for themselves. She calls herself "Grand Duchess MV of Russia," and this is how she is generally referred to in the press and so forth. I don't see why we shouldn't follow that example? That some Russian monarchists/relations do not think she is entitled to the "Grand Duchess" title is no more to the point than that other Russian monarchists think she is de jure Empress Maria I of Russia. The point is what she calls herself and is generally called, not what she is "entitled" to, which doesn't make any sense anyway. john k 17:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. She should at leat have "Grand Duchess" and "of Russia" included. Charles 18:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Everyone is encouraged to go to Talk:Maria Vladimirovna to try solve her naming there. ObRoy 18:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Polish monarchs - update
The desperate situation in Polish monarchs seems to be starting to solve, as some of my requests for move got closed today. Yhe situation has been, how do I say, something like ridiculous. At the polls now closed, there were three sockpuppets of one Polish editor, fabricating the size of the minority, apparently in real terms only some six persons, to about ten. As there usually was a majority of something like 13-16 editors, this meants results that hanged close, closer than they really were. There also was certain delaying tactics from some of the minority's vocal representatives: denials of sockpuppetry, repeated bids for new vote, and move wars over some moved articles. For some reason, representatives of that minority camp always want to start a poll at situation where the page is at their preferred location. Future: there are about 50 articles of Polish monarchs. At this time, about ten to twelve of them are in locations guided by this naming convention, whereas as many as forty may (and will) need moving. It appears that representatives of that minority are demanding that each article's move can happen only as result of a requested move process. It moreover appears that in some cases they are demanding return of their positions and new polls also to those already moved articles. (Interesting development: one of those vocal representatives demanding new votes, got himself blocked for one year today in an unrelated editwarring situation. One vote less for that minority for a period of 365 days.)

The present situation can be viewed at.

What is more alarming, is that very many of the remaining wrongly-named monarchs have certain individual problematic features which may make even those who are familiar with this general monarch naming here, to split in opinions.

As you can see from the category link above, the chief wrongs with remaining forty wrongly-nameds are:
 * use of non-English first name, in practice means that a Polish spelling has been thrust upon English Wikipedia
 * liberal use of nicknames, a thing generally forbidden in our naming conventions.
 * lack of the territory-part of our pre-emptive naming formula: for most of these monarchs, it of course is "of Poland", but for some inexplicable reason, the words "of Poland" seem to be poison to many ethnically Polish editors. Sometimes it is poison to neihgboring Lithuanian editors, but this far, I have not seen them as big problem.

By the way, as far as I know usages in Polish language and culture, they have a real custom to call all sorts of monarchs by nickname appellations. There very rarely is any territory as designation, and if such exists, it regularly is for example the province where a king came from to rule the whole country. Like we "could" call Edward IV as Edward IV of York and Henry IV of France as Henry IV of Bourbon. But most usually all appellations are nicknames.

The history of these odd-looking names currently employed, starts from late 2005, half a year ago, when most or all of these monarchs were at places like "Wladislaus V of Poland". A group of editors, it seems all ethnically Polish, started to create a specific scheme to name Polish monarchs, and did it somewhere in a talkpage of some English Wiki's Polish project. Three such editors arrived at their own agreement, and moved all these articles to those so-called Polish names, of which you see many examples yet in the category. Opposition from a few non-Polish editors with that discussion did not deter them. After that, all efforts of others to move any of those monarchs to either their original page names, or to any Naming Convention -compatible name, have been reverted by representatives of said minority, usually by explanations "agreed in naming convention for Polish monarchs" or "discussion is ongoing, do not move". Marrtel 23:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh my God. They are a complete mess. It is like looking at the notorious mess that Wikipedia's royalty pages used to be circa 2002, when people used regional names, bad translations, heck any old thing as a name oblivious to the fact that at best no-one outside their country had a clue who the articles were about. At worst there were so many bad translations and makey-up names that even the people in the original countries hadn't a clue who on earth the articles were about. Perhaps the best solution is to return the articles en bloc to the version that corresponds the to NC and MoS names and then debate properly if any should be moved anywhere else. The current situation is a farce. It reminds me of when a user un unilaterally tried to rename Japanese emperors and produced such a mess that in the end even he didn't know what was where and end up constantly reverting himself. FearÉIREANN [[Image:Map of Ireland's capitals.png|15px]]\<sup style="color:blue;">(caint)|undefined 01:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm, yes, this is an irritating situation. I think that the test cases done show a sufficient consensus support for using anglicized names like Sigismund, Casimir, and the like.  Beyond that, I think we can say A) that Piotrus's naming conventions have proved not to have any consensus support behind them; and that thus B) we should go back to what this page says as the default.  A problem, though, is that B isn't all that clear.  What exactly do naming conventions say the monarchs who are referred to in modern Polish as "Władysław" should be called?  We have as possibilities Władysław, Wladyslaw, Wladislaus, Wladislas, Vladislaus, Vladislas, Vladislav, Ladislaus, Ladislas...possibly some others, as well.  I'm not sure that a massive fix is going to work. john k 03:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It does appear you are correct. Regarding the first name, this very dilemma convinced me to use a Polish name - since we have only one, and we cannot make a godo choice regarding an English one. However it does appear that my solution seemes to have not gained support of the community. I honestly don't know what else could we do, other then addopting some sort of 'count Google Books or encyclopedias and see which version is dominant' as I suggested above (with specific mechanics as in the WP:GN proposal linked above. On that note, I would also like to recommend reading the words of a professional historian regarding the usage of Polish names in English academic literature: Talk:Polish-Lithuanian_Commonwealth. What about the 'second part'? Would the following variant be acceptable to the community: 'First name as we decide later - roman numeral - nickname/surname - of Poland'? I am not happy with 'of Poland' for reasons explained above (Lithuania...) but if we have to have 'of country', can we have the nickname/surnames which as my Google Books searches (some of which I linked above) show are quite popular with some kings in English literature? Is, for example, 'Boleslaw I the Brave of Poland' be acceptable?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus <sup style="color:green;">Talk 20:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Not according to the present convention. If he's as well known under Boleslaw the Brave as Henry the Lion or even Frederick the Great, he doesn't need dabbing; if not, he should be at Boleslaw I of Poland. But Elonka's tests seem to be informative; a move request between the Brave and of Poland, with the Great of Poland as an alternative on an approval survey, might be worth it. Septentrionalis 17:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus' request for exception to use nicknames in naming of Polish monarchs
copied from above:


 * It does appear you are correct. Regarding the first name, this very dilemma convinced me to use a Polish name - since we have only one, and we cannot make a godo choice regarding an English one. However it does appear that my solution seemes to have not gained support of the community. I honestly don't know what else could we do, other then addopting some sort of 'count Google Books or encyclopedias and see which version is dominant' as I suggested above (with specific mechanics as in the WP:GN proposal linked above. On that note, I would also like to recommend reading the words of a professional historian regarding the usage of Polish names in English academic literature: Talk:Polish-Lithuanian_Commonwealth. What about the 'second part'? Would the following variant be acceptable to the community: 'First name as we decide later - roman numeral - nickname/surname - of Poland'? I am not happy with 'of Poland' for reasons explained above (Lithuania...) but if we have to have 'of country', can we have the nickname/surnames which as my Google Books searches (some of which I linked above) show are quite popular with some kings in English literature? Is, for example, 'Boleslaw I the Brave of Poland' be acceptable?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus <sup style="color:green;">Talk 20:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not see any particular need for allowing to use nicknames. We have naming convention which inhibits such additions. Some reasons behind that "prohibition" are:
 * systematicality suffers. It is not easy to predict if a nickname is used in article name or not. And with some monarchs, it is actually not easy to predict which one of their nicknames is used that time. Predictability is a virtue: editors writing text to other articles, should not need to go check where a monarch happens to live - easies quite a many's work when can be reasonably sure that the biogrphy is under firstname + ordinal + country.
 * briefness and simplicity suffers
 * sometimes nicknames are not supported by one camp and are eagerly pushed by another. There was a king whose established nickname in neighboring country's historiography was "the Tyrant". Also, it is not Wikipedia's task to endorse that one king was "Good" and another "Bad". We just tell, in the text of the article, if such nicknames were used of the person, and we usually try also to tell why. The article name has not sufficient space for such explanations. Therefore, we refrain from endorsing next to anything in article names.
 * quite always, nickname is redundant when regnal number already is there. Sometimes nickname is redundant in all cases.
 * we avoid many editwars over the article name when nicknames is not allowed at all there. Easier to have disputes in article texts than in article names.

That all said, there is the exception for nicknames in the naming convention. ("If a monarch or prince is overwhelmingly known, in English, by a cognomen, it may be used, and there is then no need to disambiguate by adding Country. Examples: Alfred the Great, Charlemagne, Louis the Pious, Henry the Lion, Skanderbeg, etc...". But there must be consensus so strong that it would be surprising to omit the epithet; and the name must actually be unambiguous. For example, although Richard the Lionhearted is often used, Richard I is not unusual, so he is at Richard I of England; again, if two kings of different countries are both known in English as Name the Great (for example Louis the Greats of Hungary and France), do not use the epithet but disambiguate them by country (those two are at Louis I of Hungary and Louis XIV of France).) The camp who desires the nickname to be used, should just prove that it is as surprising, to English-speakers, not to see the nickname in article title as it would be in Charlemagne's case - that the nicknamed version is overwhelmingly best known one. Most Polish monarchs do not fulfill that criterion. They can live very well under our general style "Vladislas V of Poland". Perhaps we should start opening way to certain other well-known nicknamed monarchs, beginning rather from such as Frederick the Great and Catherine the Great (I seem to remember what were their territorial acquisitions which were reasons for them to be Great and Stanislas August of Poland not necessarily as great). Would you like to name Frederick II of Prussia as Frederick the Great, Piotrus? Shilkanni 22:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Frederick II Great would be my preference, Frederick II Great of Prussia would be acceptable, too. For me, at least, nicknames are easier to remember then numerals, although I find them useful too. Why not have them both?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus <sup style="color:green;">Talk 04:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * We have redirect pages for nicknames. However he use the official name of the location of the main article. The official name includes the ordinal. That is why pages are located there. That is their correct official name. FearÉIREANN [[Image:Map of Ireland's capitals.png|15px]]\<sup style="color:blue;">(caint)|undefined 04:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Official names are not policy; and I don't think they should be.
 * This is a discussion of present policy. For the record, I doubt present policy would endorse Frederick the Great: Frederick II may be rarer, but it isn't weird. Frederick II the Great of Prussia is not on the list of possibilities; if Frederick the Great didn't disambiguate, it shouldn't be used. ~
 * Frederick II the Great would be worse than Frederick the Great; that does approach weird. Btw, Piotrus; idiom does require the here. Septentrionalis 17:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I realized that we have let the Polish monarchs naming evolve to a situation where there may come forth inconsistent results between quite similarly named monarchs. The thing is now somehow fixed with Casimirs I-III which are all now "of Poland", but there was an intention to start polls in each of them - and so, the results could have been individual to each one. One of the problems which should be solved separately, is the anglicized form of certain Polish first names. If the same idea of holding polls in each monarch happens with, for example, Vladyslavs and Boleslaws, we may end up with one Wladyslaw, one Vladislaus, one Ladislas, one diacritical Wladyslaw, etc. an with one Boleslaw, one diacritical Boleslaw, one Boleslas and one Boleslaus. Would you be amused... Those individual polls may very well priduce inconsistent results, since in those polls, all elements are "for sale", both the question of monarchical titles and the question of aglicization. sometimes people trade these when making compromise, thus possibly compromising both the two policies. And, this anglicization of first names actually is a question to be solved to a consistent line by the WP policy Use English, and it actually has next to nothing to do with the formula of how to express the titles/ monarchies of the rulers in question. The title and monarchy question is in scope of this guideline page, whereas Use English is a separate and established policy, not to be trifled here. Would it better to stop all starts of new polls for first names where already one is under poll? And to have a centralized poll over Bolaslas and a centralized poll over Vladislas, dealing with all similaly-named kings and princes of Ooland and dukes of Silesia, Masovia and so forth - under the premise that "if the first name will be anglicized, what is the most favored anglicization". Shilkanni 17:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The extent to which inconsistency matters varies; For example, we should be inconsistent about epithets if the evidence justifies it: Charlemagne, but Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor and Charles X of France. Again, results on the Polish Boleslaws may or may not matter for the Bohemian Boleslavs, (who are now at Boleslaus, btw). If you want to organize a central poll, please do; but I don't think Elonka's piecemeal results should be put on hold for it; that sort of hesitation is one reason things are as bad as they are. (And if we do actually reach an agreement on what to do about Vladislaus, it won;t be hard to go back and move the articles.)Septentrionalis 22:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not mean to have epithets as part of this. I mean only the adoptable form of Boleslas. And adoptable form of Vladislas. (Any other first names to consider? other first names seem to me much easier, or imposible to anglicize.) Yes, it is true that Bohemia also had Boleslases, and Hungary and Bohemia have Vladislases. But would it just be better to refer to results there when the we decide Polish ones? would it make the poll too heavy if we define that the adoptable form will then be the one for Hungary and Bohemia too? Of course it could be good that all countries have the same, but I have my doubts whether supporters of Boleslaw will accept the total drop of their preference from consideration just because to Bohemia it might be nonsensical. Shilkanni 22:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That's why this should be only Poland. We can refer to the result when running it over for Bohemia and Hungary (which may attract different editors); but we shouldn't just apply it. Septentrionalis 22:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Byzantine Emperors
Was anyone here aware that over at Talk:Constantine XI, about a month ago a "new standard" for naming Byzantine emperors was agreed to? The procedure seems to have been as follows:


 * 1) a discussion and vote was held with three options as to how to name and discuss Byzantine emperors in the text. The options were
 * 2) Use the Latinized name in the title and text, which was the previous default policy.
 * 3) Use the Latinized name in the title, but use the so-called Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium (ODB) format (anglicize given names with common anglicizations, but don't latinize given names without a real English equivalent or surnames) in the text
 * 4) Use the ODB format exclusively.

The result of the vote was about 10 for the first option, 10 for the second, and 7 for the third. Note that this was approval voting. All of the people voting for the first option only voted for the first option, while everybody who voted for the third option also voted for the second option.

At this point, things went into mediation. User:Digitalme was the mediator, and somehow came to the conclusion a) that the important issue was not "common usage in English," but what the "scholarly standard was"; b) that the "scholarly standard" was the ODB usage; and c) that option 1 should be discarded, that option 2 should be temporarily implemented, and that then there should be a vote on whether to move to option 3.

Then, there was a vote between option 2 and option 3. This time, the third option won overwhelmingly, and now all articles at Byzantine Emperors have been moved to places like Alexios I Komnenos and Romanos II and John VIII Palaiologos.

Am I losing it here, or is this a completely bass-ackwards way to come to a new policy? This seems even worse than the Polish issue to me, although a lot more people voted on it. Note that


 * 1) Discussion was held on a completely random article talk page (the talk page, indeed, for an article which would not itself be moved, and which was not even any kind of index page).
 * 2) Mediation was not an appropriate solution in a situation like this, and the mediator did not even bother to consider the controlling policy in this case, which is "common usage," not "scholarly usage." Mediators don't get to just take a side in a content dispute and then mandate that one of the options loses. This seems like a blatant misuse of the mediation procedure.

This procedure seems completely invalid and unjustifiable to me. If anyone else agrees, I'd appreciate some support over at Talk:Constantine XI. john k 13:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree with John k. Note however (I only mention this for completeness) that following entry can be found at Current surveys:"Talk:Constantine XI A survey over the substitution of 'traitional' Anglo-Latin names for Byzantine rulers with ther 'modern' Anglo-Greek counterparts. --Panairjdde 17:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)"But as said, for me this doesn't really mitigate john k's analysis. --Francis Schonken 13:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I came across that discussion. Being interested in Byzantine emperors, basically. I am for the result there now implemented, and would oppose if it is put to poll to be changed. Having now seen that it was announced in current surveys, it suffices for me in procedural view. It is impossible to reach everyone potentially interested editor, and that's why there is the noticeboard of current surveys. Regarding the place to make guidelines (and continue this discussion) for what is the best English form of someone' first name, it undoubtedly is WP:UE, and not this talkpage, since this page produces guidelines how to use royalty and nobility titles in article names, but the "jurisdiction" to guide spellings of foreign names certainly belongs to the division of "Use English". Have you asked input from there? Marrtel 13:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Since these are the names of royalty, for the most part, this page would be just as appropriate as "Use English" - I haven't posted it there as yet, but it would be appropriate to do so. At any rate, the procedural issue is more that it was discussed on an article talk page rather than a regular talk page. but that's not the main issue. The main issue is the farce of a mediation, in which the mediator threw out one of the main options, and then a user on the page decided that it was, thus, settled that that option was thrown out, and proposed a new vote between the two other options. This was a complete farce. john k 14:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The "mediator" decided which side was right, and imposed a decision without discussion. This is a temptation, but he should have just recused himself and voted.

On the substance: John Cantacuzene is English; John VI Kantakouzenos is not, and the usage of one reference work is not enough to make it so. (Oddly, I don;t mind the numeral as much as with Frederick the Great, I'm not sure why. Septentrionalis 17:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * On the procedure: those involved made proper enquiries and attempted to do the thing the right way, including contacting all those who seemed to be interested. If they in fact got the procedure wrong, it's because no one was around to tell them so. The same thing happened even at the Byzantine court occasionally ...
 * The only person whose actions were seriously at fault was the mediator, who violated the stated policy of the Mediation Cabal; that the mediator has no special authority. Septentrionalis 17:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * On the substance: the new current practice, now quite fully implemented, is (in my view) the right one for the English-speaking future and for Wikipedia's future, and the future begins now. The people who are actually writing and editing Wikipedia entries in this area appear to accept this current practice without discomfort. Alternative forms of names are being fully dealt with in introductory sections and in redirects. Therefore, I submit, there's no practical need to reopen the question. Andrew Dalby 08:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree on both counts, which is why I support this reopening of the discussion. Septentrionalis 17:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Septentrionalis.--Panairjdde 00:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

A move proposal has been made dealing with this at WP:RM; please discuss at Talk:List of Byzantine emperors. Septentrionalis 23:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Władysław I the Elbow-high
I've been unable to find any reference works which refer to this 13th century Piast monarch by the name Władysław I the Elbow-high (more often he seems to be Władysław I the Short, or Wladyslaw Lokietek), so I am going to suggest moving the page to a different title. At the moment, I am collecting data at Talk:Władysław I the Elbow-high as to how he is referred to in different reference works. If anyone has data to add (or suggestions for a new title), please feel free to participate. --Elonka 17:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Move request for emperors of the Palaeologus/Palaiologos dynasty
Hi. There is a move request for several Palaeologus/Palaiologos dynasty emperors at Talk:List of Byzantine Emperors. It has been requested, infact, as a form to decide the Naming convention for Byzantine Emperors. I tought some of you might be interested in.--Panairjdde 22:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Move request David -> King David
I'm sure this one throws up many issues, but I have started the ball rolling at Talk:David. In many ways it is the start of whether we sould take a more consistent approach towards firstname articles. However in the case of King David, the article is already heavily linked as 'King David' although both the titles 'David' and 'King David' would be at odds with naming guidelines here. -- Solipsist 06:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I have commented, at some length, there. On the general question, I think it depends on which name. There is a primary use for David, or Elijah; there isn't one for John. Septentrionalis 20:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes it depends on the name, and at the moment we are thoroughly inconsistent. See also for example Sarah and Merlin. The only NPOV approach I can think of is to treat all first names as articles on the name itself, or disambigs for people and places that use that name. For the article at David, it is not even the case that most editors naturally link to it that way. -- Solipsist 21:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * And we ought to be inconsistent; English is. Septentrionalis 23:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

is surname/ nickname overwhelmingly necessary in John II Casimir's article name?
Some people want to move John II Casimir of Poland to John II Casimir Vasa. I believe that move is against this naming convention which forbids use of nicknames (if not overwhelmisgly best known by it) and surnames when titling kings. Moreover, they want to remove the "of Poland" which is designated as a pre-emtive disambiguation - and there have been monarchs named John Casimir in other places. For some unknown reasons, Polish monarchs have long been a target of desires to always diverge from naming conventions. Could you visit that RM at Talk:John II Casimir of Poland and give your opinion whether the nickname/surname is or isn't really necessary there. Suedois 07:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Part of the problem with some of these monarchs, as I see it, is that they were often monarchs of/from so many countries (especially when the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was involved), that the "of Poland" suffix isn't entirely accurate, and can indeed be perceived as antagonistic to some other nationalities who claim the same royal, and are struggling, after the breakup of the Soviet Union, to re-establish their own national identities. For some of the other western European monarchs, I agree that it makes sense (and looks more tidy) to add the distinguisher "of England", "of France", "of Spain," etc., because that was their primary country.  But for some of the "Polish" monarchs, when there is clear controversy about which country they "belonged" to, I believe that it makes sense to test if there is consensus to omit that part of the suffix, as well as to carefully scrutinize how outside reference works (Encyclopedia Britannica, Columbia Encyclopedia, Encarta, etc.) refer to them.  It is a standard Wikipedia policy to follow the lead of outside sources. --Elonka 16:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * But the solution, as indicated in present policy, is to decide which realm he is most notable as ruler of. I see no question that Sweden, in his grandfather's case, and Russia, in his father's, are less notable as realms of these Vasas. This leaves the realm of Poland, or Poland-Lithuania (or, I suppose, Lithuania). Whether we call it Poland, as we call Henry of France and Navarre Henry IV of France; or whether we call it Poland-Lithuania, as we call another realm Austria-Hungary, is a question of English usage, on which I will not argue before seeing the evidence. Septentrionalis 15:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * John II Casmir Vasa forms a 'trio' of Polish Vasas, starting with Sigismund III Vasa, going to Władysław IV Vasa and ending with John II Casimir Vasa. I don't see why their name should not illustrate their small dynasty, epecially as they are habitually reffered to as 'Vasas' in the English academic literature, up to an including a fairly popular term "Polish Vasas".--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, let's see what happens if reasons expressed above are applied toother cases. Someone mentioned that because a monarch ruled over several countries, some of which struggle to establish national identity... For example, the current queen-regnant of the United Kingdomhappens to reign over several countries, some of which struggle to establish their national identity... voilá: If we have John II Casimir Vasa, we will accordingly have Elizabeth II Windsor. Suedois 18:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Adminship request
I have put myself up for adminship, partly to deal with the recurrent backlog on WP:RM. This page and the related topics are the closest I have come to administrative responsibilities, and I would appreciate your opinion at Requests_for_adminship/Pmanderson. Septentrionalis 20:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Scottish monarchs
Has anyone noticed that all of the articles on early Scottish monarchs have been moved to the Gaelic forms? This seems to be in direct violation of all applicable naming conventions. john k 03:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I started a discussion at Talk:Máel Coluim II of Scotland. [Cross post at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English). john k 03:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

A requested move has been opened at Talk:Cináed I of Scotland. john k 23:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Requested move update
All of the following name changes are being discussed at Talk:Cináed I of Scotland:


 * Cináed I of Scotland &rarr; Kenneth I of Scotland
 * Cináed II of Scotland &rarr; Kenneth II of Scotland
 * Cináed III of Scotland &rarr; Kenneth III of Scotland
 * Domnall I of Scotland &rarr; Donald I of Scotland
 * Domnall II of Scotland &rarr; Donald II of Scotland
 * Domnall III of Scotland &rarr; Donald III of Scotland
 * Donnchad I of Scotland &rarr; Duncan I of Scotland
 * Donnchad II of Scotland &rarr; Duncan II of Scotland
 * Máel Coluim I of Scotland &rarr; Malcolm I of Scotland
 * Máel Coluim II of Scotland &rarr; Malcolm II of Scotland
 * Máel Coluim III of Scotland &rarr; Malcolm III of Scotland

An approval poll is in-process, as of August 28. All interested editors are invited to participate. --Elonka 01:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Discussions are concluded. The decision was to restore the articles to their English names. --Elonka 04:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)