Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)/Archive 18

Gaelic Irish rulers
I'm guessing that the article doesn't mention Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles) by accident. As List of High Kings of Ireland and all other Irish kings articles show, absolutely no Irish monarchs are named in accordance with the guidelines here. Moving Toirdhealbhach Ua Briain to Turlough I of Ireland, or Domhnall MacLochlainn to Donald IV of Ireland, while apparently in line with these guidelines, might well be controversial. I presume that there's no objection to mentioning that here. If I'm wrong, speak up. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that'd be the natural consequence of following wiki guidelines. As usual, the busy-bodies haven't given that the slightest thought. Isn't it strange also that Irish Gaelic rulers have to have native names, but Scottish Gaelic rulers have to have English names? Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 22:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It would depend upon actual usage in English, and I'm not sure what it is for Toirdhealbhach Ua Briain. (I strongly suspect the same analysis would apply; but let me use an example I know.) Calling Niall of the Nine Hostages Neil I would be surprising to unrecognizable, so this guideline would indicate leaving him where he is under Exception 4, not moving him to Neil I of Ireland. I observe that neither that or Neil I exist even as redirects. Septentrionalis 17:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey, don't stop at Neil, go straight for Nigel like they do with some Scottish Nialls. Nigel of Ireland would be worth a laugh. Toirdhealbhach Ua Briain 537 is referred to in English as Turlough O'Brien 6,130 or even sometimes Turloch O'Brien 554. But as I think little of the "guideline" these days (surely anyone knowledgable to type it in directly is going to be more familiar with the proper name?), I'm not going to be suggesting a move. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 17:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I would type Turlough O'Brien; I can spell that :-} Septentrionalis 02:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I've added a link to the Ireland article; in the process, I note that they do things much the same way; the first two points under Manual_of_Style_%28Ireland-related_articles%29 are:


 * If someone used the Irish version of his or her name, and this enjoyed and enjoys widespread usage among Irish and English speakers, this should be reflected in Wikipedia. Thus, we refer to Máirtín Ó Cadhain, not "Martin Kyne"; Tomás Ó Fiaich, not "Thomas Fee", etc.
 * In cases where someone used the Irish version of his or her name but this does not enjoy widespread usage, then use the English version when naming the article but refer to the Irish version of the name in the first line. For example, Geoffrey Keating was Irish-speaking and probably never used that name himself. He is listed under Geoffrey Keating but the first sentence reads "Seathrún Céitinn, known in English as Geoffrey Keating, was ...".

This is much the same principle: is Kenneth MacAlpin, Cináed mac Ailpín, or Coinneach Mac Ailpín (which the Gaelic WP uses) in widespread use? That's an empirical question; let's see the evidence. Septentrionalis 17:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * So, is wiki's function to consolidate the position of inaccurate names? And it is wondered why so many don't like this "guideline". Anyways, the modern Gaelic btw should be "Cionaodh mac Ailpein" or "Cionaodh mac Ailphein", as Coinneach properly corresponds to Old Gaelic Cainnech, rather than Cináed. Alpín is a Scoto-Picticization of the Old English name Ælfwine, and is almost non-existent in modern languages. Also, unlike either Martin Kyne or Geoffrey Keating, there's no evidence nor any reason to believe that Cináed even knew English, never mind modern English, and even in that case the name would be Cyneath (as Dumville has shown, this is like an anglicization of a Pictish/Scottish name, and not a separate English name meaning "royal oath") and not Kenneth, which didn't exist for centuries to come. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 17:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No, the function of this wikipedia is to answer questions posed by anglophones. It is not to attempt to change English usage; there are other ways to do that. Septentrionalis 02:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * WP:IMOS gave us Diarmaid mac Cearbhaill and Flaithbheartach. It's quite inappropriate in many cases. Anyway, adding as a see also isn't addressing the issue, and I've got plenty more worms in the can. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

This argument is more about the politics of the users than common usage.

French speakers, German speakers, Italian speakers etc… have no problem in adapting the names of both places and people to their own language.

Thus, Henry VIII becomes Henri VIII, Heinrich VIII and Enrico VIII d'Inghilterra respectively.

This is English Language Wikipedia.

For the overwhelming majority of English Speakers*…The Gaelic Languages are unknown and Very Difficult to read and pronounce.

Using unfamiliar and complex Gaelic names, particularly in the text’s body makes that text very difficult to follow and disrupts the readers flow. Continually, you have to jump back and forth to check who is who…the article on Dermot MacMurrough is virtually un-readable because of this.

This will put people off from reading Irish & Scottish history, if you continue doing this.

The purpose of an encyclopedia is to inform, entertain and educate. By making it difficult to read you’re diminishing it.

Surely, best thing to do, is to use the name most familiar by common usage (Typically the Anglicized version) both text body & title with Gaelic version bracketed, when that character is introduced (into the text).


 * Please note that the majority of English Speakers are not American, Irish, British or Antipodean but are African and Asian…for them too, English is a second language. A free resource like Wikipedia, please don’t make it unreadable.

Jalipa 10:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Learning about any new topic requires learning new bodies of names. It's just an unavoidable thing one encounters when one reads about non-anglophone peoples. You're contradicting yourself, Jalipa. If wiki is for Asians and Africans, then names like Dermot and Duncan are as likely unfamilar as Diarmait and Donnchad. Why unnecessarily misinform people? BTW, Gaelic names are not hard to pronounce. These languages have pretty standardized spellings ... which is totally unlike English. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 20:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree. a) That I’m contradicting myself. b) That Gaelic names are easy to pronounce. c) That people are being misinformed.


 * a) Worldwide, more people are familiar with English & Anglicization than Gaelic.


 * b) The pronunciation of Gaelic is not obvious: Diamait, Cináed mac Ailpín, Coinneach Mac Ailpín, and the worst: Tairrdelbach mac Ruaidri Ua Conchobair (which is repeated in it’s entirety several time is the Dermot MacMurrough article).


 * Dermot, Kenneth MacAlpine and Turlough O’Connor are easy both to pronounce & memorize. All languages do this kind of thing.


 * c) Anglicization does not “misinform” people. I would suggest the exact opposite. Anglicization, by making it easier to understand, opens the subject up to wider audience. Jalipa 14:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Turlough is certainly shorter, but does it rhyme with thorough, through, rough, hough, dough or something else ? Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It rhymes with Lough. "Like a dog lapping soup the names of the MacLeans..." Septentrionalis 15:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Monarchs
The monarchs section is written as though assuming that the title should not be part of the article name, but I don't see anywhere where it actually says that. Gene Nygaard 10:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Monarchial titles, paragraph 1: Pre-emptively disambiguate the names of monarchs, of modern countries in the format "{Monarch's first name and ordinal} of {Country}".
 * This does not include title, so it should be omitted. This was the intention, and I think it's clear; but we can add it if there is some actual misreading. Septentrionalis 21:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm always uneasy drawing implications from what is not stated.
 * I was mostly making sure that we should be tracking down and changing articles such as Köprülü Mehmed Pasha and removing the "Pasha" from the article name. Gene Nygaard 02:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure Pasha should be omitted. He wasn't the monarch, and Pasha, like Earl, is a subordinate title. On the other hand, he's often called simply Mehmed Köprülü, which I hope is a redirect. Septentrionalis 20:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguating queens consort
The existing convention is not entirely clear about how we disambiguate queens consort who would otherwise have the same name, although we managed it pragmatically with Maria Anna of Bavaria. A thornier problem arises when applying naming conventions rigidly means giving a queen regnant and a queen consort the same name. This problem has arisen with Margaret of Scotland, Margaret of Scotland (Queen of Norway), and Margaret of Scotland (Dauphine of France). To complicate matters, the first is not generally known by this name, but as "the Maid of Norway". Scottish royals roughly before the time of Robert the Bruce do not have generally accepted family names, so it would be awkward to try to use one. Does the queen regnant automaticall take priority, or should we treat "Margaret of Scotland" as a disambiguation? As a general rule monarchs are more important than consorts, but in this case she was only a child who never ruled herself. The dispute about whether she was a queen is irrelevant. PatGallacher 00:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the last two comments indicate that we need to clarify that this guideline does lead to
 * Most royals having no title; but that
 * Name of Place with no title does not assert royalty. Septentrionalis 17:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Name of Place or even Name of Country does certainly not assert royalty, or being monarch. If that is a premise in naming kings, it is unthinked and will be unsuccessful. Particularly in Middle Ages, there are number of commoners known as "Name of Place" or "Name of Country" or suchlike. Bridget of Sweden was not a queen nor a princess. And, "of Some Town" is actually a usual designation of centuries-ago people instead of surnames which they did not have. Suedois 16:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Cardinals
I have inserted here the text on which consensus is being reached at Naming conventions %28Western clergy%29, so as to allow input there from readers of this page.

The new text is also in much better accord with the policy indicated in Naming conventions (people):


 * don't add qualifiers (such as "King", "Saint", "Dr.", "(person)", "(ship)"), except when this is the simplest and most NPOV way to deal with disambiguation

and


 * Similarly, "King", "Queen", "Blessed", "Mother", "Father", "Doctor", "Mister", or any other type of qualifier is generally avoided as first word for a page name of a page on a single person, unless for disambiguation or redirect purposes

Lima 08:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Male consorts
I've changed the conventions to indicate that only queen consorts are intended when we say that no title is used in articles on consorts. Titles should most certainly be used for people like Prince George of Denmark. This was generally understood, I think, until some months ago when Cvfh decided to move George and Prince Albert's articles, supposedly to conform to naming conventions. john k 19:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I have reverted the conventions to the way the stood until yesterday. Such a major change should only occur after discussion on this page.  Noel S McFerran 19:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not a major change. It's a clarification.  If you'll read archival discussions of this issue, you'll see that it was never intended to refer to male consorts. john k 19:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The conventions do not distinguish between males and females, nor should they. Charles 21:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I brought this up when the changes to George and Albert were put into place, too. I've always known both of them to have Prince before their name when referring to them and I imagine I'm not the only one. Although I couldn't back it up, I think Wikipedia (or at least, those involved) are taking it too far when dropping pre-marital titles, in respect of male consorts anyway. Craigy (talk) 21:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The only common names I have heard for the princes with "Prince" included are Prince Albert and Prince George, with no territorial designations. Those don't qualify under the conventions. It may be seen as taking it too far for the females, even. I am quite sure that there are countless queens (etc) who are better known by their married names than by their maiden names but conventions say otherwise. Charles 21:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with john k that there should be an exemption for male consorts, it's not usual IMO. Prince Albert was after all known as such, not necessarily under his Wiki consort name, because in that case we would have a confusion of him being a sovereign of Saxe-Coburg. Gryffindor  23:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Princes Albert and George are, or should be, covered by the same sort of general exception as 4 under monarchs. All articles should be at sensible names, and if the guidelines result in something else, make it clear that they have exceptions. Not that it should matter what the guidelines say if common sense tells you something different: WP:IAR and WP:NBD apply everywhere. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Angus, what are you supporting here, exactly? Prince Albert and Prince George are both ambiguous.  john k 02:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

(Unindent) I'm not supporting anything, only opposing the idea of adding ever more byzantine guidelines. Having said that, the most obvious prince consort is Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, which might be a clue as to how the less obvious ones might be named. Since the matter is contested, discussion here is not the answer. After all, there's a process for moving pages. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Philip, for the time being, is living. Charles 00:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

In general, I agree with John. The succession laws are such that most male consorts keep their titles or are given new ones, whereas female consorts simply go by their husbands' titles. Deb 16:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I also agree with john k that his modification constituted a clarification rather than a change. I just read back through all of the archives, where the examples given regarding consorts are usually in the "Other Royals" section, and the examples given and discussed that I could find are of female consorts. Male consorts differ fundamentally from female consorts because the latter automatically take the feminine version of their husbands' titles (in most cases), whereas that has been the exception for male consorts (and the more recent the case, the more exceptional it is). Spain and Portugal had kings-consort as recently as the 19th century, but Spanish law now designates future male consorts by the title "Prince of Spain". Indeed, the trend is against males sharing their wives' monarchical title (Denmark, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Spain, UK). Female consorts all have a maiden name and then share their husband's title: That situation is covered by this guideline, whereas no such pattern exists for males and no male examples have been included in the guideline. So a separate rule for male consorts is appropriate, but needs to be agreed upon here. I propose that such consorts' articles appear in WP under their marital title while they live, and under their pre-marital name posthumously. Lethiere 18:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, everybody seems to agree with me, or to not have expressed a clear opinion, except for Charles. Given that, I'm going to make the clarification, and move the articles back. john k 12:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The fact that there is no clear opinion among some and not a whole lot of agreement indicates that this needs further discussion. I am reverting the changes to the guidelines. I don't know how such an artificial construction can be applied to all females but not to males, when both were consorts and not all females ever used this form. Charles 14:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd like to point out that the subject of male consorts has been discussed previously, and consensus was reached early in the history of the naming conventions. The fact that the wording of the conventions was still unclear doesn't mean that the conventions hadn't already been discussed and agreed in principle. Deb 16:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The implementation of ambiguous conventions after such discussion necessitates further discussion of the subject. Charles 16:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Invites rather than necessitates, perhaps. - Kittybrewster 18:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Charles, it has been explained why male consorts are different from female consorts. Female consorts become Queens, so referring to them as "Princess X" is confusing, which is why we don't include "Princess" in their article titles.  Prince Albert and Prince George remained princes throughout their lives, so it is not confusing in the same way.  Beyond that, there is absolutely no consensus for your interpretation of the rules, so the articles on Prince Albert and Prince George ought to be moved back to where they were for a long time, until such time as a consensus comes around to your position. john k 14:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I hate to disappoint you, but I support about half of his interpretation. I think the consort rules are broken, and that we should follow actual usage - which is largely, but not always, the same thing. Nevertheless, usage seems to me to be Prince Albert and George of Denmark respectively; James Hepburn, 4th Earl of Bothwell and Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley work fine for male consorts who are not royal by blood, and again, reflect usage.  Septentrionalis 19:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, it wouldn't be much of a discussion if you didn't disagree with me. Prince Albert is ambiguous - there are various other Prince Alberts of note, particularly the current sovereign prince of Monaco, who is generally known as "Prince Albert."  With current wikipedia naming conventions George of Denmark suggests that he was the king of Denmark, which of course he was not.  And I'm not sure why you find "George of Denmark" to be more commonly used than "Prince George of Denmark".  In both cases, the title you suggest doesn't work.  Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha and Prince George of Denmark, beyond being where these articles were at for ages, are unambiguous and plausible titles.  Charles' interpretation of naming policy, an interpretation which nobody yet (including you, apparently) agrees with, should not be a basis for moving articles which were at one location for a long time.  The articles should go back, and people should do RMs if they want them to go somewhere else.  I'm not going to actually move them back until I'm assured that Charles won't just go ahead and continue the move war (Prince Albert, in particular, has a ridiculous number of redirects that need to be corrected after each move), but this is quite obviously the correct position.  At that point, if you (or Charles, or whoever) want to propose moves, go ahead, and let the chips fall where they may.  But Charles's unilateral moves shouldn't get to stay simply because he's more persistent. john k 11:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I have no issues with Prince George of Denmark, but I think Albert is rather better known for being Victoria's Prince Consort than for being a prince of some postage stamp German principality. What's wrong with Albert, Prince Consort (or Prince Albert, Prince Consort if tautology doesn't offend) ? Open a requested move and then you'll be able to determine what the consensus actually is. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Albert, Prince Consort (or Prince Albert, Prince Consort) would be potentially alright with me. Better than the current title.  My basic position is that we should move the things back to where they were at before any requested moving is done.  I'm not the one who moved the things without an RM - Charles is. john k 15:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Titles granted to consorts are always of importance, so I would be fine with such a name. Howeverm, my previous moves were made in compliance with standing guidelines. Compare Henrik, the Danish consort, with Albert for naming. Charles 16:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm having difficulty with this rationale because I can't agree that "James Hepburn, 4th Earl of Bothwell" and "Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley" are "usage". Usage would be "James Hepburn" or "the Earl of Bothwell", and "Henry Stuart" or "Lord Darnley". It seems to me that Wiki's foremost naming standard is usage, but that isn't its exclusive standard. Usage is normally blended with other criteria for encyclopedic reasons of clarity, NPOV, consistency, disambiguation, globalization, etc. In English-language communication my guess is that Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom is more often referred to as "the Queen" or "the Queen of England" or "Queen Elizabeth". For that matter, "Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh" is probably most often just called "Prince Philip" and the current "Princess Royal of the United Kingdom" is most often "Princess Anne", and so on for UK royalty. But none of the most used locutions is the title of a Wiki article because they don't go far enough to meet other Wiki criteria.
 * Therefore, I think that the current disagreement over Victoria's consort mixes up two issues: 1. are the conventions governing female consorts to be applied to male consorts, and 2. given that "usage" is the primary consideration, to what extent should the most common name be compromised in order to address other relevant conventions? I think inclusion of the most appropriate among surname ("Wettin"), geographical reference ("of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha") or (unique or rare) title ("Prince Consort") is needed in male consort article names. Lethiere 22:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the move to the present title. The article was properly placed at Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha.  Deb 19:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * According to whom? Charles 22:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * According to me, for one. He is always known by this title in the UK.  The article title was arrived at after much discussion and should not have been changed without consultation. Deb 22:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Always? Saxe-Coburg and Gotha or Saxe-Coburg-Gotha? What about plain old "Prince Albert" or the "Prince Consort". Is he not known by those? Charles 23:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Sometimes - but never by the title the article is currencly at. Deb 10:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * One related problem is that some editors (including the two major parties in this dispute) move pages unilaterally. They come across a page the name of which they consider does not conform with the Naming conventions and move it without discussion. The conventions allow for exceptions to the general rule.  Were there always discussions before a page move, this kind of thing could be avoided.  (Related to this is the changing of all page names form "Saxe-Coburg-Gotha" to "Saxe-Coburg and Gotha" in spite of the fact that English-language usage is overwhelmingly for the former). Noel S McFerran 13:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * True. That's why I've put in an RM request for what I consider an essential move. Deb 15:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The conventions (see #10) specifically state that they apply to male consorts as well as female consorts: "The same rule applies to male royal consorts.". The current name for the article follows the naming conventions. &mdash; Chidom   talk   01:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

This convention is completely broken
I've been going through various related articles, and I've come to the conclusion that these naming conventions are completely broken. A couple of points:


 * 1) For reigning monarchs, it is generally adequate, save that Polish monarchs, due to advocacy largely by Polish wikipedians, do not follow it at all.
 * 2) The other problem is regnal number for monarchs who are the only one of the name. Usage seems to be wildly inconsistent here, and often a number seems to be added not because the person in question used one, but in order to disambiguate (c.f. Alexander I of Greece).  In other instances, like Louis Philippe, no ordinal is given, even though he was "Louis Philippe 1er."
 * 3) Another problem is what form of the name to use, which is wildly inconsistent. This is problematic with some reigning monarchs.  For instance, All the Kings of Sweden who have traditionally been called "Gustavus" in English and who are called "Gustaf" in Swedish are for some reason called "Gustav" on Wikipedia.
 * 4) The problem even worse with non-reigning monarchs, and especially with royal women who marry men who are royals in other countries. What form of name do we use for a Spanish infanta, born and raised in Italy, who married a German husband and lived with him in Italy, where he was a Grand Duke, for most of her married life, before moving for her last two years to Vienna where she became Empress of the (largely German) Holy Roman Empire?  She was also Queen of Hungary and Bohemia.  Should she be the Spanish Maria Luisa, the German Maria Ludovika, the anglicized Maria Louisa? There are also serious issues with the endings of German feminine names - forms like "Marie" and "Maria" seem to be used indiscriminately and interchangeably, with no particular way to tell which one should be used.
 * 5) What do we do with people who have the same name? There seems to be a strong tendency to artificially disambiguate by making up slight variations on the same name.  Thus, we have Prince Henry of Prussia and Prince Heinrich of Prussia, in spite of the fact that both men could be known by both names, and are.  We also have even worse examples of similar things, as for instance when a long list of middle names is added to the title, not because the person was called by them, but in order to disambiguate.
 * 6) Russian consort naming is completely out of whack - just look at it. For the 6 russian Empresses between 1796 and 1917, we have five completely different forms in use.  How on earth is anyone supposed to know that Maria Fyodorovna refers to the wife of Alexander III and Maria Fyodorovna of Russia refers to the wife of Paul I?
 * 7) consort naming in general continues to strike me as problematic. We've had debates about male consorts, with no consensus in sight, but the current female rules seem particularly anglocentric to me, in that they are based on common usage with British consorts.  Does anyone actually call the late wife of Frederick IX of Denmark Ingrid of Sweden?  Genealogists do, but wikipedia is not a genealogy reference.  There's also problems with how to determine the "maiden name."  Louis XIII's wife is traditionally called Anne of Austria.  This is not because she was Austrian (she was Spanish), but because she came from the House of Austria.  her niece and daughter-in-law, also a Spanish Habsburg, is at Maria Theresa of Spain, although parallelism would suggest either Marie Thérèse of Austria or Anna of Spain.
 * 8) Additionally, the consort naming rules lead to confusion with the main monarch naming rules. Anne of Austria could be a queen consort from Austria (or, er, Spain), or it could mean Anne, ruling Empress of Austria.  Similarly, Victoria of the United Kingdom is the proper title in our naming conventions not only for Queen Victoria, but also for her eldest daughter, who became (briefly) German Empress and Queen of Prussia.

I'm not sure if there's any good way to resolve all of this. I will suggest one basic thing that I really do think should be in there: if two dynasts are known by the same name, disambiguate by birth and death dates. This will eliminate a fair amount of the inconsistency, and especially the creation of arbitrary article titles created entirely for the purposes of disambiguation. But it won't solve a lot of it.

I'm not sure what more to say about this. The current naming rules are incredibly complicated, and yet still far from clear on any number of issues (what I highlighted above is just a start.) Some potential suggestions that might help, but proposed much more tenuously than the previous proposal, are:
 * 1) Eliminate the current "Name Ordinal of Country" rule for monarchs. Instead: a) only disambiguate when necessary; and b) disambiguate parenthetically.  Thus, instead of Henry IV of England, Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor, Henry IV of France, Henry IV of Castile, you'd have Henry IV (England), Henry IV (France), Henry IV (Holy Roman Empire and Henry IV (Castile).  For monarchs who are the only one of the name, just have Louis XIV or Frederick William IV.
 * 2) Eliminate the current consort rule. Only use maiden name to disambiguate when this is commonly done (e.g. Anne of Austria, Catherine of Aragon, Anne Boleyn).  If the person is the only person by a given name to have been consort of a given country, there's no reason to not simply use that - Queen Marie of Romania only refers to one person in all of human history.  Why refer to her by the entirely unrecognizable Marie of Edinburgh, which is a ridiculous artificial wikipedia form, in any event?  In other, more ambiguous cases, disambiguation by date might be done...
 * 3) Try to come up with some kind of consistent rule to deal with princesses who marry princes who never become King or Grand Duke, or whatever. This is a particular mess that I didn't even mention above - there is absolutely no consistency in such cases.
 * 4) More broadly - wikipedia is not a genealogy source. Using genealogical rules for how to name articles is counter-intuitive and often awkward looking.

At any rate, the current rules are deeply intricate, but largely useless. I think we can do better.

Last thing - over on my user page I've been trying to make a fairly comprehensive list of European Queens consort from 1500 onwards. In organizing the list, I've also included in the table the monarchs they were consort to. I hope this is a useful resource for everyone. One thing you will notice as you look at it is how wildly inconsistent naming can be. See it at User:John Kenney/Queens. john k 17:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You're terribly right, alas. I am trying to create a naming convention for the French Wikipedia, and I find that the only written one, the English one, is very complicated and seldom used. For the names of every regning monarch I propose this:
 * Use the English name when it exists : Charles XVI Gustav like Charles X Gustav, not Carl XVI Gustaf (the choice between Gustav and Gustavus is another problem. I don't speak English well enogh to have an opinion about it).
 * If no English form exists, or no Latin (for example) form used in English, then use the form in it's original language: Ladislaus III or Ladislas III, and not Władysław III; but Taishō or Taishō (emperor of Japan) and not ... not any translation of it!
 * If a foreign monarch is well-known under his foreign name, we can tolarate it: Juan Carlos I, rather than John Charles I; Baudouin I (king of Belgium) rather than Baldwin I. But we can't if this monarch uses one of his predecessor's name: the next king of Spain is to be called Philip VI, not Felipe VI. generally, try to avoid such foreign names if such foreign names can be avoided: Henry (grand duke of Luxembourg) rather than Henri.
 * Never use the term of Somewhere, which is not a part of the name: Louis XIV better than Louis XIV of France.
 * Never use systematic titles wich are not a part of the name: Go-Sakuramachi, and not Empress Go-Sakuramachi; John Paul II, and not Pope John Paul II; Bartholomew I, and not Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople.
 * Never use surnames or nicknames of monarchs: Napoleon I and not Napoleon I Bonaparte; Gustav I, not Gustav Vasa; Ladislaus III instead of Władysław III Spindleshanks; except if the nickname is the only way to disambiguate two monarchs with the same name.
 * If an ambiguity does exist, use desambiguation parenthetically, with a clear definition of the title: Louis IV (king of France), and not Louis IV of France, nor Louis IV (France): Louis IV was a king of France, not a France. Names like "king" or "emperor" don't need a capital letter of course. Pre-emptive disambuguation are to be avoided: Louis XIV rather than Louis XIV (king of France).
 * If a monarch is the only one to bear his name, use the numeral I only when it is officially used (most often for recent monarchs): Baudouin I (king of Belgium) and not Baudouin, but Henry (grand duke of Luxembourg) and not Henry I.
 * If a monarch has an official regnal name, use it, even if it's not the most known one: Benedict XVI and not Joseph Ratzinger; Meiji or Meiji (emperor of Japan), and not Mutsuhito; Shōwa, or Shōwa (emperor of Japan), and not Hirohito. Since the Japanese emperors take their regnal name only when they die, the present emperor can be named by his personal name: Akihito, and not Heisei, but his article will have to be renamed after his death into Heisei or Heisei (emperor of Japan) as surely as the article Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger was renamed into Pope Benedict XVI on the very hour of his election.
 * If a monarch has two names, both abinding by this naming convention, the choice of one of them on the other is not really important: both Kōken and Shōtoku are correct. If the two titles are unequal, prefer the most prestigious one (emperor upon king upon prince upon duke...) : Ladislaus II (king of Poland) rather than Jogaila. If a monarch of a country is more trivially the monarch of another less important country, just use the name he bears in the first one: Philip III (king of Spain), rather than Philip II (king of Portugal).
 * Create a template to place in every article found that doesn't respect the naming convention. Some will find better just to change directly the name of the article, but a lot of them have their present title after long disputes. I think that placing this template first could be a good first step, and maybe the user who find the article's title wrong may prefer to have the opinion of other users. To place the template is easier than to take the decision to change the article's name.
 * For consorts or members of a royal family, I have no ideas yet.
 * Švitrigaila 18:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I had detailed point by point responses, but I got edit conflicted and don't feel like merging them in again. Basically, I disagree with you about anglicization. Inconsistency is definitely a problem, but anglicizing more often is not the solution. Carl XVI Gustaf and Henri are called that, not "Charles Gustavus" or "Henry". I would, alternately, propose a date-based cut-off. European monarchs ruling before World War II should, by default, be anglicized unless it can be demonstrated conclusively that this is not the most common form. European monarchs after World War II should not be anglicized unless the reverse can be shown. This would allow for exceptions like Carol I and Constantine II, but also acknowledge that there is a genuine distinction to be made between the two time periods. In terms of disambiguation, pre-emptive and otherwise, I at least partially agree. I want to remove the "X of X implies monarch" idea, because "X of X" really should not imply monarch, and monarchs known as things like William of Holland and Philip of Swabia should be at those locations, rather than bizarre artificial locations because those titles currently imply that they were kings of Holland and Swabia, respectively. I'm somewhat concerned about "systematic titles". When are they part of the name? Are we limiting this rule to sovereigns? At what point does a ruler become a sovereign? john k 19:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Er, rereading, I think I wasn't very clear. What I mean by the last point above is, "what exactly is a reigning monarch?" This can become very confusing in the Middle Ages. john k 19:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I prefer to use English names in English, French names in French, and so on. I know I'm a minority, so I don't insist on it. but i think it's intersting to keep the traditions, and if there is a tradition to translate the Swedish Carls and the Spanish Felipes, there is no reason to terminate it.
 * This naming convention mustn't be limited to sovereigns. It can be expended to every people bearing this kind of name. For exemple some religious leader (the pope, but a lot of Eastern Orthodox Churches' leaders two), or rulers of territories bearing these kind of names.
 * Sorry for the editing conflict, it was you or me! Usually, it can be resolved easily by copiing and pasting what you wanted to write. It's just what I'm doing right now!! Švitrigaila 19:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

"Never use surnames or nicknames of monarchs" is completely unacceptable. Renaming Charlemagne to Charles I (Holy Roman Empire) or Edward the Confessor to Edward III (England, first series) is not an option. And let's not beg the question by dismissing bynames which have been in use for a centuries as "nicknames". Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, I think. I was going to say so in my original comment, but forgot, or decided not to, or something. Charles the Bold would be a far better title than the absurd Charles I, Duke of Burgundy, and similarly for many other medieval type rulers, who are better known by their by name than ordinal.  On the other hand, I think that where it would be natural to use either byname or ordinal, we should favor the ordinal.  So Edward I rather than Edward Longshanks, for instance. john k 22:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I personally think that what John is saying touches upon many things that should be fixed, but there are some things I do not agree with. I don't think the territory should be omitted if there is only one Louis XIV for instance. I also don't think that the territory should be placed in parentheses. To me, parentheses should only be used as disambiguation between two people with the same name (and that includes the same territorial designation). I think the ordinal think can easily be fixed... One just has to go with what was actually used. If there was only one monarch of a particular name then it must be determined whether or not he or she used "the First" or not.


 * But why, exactly, should Louis XIV be disambiguated? There is only one person ever called Louis XIV.  I would add that for kings, the territorial designation is not part of their names.  Louis XIV's name was "Louis XIV," not "Louis XIV of France".  For instance, in my view at least, the thing that goes before birth and death dates on monarch articles should clearly be Louis XIV (1638-1715), not Louis XIV of France (1638-1715).  In terms of ordinals: Maybe.  But what do we do for the ones where an ordinal has been added to disambiguate?  C.f. Alexander I of Greece.  john k 03:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Parenthesising the disambiguation, including the territory, is technically better from an editing perspective and makes no difference to the reader. Endlessly typing Henry IV and the like becomes tedious very quickly. Henry IV (Holy Roman Empire) is rather easier. For pre-modern people, either ordinals are used by historians, in which case they should be used here too, or they aren't, in which case whatever system the historians use should be followed. For modern people, it should be very easy to determine the common usage in English (i.e. Louis Philippe Ier is not called that in English and the only way that would be justified on WP would be if all French rulers were given French names). Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * In terms of ordinals for modern monarchs, I'm not sure I agree. On Louis Philippe, obviously we don't use the little superscripted "er" to mean "Premier".  But He was Louis Philippe I (and arguably one could call his grandson Louis Philippe II).  Also, what, precisely, is the usage on King Karl of Württemberg? Is he Karl I, or just Karl, or Charles, or Charles I?  I am probably better equipped to answer this than most people, and I will say that I have absolutely no idea on either the anglicization question or the ordinal question.  One would have to go to fairly specialized or detailed books to even find him mentioned.  I would imagine that, at the time, he was usually called "Charles" in English.  But the New York Times article from 1891 about his death calls him "Karl I." and his successor "Wilhelm II."  And I really have no idea what current usage would be.  More likely Karl than not.  But it seems to me that it's pretty close to completely obscure.  And Karl I was a King!  He should be easy to find references to.  Think how incredibly difficult it will be to find decent references on how to number/anglicize Princes of Schaumburg-Lippe or what not. john k 21:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

For issues of Marie/Maria/Mary, etc, for all intents and purposes those are acceptable in English, so just use what is the most common or use the form that goes with the language of the principal title.


 * A couple of issues with this. Doing it based on "form that goes with the language of the principal title" is easy enough for princesses whose principal titles were English or Scottish (Mary), French (Marie) or Italian or Spanish (Maria).  But with Germans, it seems problematic - either Maria or Marie seems to be used, more or less indiscriminately.  And this is true for an enormous number of German female names.  Beyond that, you've got issues with, say, a French princess named "Amélie" who becomes queen of Portugal.  Should she be Amélie, Amelia, or Amalia?  All of this could be worked out, but there's a more basic problem at work here: there's tons and tons of already existing articles, and they're virtually impossible to find without going to the article on their husband, because there's absolutely no consistency in naming. john k 03:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Distinguishing between people with identical names should always be done via birth date and death date... That is what I have always done when disambiguating consorts and the like. The name sans dates should be a disambiguation page, of course. Speaking of consorts, I do not think the consort rule should be eliminated at all. For most consorts it reflects what was actually used. That in itself speaks of a standard. If there is another common name that ought to be used (because it has strong usage) then use it. There can be exceptions to rules.


 * Yes, the consort rule is workable, I think. I generally don't like using this form when there's a perfectly unique "Queen Givenname of Country."  In Romania, for instance, there is one Queen Elisabeth, one Queen Marie, and one Queen Anne.  In Yugoslavia there is a Queen Maria and a Queen Alexandra.  In Greece there is a Queen Olga, a Queen Sophia, a Queen Elisabeth, a Queen Frederika, and a Queen Anne-Marie.  In Italy there is a Queen Margherita, a Queen Elena, and a Queen Marie José.  There's no especial reason to disambiguate by often not very well known birth names in these cases.  But it's not a huge deal either way.  I am, however, entirely frustrated with a certain number of subsets:
 * Russian empresses. They are a total mess.  I'm going to suggest my earlier proposal of "Regnal Name and Patronymic (Birthname of Territorial designation)".  For a current example, of this format, see Alexandra Fyodorovna (Charlotte of Prussia).
 * British princesses who were the granddaughter of the monarch and who married and became sovereigns. Marie of Edinburgh and Maud of Wales are just incredibly awkward titles for articles.  They are never called this.  They were, before their marriages, "Princess Marie of Edinburgh," and "Princess Maud of Wales," but those were styles, not names.  This form should die a quick death.
 * General Anglocentric problems with British princesses who became foreign queens. I think particularly of Charlotte, Princess Royal and Victoria, Princess Royal, who were, respectively, a Queen and an Empress, and who are nonetheless at locations emphasizing their birth country.

I don't think the consort rule really confuses with monarchs... That is all cleared up in the articles themselves. Most royal women so named were consorts, rather than sovereigns in their own right and most of the time it was a man who was sovereign. The sovereign women being the exception, they are notable enough for even the most daft of individuals to have an inkling as to the difference between her and a consort. Again, it is all within the articles. Regarding Victoria of the UK, her daughter used her highest title as a maiden princess, which is Princess Royal... I think that is acceptable. Had she not been created such, we would then have an issue.


 * But she was German Empress. Isn't it weird for the article title to call her a "Princess" when she was, in fact, an Empress.  This is the whole point of the "remove Princess from Queens maiden names" rule. john k 03:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

One thing that really does need to be fixed though is the series of Russian tsarinas and even some of the Russian grand duchesses! Territorial designations are omitted at times, marital territorial designations are mixed with maiden territorial designations and patronymics are either omitted or vary for women carrying the same one. I think this all shouldn't be the basis to change a bunch of rules, vut it needs to be discussed as an issue on it's own so a sort of style guide can be implemented if need be. Charles 01:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Women of the Romanov family are a mess. I see a number of categories:
 * Empress-Consorts. These are:
 * Maria Fyodorovna, wife of Paul
 * Elizabeth Alexeyevna, wife of Alexander I
 * Alexandra Fyodorovna, wife of Nicholas I
 * Maria Alexandrovna, wife of Alexander II
 * Maria Fyodorovna, wife of Alexander III
 * Alexandra Fyodorovna, wife of Nicholas II.
 * Grand Duchesses by marriage. I think they should be at the form "Grand Duchess Adoptedname [if applicable] Patronymic of Russia".  Disambiguation, when necessary, can be done by birth and death dates.  Ladies affected:
 * Grand Duchess Natalia Alexeyevna (Wilhelmina of Hesse-Darmstadt), first wife of Tsar Paul
 * Grand Duchess Anna Feodorovna (Juliane of Saxe-Coburg), first wife of Grand Duke Contantine Pavlovich
 * Grand Duchess Helena Pavlovna (Charlotte of Württemberg), wife of Grand Duke Michael Pavlovich
 * Grand Duchess Alexandra Iosifovna (Alexandra of Saxe-Altenburg), wife of Grand Duke Constantine Nikolayevich
 * Grand Duchess Alexandra Petrovna (Alexandra of Oldenburg), wife of Grand Duke Nicholas Nikolayevich Senior
 * Grand Duchess Olga Fyodorovna (Cecilie of Baden), wife of Grand Duke Michael Nikolayevich
 * Grand Duchess Maria Pavlovna (Marie of Mecklenburg-Schwerin), wife of Grand Duke Vladimir Alexandrovich
 * Grand Duchess Elisabeth Fyodorovna (Elisabeth of Hesse-Darmstadt), wife of Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich
 * Grand Duchess Alexandra Yurievna/Georgievna [I'm not really sure - her father was King George I of Greece] (Alexandra of Greece), first wife of Grand Duke Paul Alexandrovich
 * Grand Duchess Elisabeth Mavrikievna (Elisabeth of Saxe-Altenburg), wife of Grand Duke Constantine Constantinovich
 * Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna (Anastasia of Montenegro), wife of Grand Duke Nicholas Nikolayevich Junior
 * Grand Duchess Militza Nikolaevna (Militza of Montenegro), wife of Grand Duke Peter Nikolayevich
 * Grand Duchess Maria Yurievna/Georgievna [again, a daughter of George I] (Marie of Greece), wife of Grand Duke George Mikhailovich
 * Grand Duchess Xenia Alexandrovna (Xenia of, er, Russia - the only Romanov to Romanov marriage!), wife of Grand Duke Alexander Mikhailovich
 * Grand Duchess Victoria Feodorovna (Victoria Melita of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and the United Kingdom), wife of Grand Duke Cyril Vladimirovich
 * Grand Duchess Leonida Yurievna/Georgievna, wife of Grand Duke Vladimir Kirillovich.
 * Grand Duchesses by birth who became Queen consorts of foreign countries:
 * Grand Duchess Catherine Pavlovna, who became Queen of Württemberg
 * Grand Duchess Anna Pavlovna, who became Queen of the Netherlands
 * Grand Duchess Olga Nikolaevna, who became Queen of Württemberg
 * note that, as Queen of Württemberg, she was known as Alexandra! john k 22:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Grand Duchess Olga Constantinovna, who became Queen of Greece
 * Grand Duchesses by birth who became consorts, but not Queen consorts (i.e. Grand Duchesses, Duchesses, sovereign Princesses)
 * Grand Duchess Catherine Ivanovna (1691-1733), who became Duchess of Mecklenburg-Schwerin
 * Grand Duchess Anna Petrovna (1708-1728), who became Duchess of Holstein-Gottorp
 * Grand Duchess Maria Pavlovna (1786-1859), who became Grand Duchess of Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach
 * Grand Duchess Elisabeth Mikhailovna (1826-1845), who became Duchess of Nassau
 * Grand Duchess Maria Alexandrovna (1853-1920), who became Duchess of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha
 * Grand Duchess Anastasia Mikhailovna (1860-1922), who became Grand Duchess of Mecklenburg-Schwerin
 * Grand Duchesses by birth who married foreign princes who were not themselves sovereigns
 * Grand Duchess Alexandra Pavlovna, daughter of Tsar Paul, who married Archduke Joseph of Austria
 * Grand Duchess Elena Pavlovna, daughter of Tsar Paul, who married the Hereditary Grand Duke of Mecklenburg-Schwerin
 * Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna, daughter of Alexander III, who married (and later divorced) Duke Peter of Oldenburg
 * Grand Duchess Maria Kirillovna, daughter of Grand Duke Cyril, who married the Prince of Leiningen
 * Grand Duchess Kira Kirillovna, daughter of Grand Duke Cyril, who married Prince Louis Ferdinand of Prussia
 * Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna, daughter of Grand Duke Vladimir Kirillovich, who married a prince of Prussia, but is the head of the house
 * Grand Duchess Elena Vladimirovna, daughter of Vladimir Alexandrovich, who married Prince Nicholas of Greece
 * Grand Duchess Maria Pavlovna, daughter of Grand Duke Paul, who married (and later divorced) Prince William of Sweden
 * Grand Duchess Maria Nikolayevna, daughter of Nicholas I, who married the Duke of Leuchtenberg
 * Grand Duchess Alexandra Nikolayevna, daughter of Nicholas I, who married a Prince of Hesse-Kassel
 * Grand Duchess Vera Constantinovna, daughter of Constantine Nikolayevich, who married a Duke of Württemberg
 * Grand Duchess Catherine Mikhailovna, daughter of Michael Pavlovich, who married a Duke of Mecklenburg-Strelitz
 * Grand Duchesses who did not marry foreign princes
 * Grand Duchess Praskovia Ivanovna, daughter of Ivan V (there were a couple of others who died in infancy)
 * Grand Duchess Natalia Alexeyevna, daughter of Tsesarevich Alexis, son of Peter the Great
 * a few daughters of Peter the Great and Catherine I who died in infancy
 * Grand Duchess Olga Pavlovna, daughter of Paul (died in infancy)
 * Grand Duchesses Maria Alexandrovna and Elisabeth Alexandrovna, daughters of Alexander I (both died in infancy)
 * Grand Duchess Maria Mikhailovna, daughter of Michael Pavlovich (and a sister, Anna Mikhailovna, who died in infancy)
 * Grand Duchesses Olga, Tatiana, Maria, and Anastasia Nikolayevna, daughters of Nicholas II
 * sui generis, Grand Duchess Anna Leopoldovna, mother of Emperor Ivan VI.

So, we need to figure out how to deal with all these ladies. (Not to mention all the Princesses of Russia. john k 03:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that these really have to be discussed separately. But let me say here that I sympathize with John's position, whatever disagreements with individual points I may have later. The only general comment I can make is that some of these, like the Polish monarchs, cannot be fixed by altering the convention; they have to be fixed by move requests, backed up by documentation. Elonka has done this at Talk:Boleslaw I of Poland; it's a long slow process, but it works. Septentrionalis 16:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I just want to make one important point: the purpose of the article title is to make it as easy as possible for people to find. People who use wikipedia as a one-off may find it easier to search on "Mary, Queen of Scots", for example, than "Mary I of Scotland", but people who habitually use wikipedia for reference will expect a consistent naming convention. For English monarchs, there is no question that the most common usage is the "Henry I of England" format, therefore this is what we should continue to use. Personally I think that disambiguating by dates is a very bad idea, because it means that you can never go straight to the article you want - unless of course you happen to have everybody's birth and death dates stored in your memory. Deb 21:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

One thing at a time
The above discussion about a "completely broken" convention is hardly useful when it is dealing with so many matters at one time. That is no way to achieve a consensus. I don't think that the convention is perfect. But the mere fact that some articles do not conform with it is not proof of brokenness; there is nothing wrong with occasional exceptions to the rule. Let's talk about one thing at a time. Noel S McFerran 03:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'll start out with disambiguation of dynasts whose names/titles are the same. I propose that this be done by birth and death dates. john k 03:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I suggest the following wording:
 * Where the most common form of the name used in English for two persons is identical (e.g., Elisabeth of Austria), distinguish the two persons by adding birth and death dates (e.g. Elisabeth of Austria (1554-1592)). Where two persons are sometimes known by an identical name (e.g., Infante Carlos of Spain), but are more commonly known by different names or different forms of the name, use the most common form of the name used in English (e.g. Carlos, Count of Montemolin and Carlos, Duke of Madrid).
 * Noel S McFerran 13:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * What do we do in the many cases where we only have imprecise dates ? For example, if we had to disambiguate Margaret of Denmark, Mrs James III of Scotland, (which I don't think we do, but I couldn't be bothered looking for a better example) how do we do that ? Margaret of Denmark (born 1456) ? Margaret of Denmark (1456-x1486) ? Something else again ? Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Margaret of Denmark (1456-1486)? Seems close enough for government work.  Noel's proposed wording seems good. john k 14:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Or Margaret of Denmark (1456-1486?). Or possibly Margaret of Denmark (queen consort of Scotland). Septentrionalis 16:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * According to the 'Oxford Dictionary of National Biography,
 * Margaret of Denmark died at Stirling Castle on 14 July 1486 and was buried in Cambuskenneth Abbey later that month.
 * According to them, it is her birthdate that is uncertain, being either in 1456 or 1457. john k 17:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * If the birthdate is uncertain, could we not used Margaret of Denmark (d. 1486)? It have been implemented before for a royal of either unknown birthdate or death date (I can't remember which). Similarly, the birthdate only has been used to disambiguate between living royals of the same name, that is (b. 1954) for example. Charles 18:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not that keen on the "dates" solution to disambiguation problems, because I don't think it is much help to a user who may be trying to find the particular person they want. A description of some kind is generally more useful.  Having said that, I realise of course that there is an issue of standardization here. Deb 19:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * We'd certainly need to have a serious look at disambiguation pages and redirects. Until last week, King Stephen redirected to a French nonentity. No doubt there are many more similar cases of bias (indeed; less than a minute to find Michael II). Angus McLellan  (Talk) 20:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you describing the Sephen who was King of England as "a French nonentity"? I do agree that he shouldn't get precedence over the Kings Stephen of Hungary, Poland, and Serbia.  Beyond that, I think the dates solution is better because it works for everyone.  Sometimes a description of some kind isn't terribly helpful.  Prince Henry of Prussia (brother of Frederick the Great) and Prince Henry of Prussia (brother of William II) doesn't seem particularly worthwhile, for instance.  And I agree with Angus that disambiguation pages and redirects are the key to making anything relating to royalty work - there's far too many bizarre redirects and idiosyncratic article locations, and far too few disambiguation pages and redirects on alternate versions of names. john k 21:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think 9 times out of 10 an English speaker would only be referring to one person by the name "King Stephen" ... the evil one during "the Anarchy". I don't think it'd be fair to call him a non-entity; at the very least, one of the reasons the English legal system was so sophisticated by the death of Henry II was in order to disinherit lawfully and effectively the followers of Stephen; and in being French he was exactly the same as every other rex Anglorum in the century before and after his reign, including Henry II (who according to Gerald of Wales needed a translation to speak to the Saxon rustics who were ignorant of the court language. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Henry IV
Reasons for the present practice, which is Henry IV of England, Henry IV of France, Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor. (Please free free to reply to each separately.)
 * I join in prefering Henry IV for all of these; Heinrich IV is not standard English usage, Henri IV is dubious, both are pedantic. (And do we really want to be so authentic as to use Harry IV?)
 * Even if there were consensus to use non-English forms, it would not solve the problem. There's still James I of Scotland and James I of England, and there are doubtless infinite German ambiguities.
 * Making Boleslaw I of Poland standard helps keep out forms like Boleslaw I the Bold, which tend to be POV unless they are international consensus, like Charlemagne.
 * Between Henry IV of France and Henry IV (France), ease of typing cuts both ways. Links should be the first reference in an article, and that reference will often be something like "Elizabeth supported Henry IV of France". It will never be "Henry IV (France)". Septentrionalis 18:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I would have no objection to making Henry IV (France) a standard redirect so the pipe trick will work. Septentrionalis 18:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This is picking an easy example, which rather defeats the purpose of the discussion. An advantage of parenthetical disambiguation is that it works in all cases and we don't need to use a different system for monarchs and others. It even works for horrible cases like Cristina, daughter of Edward the Exile and Agatha, wife of Edward the Exile. It would help for Kievan Rus rulers, if we ever get round to having articles on most of those. No need to have arbitrary rules to distinguish Iaroslav Sviatopolkovich (son of Sviatopolk Iziaslavich) from Iaroslav Sviatopolkovich (son of Sviatopolk Iaroslavich). It would also simplify dealing with the Byzantine and Islamic worlds, where the stock of royal names tends to be rather limited. Think big ! Let's not have a guideline that only really works for England, France and the Holy Roman Empire in the late medieval and modern eras. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Horrible systems are intended for horrible cases. I agree that Cristina (daughter of Edward the Exile) is preferable to the unparenned version. What does this case, which is not covered by the present convention at all, have to do with Henry IV, where there is an easy and obvious dab?
 * I disagree strongly that this is necessary or useful for the Byzantines, who have an established nomenclature (including surnames, which do most of the work). If anyone wants an Islamic convention, feel free to write one. Septentrionalis 22:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The John Doukas (disambiguation) page suggests that the Byzantine system is less bulletproof than you think. The fact that John Komnenos, Alexios Angelos and Isaac Angelos, to pick only three, are redlinked, is further evidence that the Byzantine system only works for a very limited value of working. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * All those John Ducases have distinct names, however; and Isaac Angelus is Isaac II Angelus, as he ought to be. Alexius may still be struggling in the swamp resulting from overuse of ODB transliteration. Septentrionalis 00:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I also would support, and regret not having a chance to suggest, Prince Albert (consort). Septentrionalis 00:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I would agree with Angus, I think, and also add that I would probably say "Elizabeth supported Henry IV of France." john k 21:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * How about if you'd already mentioned France? Septentrionalis 22:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd hope that the article would make make it clear who Henry IV was when it introduced him, or that it said Henry IV King of France. Having checked, the Elizabeth I article as it stands only links to Henry IV as Henry IV. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * And that could be clearer. I've left a double link, since I don't care which name we link through. Septentrionalis 00:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Not sure that this is not a angles on pinheads argument. Several times I have created pages with names like English Interregnum and at the same time created a redirect that points to it to take advantage of the pipe trick (so named because it is taken from ideas in UNIX shell programming) Interregnum. From the arguments expressed on this page to date has left me agnostic on whether pages should be moved from Henry IV of England to Henry IV (England). From the point of view of just English Kings and Queens, I would leave them at "XXX 99 of England" but I can also see the argument that for some foreign dynasties this may not be appropriate -- after all we already make that distinction for Roman emperors, and we are tying to construct a general rule. --Philip Baird Shearer 13:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * When there's an ordinal, "Henry IV of England" works, because the person in question is obviously a reigning monarch. But John of England, Paul of Greece, and so forth, are a lot more awkward.  And then there's the cases where it's entirely unnecessary - there's only one Louis XIV, only one Edward VIII, only one Frederick William IV, only one Carl XVI Gustaf, and so forth.  Changing the way we do it doesn't make "Henry IV of England" any better, but it does let us have Louis XIV and John (King of England), which seem like definite improvements to me. john k 14:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * But when there isn't ? Encouraged by your suggestion that we fill in missing royalty, I added a King of France : Philip of France (1116-1131). I don't see an easy way to do that without brackets. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Angus, I believe we agree. the current policy works for monarchs with ordinals, but not very well for monarchs without ordinals.  brackets seem to be the best way to deal with these issues, in that it allows the awkward parts of the title to be left in the brackets. john k 19:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I have to say I don't like the parenthesised country name. X (foo) generally means "the X that is/was a foo" ("the John Smith who was a British politician", or what not). Henry IV was not an England, and so Henry IV (England) just seems wrong to me. The more correct Henry IV (King of England) is just too unwieldy, and I can see your point about John of England not looking right. The only solution I can see to that that sits well with me is to remove our rule about not having titles in article names and put him at King John of England. Since he's normally called "King John", this would seem quite sensible to me. If we did this with them all, most of the problems about people looking like Kings would be removed, as they'd only look like Kings if they had "King" in their article name. This would also be consistent with your suggested Queen Marie of Romania (which I agree is the best place for her to be). Proteus (Talk) 15:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Or Marie of Romania, which adds flexibility. It's a direct link from uses like Dorothy Parker's, and we can still write "Queen Marie of Romania" when precision is wanted. But abolishing the (inadvertent) convention that Name of Place looks like royalty would be a Good Thing; so I'm torn.  Septentrionalis 19:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I really don't like links to names that have part included whilst excluding another part. Queen Marie of Romania, Sir John Smith, Professor Henry Jones, etc., all make us look quite sloppy, in my opinion. Proteus (Talk) 22:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The advantage of the parenthetical is piping. And I'm not sure why John (King of England) is particularly more unwieldy than King John of England. The former format is closer to the way other encyclopedias do things, in that what it means is that the title of the article is "John," which is what it should be. john k 15:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well I suppose by "unwieldy" I meant "not particularly user-friendly" or "unattractive at first glance". What we've tried to do in the past with titles is find a form that might be quite long but is quite natural-looking and reduces the chance of disambiguation being necessary (which obviously results from a basic assumption that overt disambiguation (like parentheses) should normally be avoided if another alternative is available). Hence Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury &mdash; the Henry IV (England) suggestion strikes me as similar to saying "we really want to link to Lord Salisbury, so lets put him at Lord Salisbury (Prime Minister), Lord Salisbury (3rd Marquess) or Lord Salisbury (1830-1903) and then use the pipe trick whenever we link to him", which, though obviously a somewhat reasonable suggestion, is one we have rejected at a pretty fundamental level on previous occasions in this area. Also, I'd query your assumption that "John" is the natural title of the article, and so should be the automatic starting point: I'd say he's usually called "King John" (which, if these guidelines didn't exist, would then be the normal place for his article to be), and that "King John" is just as much his name as "John" is (obviously his actual name was "John, by the Grace of God, King of England, Lord of Ireland, Duke of Normandy and Aquitaine and Count of Anjou", but that's hardly a useful article title). I also think that calling him plain "John" is something that would never happen out of context. Obviously if one were talking about English Kings, "John reigned after Richard I" is quite natural, but I don't think anyone would suggest that something like "people born in Oxfordshire include Gary Glitter, Dorothy L. Sayers and John" would be reasonable. "John" might be the correct name if this were a genealogical database, which the current rules would seem to apply more to, but we should, I feel, be more concerned with helping our readers understand what's going on with the minimum of fuss. In many cases, who or what an article concerns is not at all obvious under the current rules, which is something I feel we should address. One more point (last one, I promise): if we adopted an approach similar to mine, we could reduce the basic naming conventions to a very simple rule: if the title-holder is numbered, use "Rank Name Numeral of Place"; if the title is numbered, use "Name, Numeral Rank of Place". All this "was so-and-so a Sovereign" debate could then be rather firmly be knocked on the head. Proteus (Talk) 22:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Proteus is obviously correct. It is very POV to de-King poor John. - Kittybrewster 22:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It's true, there's not a problem with what to call kings of England after 1066. There's not a problem with what to call people who held a British/English/Scottish/Irish peerage that can be looked up in some dreary old book to find out whether they were the Nth or the N+1th Earl of Whatever. But those are a tiny minority of articles to which this guideline is presumed to apply. It also applies to the people on Louis of France (disambiguation), which isn't very consistent (and Charles of France (disambiguation), Edward of England (disambiguation) or David of Scotland (disambiguation) might not be all that great either, had anyone written them). The further from England you get, the more difficult it is to apply the existing guidelines. Stefan Batory is not Stephen I of Poland; Stefan Dušan or  Stefan Uroš IV Dušan would be better than Stefan Uroš IV Dušan of Serbia, being as how he didn't rule Serbia, which is in turn better than Stephen VII of Serbia (or whatever the exact number would be), and so on ad nauseam. As for the stylistic issue, pipes work both ways and redirects should exist from any and all plausible places. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 00:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Proteus, when I say "John" is the natural title, what I mean is that this is the title that he would have in an ordinary paper encyclopedia that didn't need to have all its articles have different titles. The peerage convention that we have pretty much matches the way that most encyclopedias title their articles on peers. Our convention on monarchs does not. A normal encyclopedia would have an article "John" on John of England, another article "John" on John of Bohemia, another article "John" on John of Saxony, an article "John II" on John II of France, and so forth. By "natural title" I don't generally mean "how you would naturally refer to someone," but "how an encyclopedia would naturally title an article on someone." john k 00:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * But we've never let "what would other encyclopaedias do?" influence our decisions very much. A normal paper encyclopaedia is very limited by the fact that everything has to be in a very obvious alphabetical order, and so they don't really have any choice but to put King John at "John" (they can hardly alphabetise all Kings under "King"). We don't have that problem (and in those bits of Wikipedia that are in alphabetical order, like categories, we get to choose how each article is alphabetised), so the "article names must start with a name" rule that paper encyclopaedias must stick to is the least of our concerns. We should really be taking advantage of Wikipedia's electronic format, not ignoring it. Proteus (Talk) 08:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * We don't have that particular problem, but the way wikipedia names articles is not simply a result of that. It is also a result of certain limitations wikipedia has that a conventional encyclopedia does not, foremost among them the problem that an article's title and an article's location must be identical, so that we can't have articles with the same title.  I think this is much more responsible for the issue than any alphabetization.  If Britannica, et al, thought that alphabetical order was the only reason not to have the article at "King John," then the article would be at "John, King."  It is not.  It is at "John."  This is how reference works generally refer to monarchs - name and, if necessary, ordinal.  Sometimes they include a byname, or a surname or a "of Placeoforigin" (e.g. Philip of Swabia).  They never include "King," and they never include "of Country." john k 17:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * A couple of software changes would really help with these things. Most notably, it would be nice if the location of a page and the title of a page could be different, so that multiple pages couuld have the same title without being in the same location.  That way you could have a ton of different articles titled (at the head of the article) Henry IV, without all of them being at the location Henry IV.  Another nice change would be if text could be piped in categories, so that all category pages wouldn't be stuck at whatever location the page is at. john k 15:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Please don't let's rush into any changes in the naming of monarchs. It took us a long time and lots of discussion to get to the point we are at today.  The present format has been in use for at least 3 years and people have had time to get used to it. Deb 16:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * And yet I have done hundreds of edits a month fixing wikilinks to monarchial dab pages, and I'm not the only one doing it. Likewise, we are apparently missing a great many obvious redirects and disambiguation pages since I created a dozen or more yesterday that seemed that way to me. There's not much room for complacency regarding the current state of affairs. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that part of what might be in order is a good, active wikiproject on European royalty that tries to deal with these things in some kind of systematic way. Some sort of task force to create appropriate disambiguation pages and redirects would be tremendously useful.  An effort to create genuinely decent stubs (and there is such a thing) on as many royal figures as we possibly can would also be useful, especially if combined with mass creations of appropriate redirects and disambiguation pages.  Part of the problem with royals is that it's so damned hard to find the article one is looking for, that one is never completely sure if there's already an article lurking somewhere out there, that one just can't find.  john k 17:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the current "X of Y" should be dropped as the main guideline because in most cases it gives a) a clear and unambigius name b) a fairly predictable result and c) a nicely readable title. The problem is that people follow the rules on this page too narrowly without consulting the more general guidlines, first and foremost Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things. Fornadan (t) 17:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the biggest problem is that it's often not at all clear either what the most common name is or where this convention thinks a person should be located. I noted about King Karl I of Württemberg.  I have no idea whether he should be at "Charles I", "Charles", "Karl I", or "Karl".  So far, the only source I've been able to discover is the 1891 obituary of him in the New York Times, which calls him "Karl I" (compare to their obituary of William III of the Netherlands a year earlier, who is distinctly "William III"), and the 1911 Britannica, which, by contrast, calls him "Charles I".  To go further, there's any number of instances with princesses where the current stands are just entirely unclear and the name is unclear, leaving dozens of possible redirect/disambiguation pages to make things clear.  It's a mess, largely because a) different forms of names are used; b) it's hard to find references to a lot of these people; and c) the naming standards are completely unclear, so even when we know all the relevant information, it's still not very clear where articles are supposed to go. john k 18:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The present arrangement (Charles I of Württemberg, but Karl in the first line) seems reasonable. Let me see if I can find sources. Septentrionalis 19:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Lord Alfred Douglas
Could someone familiar with these standards please take a look at Lord Alfred Douglas? As I've remarked at Talk:Lord Alfred Douglas, I believe that someone went a bit overboard here. - Jmabel | Talk 05:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Guidelines: recent history
Just so that it's all in one place, for anyone interested in the discussions of potential new guidelines, here are some relevant recent naming debates and fiascos. Do the current guidelines have broad support ? Are they working ? Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Recent archives for this page has several expressions of discontent, such as here and here.
 * Talk:Jogaila - currently under discussion yet again, Jogaila → Wladyslaw II Jogaila.
 * Talk:Albert, Prince Consort - moved Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha → Albert, Prince Consort.
 * Talk:Harald I of Norway - closed no consensus [no consensus on where to move to], split between Harald I of Norway → Harald Fairhair and Harald I of Norway → Harald I Fairhair.
 * Talk:Edmund Ironside - moved Edmund II of England → Edmund Ironside.
 * Talk:Margaret, Maid of Norway - no requested move as such, but moved Margaret of Scotland → Margaret of Scotland (Maid of Norway) → Margaret, Maid of Norway.
 * Talk:Kenneth I of Scotland (archived) - moved Kenneth I of Scotland → Cináed I of Scotland → Kenneth I of Scotland.
 * Talk:Eric Bloodaxe - moved Eric I of Norway → Eric Bloodaxe.
 * Talk:Constantine XI general naming of Byzantine emperors, e.g. Alexius I Comnenus → Alexios I Komnenos.
 * Others: certainly many more kings of Poland have been debated.
 * I think they are working. Please consult WP:POINT: "the project is not consistent; it tolerates things it does not condone. These are arguably not defects." I advise the guys active on this page to direct their activities into a more practical channel. Could you do something to end the perennial confusion between Maria Fyodorovna and Maria Fyodorovna of Russia? The title Alexandra Fyodorovna of Hesse is extremely lame, too. -- Ghirla -трёп-  12:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * On my user subpage linked below (which you've already at least glanced at, since you said you didn't like it on the talk page), I made a proposal on Romanov women. Do you have any thoughts on it? john k 15:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Yup, it's all quite a mess. Another issue is old James VI and I, who is at the title James I of England, which is guaranteed to periodically attract the attention of an annoyed Scottish person who wants to move it. To say nothing of the irritated people from Basse-Navarre who periodically complain about Henry IV of France...oh, wait, that doesn't actually happen. Nonetheless, the current system is very irritating. I'm thinking of trying to work out new proposed guidelines. john k 16:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd be for adding a rule to the naming convention, that Kings of England before William I of England do not get ordinals. For no other reason than the Victorians chose to do it that way and it messes up the later Edwards (Edward I of England etc) --Philip Baird Shearer 16:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * What do we do about Ethelred I and Edmund I, though? They don't have any other names that I'm aware of.  john k 16:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Edmund and Ethelred are indexed as kings of Wessex in Stenton's Anglo-Saxon England. Numbers are used for kings of Wessex/Mercia/Northumbria, so no problem there if only WP didn't have English kings starting with Alfred [*cough*]. For Kings before the Conquest Stenton has Athelstan and kings from Edgar onwards not qualified as "of Wessex". Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Why is Athelstan King of England, but his successor is not? I recall that Edwig was not king of the whole country, but I had thought that Edmund and Edred were. john k 21:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I've added a user subpage User:John Kenney/Naming conventions (names and titles), where I've tried to revise the rules in the direction I'd want to go. It still feels very awkward, though. I've also tried to add a section describing proposed naming rules for the Romanovs. john k 16:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The only problems I see here are
 * Harald Fairhair, where we should simply decide: when do we use both cognomens and numerals?
 * the Byzantine mess, over which this page has never claimed jurisdication, and which is fundamentally a question of how to transliterate Greek.
 * I like the rest of them. Septentrionalis 23:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Naming conventions for abolished titles - Vittorio Emanuele, Prince of Naples
You may find the discussion here - Talk:Vittorio Emanuele, Prince of Naples under the heading "Titular" interesting. Also, in the archive for that talk page there is also similar discussion on naming conventions. The issue is whether or not titles which have been abolished in the relevant legal jurisdiction should still be attributed to claimants as settled fact, or whether instead the name of the person should be used with the word "titular" before the abolished title. Cheers --SandyDancer 12:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Question - the guidelines on this page deal with what to call deposed monarches (living or deceased) but the guidelines on other royals do not deal with those who would have non-monarchical royal titles but for the abolition of the monarchy to which the individual was connected. What is the view? --SandyDancer 13:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Titular is used for the highest title the person may claim. For instance, George Frederick, Prince of Prussia (Titular German Emperor, King of Prussia and Grand Duke of Mecklenburg) or Ernest Augustus, Prince of Hanover (Titular King of Hanover). Simple as that. Charles 18:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe so (although I must say I am unconvinced as to the validity of your statement). Our discussion has now moved on from this. I accept that prefixing the defunct title of a living ex-royal with "titular" may not be the best of way of representing the real situation. Simply asserting a living person is, in this case, Prince of Naples, where clearly that person is not, is silly. --SandyDancer 18:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * He was Prince of Naples, and by courtesy, members of no longer ruling royal families are treated as continuing to have the titles they used to have when the monarchy was going. The head of the family and his heir may also take on a separate title of pretense, which will usually be a subordinate title formerly held by the head of the house (e.g. Duke of Braganza, or Margrave of Meissen or Count of Barcelona).  Other, junior members born after the end of the royalty are generally treated, by courtesy, as having whatever title they would have had if the monarchy continued (in this case of the house of Savoy, that is "Prince/ss N of Savoy").  Other members who held substantive noble titles generally continue to use them (e.g., the Duke of Aosta, until he started calling himself the "Duke of Savoy," a title which falls alongside "Margrave of Meissen," and the like).  This is not usually recognized formally by the Republican governments involved (although occasionally it is - Portugal and France explicitly recognize their pretenders, and, in France at least, the titles they grant; in Germany, the titles of the former royals are officially treated as part of their name, but more or less formally recognized - I believe the eldest son of the late Prince of Leiningen was officially barred from taking the name "Fürst zu Leiningen" after his father died because his father had disinherited him), but these titles would be used in most other contexts.  It is not our place to enforce republican formalities in preference to the way the person is actually addressed by the people he generally interacts with.  john k 19:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I thought France didn't recognise the pretenders any more - didn't a French court decline to ajudicate between the competing claims of the Orleanist and Carlist lines? Timrollpickering 20:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * A court did, but the government, as I understand it, several times recognized the late Comte de Paris. I'm not sure that can be taken back.  Beyond that, the titles of pretension are more or less recognized by the French government, and the Comte de Paris is definitely recognized as being Duke of Orléans, Chartres, Valois, and so forth.  But you're right that they've refused to take sides on the legitimist/orleanist dispute. john k 21:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

It is entirely irrelevant what a government thinks in these matters as hereditary titles are awarded by monarchs in their own right. Where revolutions have overthrown legitimate monarchs such governments are illegitimate and are not in a position to ajudicate in one way or another. It has only been Communist and French Revolutionary governments who have ever referred to monarchs and peers as "the former" or "ex-king". It is worth pointing to the very many Royal occassions at Westminster Abbey where the programmes explicitly referred to "King Michael of Romania" and "King Simeon II of Bulgaria" etc. So please, take your guideline from what the Palace thinks, not from the issue of some Marxist Polytechnic. 18:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by David Lauder (talk • contribs)

New RM at Talk:Jogaila
Especially as some editors are now saying that the previous move (from Wladyslaw II of Poland to Jogaila) sets a bad precedence and breakts this naming convention, I expect this voting and discussion may be of interest to readers of this page.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Redirects
Okay, the problem of inadequate redirects is really serious. Looking through the articles on Dukes of Saxe-Coburg, I've discovered a complete mess, in which several articles are created on the same individual simply because people don't realize that there's an article already existing (there were multiple version of Ernst Friedrich, Duke of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld and Franz, Duke of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld). What I think we really need is a serious wikiproject on European royalty that would take some of this mess in hand. Another thing is that we need to clarify when to Anglicize and when not to. I would suggest the following guidelines:
 * 1) Slavic and Finno-Ugric names should always be anglicized.
 * 2) The names of members of the (modern) Greek royal family should always be anglicized.
 * 3) German names should be anglicized only for Kings and Emperors - that is to say, Austrian and German Emperors, German Kings, Kings of Prussia. I think that the kings of the subordinate kingdoms, with the exception of Hanover (with its close connections to the British royal family), should not be anglicized, and no subordinate rulers should be anglicized at all.  While this might lead to some rulers being at less familiar forms of their names, not anglicizing is in line with recent academic practice, and most of these people are so little referred to in English that it would be quite hard to find sufficient references to discover what the most common usage is.  Since both forms are commonly used in English, it makes sense to simply choose one and go with it.  Cadet members of families should stay at German forms, except for the Habsburgs, who, because of their division into Austrian, Tuscan, and Modenese lines, should probably all be anglicized.
 * 4) For French names, French kings should be anglicized, but nobody else, at least from the late middle ages onward. So Francis II of France, but François Hercule, Duke of Anjou.  This practice is followed in various scholarly sources, for instance R. J. Knecht's The Rise and Fall of Renaissance France.
 * 5) For Spanish names, the same deal as for the French, except when the king's name is never anglicized, e.g. Alfonso XII.
 * 6) For Portuguese names, the same deal as the Spanish.
 * 7) For Italians:
 * 8) The House of Savoy should follow the same rules as the Spanish and Portuguese, I think. (Although it's tough before the 19th century, as French was probably more the actual court language, so I'm not sure)
 * 9) Members of other native dynasties (e.g. Estes, Farneses, Gonzagas, Medicis) should not be anglicized.
 * 10) Members of foreign dynasties (Habsburgs, Bourbons) should always be anglicized, given their questionable national status.
 * 11) Romania: Kings Carol should not be anglicized, everyone else should be.
 * 12) Princesses who do not become consorts should follow the naming standards of the country of their birth, unless they have married into the British royal family, in which case their name should be anglicized.
 * 13) Princesses who become consorts should follow the naming standards of their husband's country, unless they were born into the British royal family, in which case their name should be in its original form.
 * 14) Redirects should really be created at all plausible alternative titles.

Any thoughts? Even if this particular proposal is not accepted, we really do need clear guidelines, especially for the Germans. "Common name" alone just doesn't cut it when there's hundreds of obscure sovereign rulers wandering about unmoored. We need to make a real decision on this. john k 12:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * In my opinion such a "regularization" of names would create at least as many problems as the current situation. Furthermore, it imposes a wiki-standard upon scholarship which is comparable to original research.
 * I don't understand the latter statement. john k 14:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Does Mr Kenney really think that we should have a King "Louis Philip" of the French (instead of Louis-Philippe)? Or, to take it further, should all French kings named Louis actually have articles calling them "Lewis" (the  English spelling of the name - and certainly common for French kings in books of a certain age). Does the Empress Maria Theresa become Mary Theresa?  How are the Estes a native dynasty of Italy (they come from Germany; they had just been around longer)? Does the last reigning king of Portugal become King "Emmanuel II" - or does this count as one of those "never anglicized" times? I'm not sure why Alfonso is specifically excluded from anglicization because I can find dozens of examples in older works of anglicization to Alphonsus.
 * See below for a fuller discussion - in short, I agree with you on all the examples you bring up, and did not intend to suggest any such nonsense. I will revise my proposal.  However, the Este's are most certainly not a German dynasty.  This guy seems to be the first documented Este, and he was living in Italy in the 10th century.  Apparently, according to the wikipedia Este article, and laid out more tenuously in the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica article, the family was thought to be from the Frankish nobility that had come to Italy in the 9th century.  But there's no especially clear evidence of this.  By the time the Este appear in the full light of history and actually take the name Este, they are in Italy, and have been in Italy for some time.  I'm not sure if you were noting the supposed Frankish background as grounds for calling them German, or if you were mistakenly assuming the somewhat later Guelf connection (I believe from around 1100) made them German - in fact, the Guelfs of Germany were descended from the Italian house of Este, not vice versa. john k 14:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * We should follow the pattern of published scholarship. We should not try to invent something new (it's un-wiki, and it's doomed to failure anyway). Noel S McFerran 13:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I clearly haven't laid out my ideas nearly as well as I'd hoped. I don't want any of the horrors that Noel outlined above to come to pass. My intention was rather to provide consistent answers to the question "how do we anglicize when both native and anglicized forms are commonly used?" I seem to have failed in elaborating this clearly and in a way that accords with my actual preferences. Perhaps putting it more basically would be better:


 * 1) For Kings and Emperors, we should err towards the anglicized form when both anglicized and non-anglicized forms are commonly used. If the clearly predominant form is non-anglicized, we should stick with that.  Archaic and never used anglicized forms are to be ignored.  There should probably be some exceptions to that, like Kings of Bavaria, or Kings of Württemberg - I'm sure Noel and others would be able to outline other exceptions (I am uncertain what to do, for instance, with the Kings of Portugal).
 * 2) For members of Europe's ruling houses who are not kings or emperors, we should generally err towards non-anglicized forms. Again, there should probably be some exceptions to this (such as, for instance, the Habsburg and Bourbon rulers in Italy, and possibly Habsburg Archdukes in general)\

So, again:


 * 1) If an anglicized form is always or nearly always used, we stick with that. (e.g. Nicholas I of Russia, George I of Greece)
 * 2) If a non-anglicized form is always or nearly always used, we stick with that. (e.g. Carol I of Romania, Louis-Philippe of France, Ercole III d'Este, Duke of Modena)
 * 3) In cases where it's less clear, we have rules. (e.g. Karl I of Württemberg, Henry IV of France)

Is this less to Noel's distaste than the previous formulation? john k 14:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see why we shouldn't treat lesser ruling houses like Kings and Emperors: follow majority usage, when it's unclear, lean towards anglicization.
 * Is John Kenney really proposing to call John the Fearless Jean of Burgundy?
 * No, I'm not proposing that. Any particularly bad think you think I am proposing, I am not.  But  note that he's currently at John, Duke of Burgundy.  I think Jean Sans-Peur would be an improvement on that, but that wasn't really the point.  In the reformulated conception, we only use the French name when we haven't found a dominant form in English - which for people like John the Fearless and Philip the Good, I think we have.  john k 20:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to see, what I thought, that the editors here largely agree in practice, even when we disagree on what principle to derive them from. But if Noel and I can read these so badly, interested and unscrupulous editors will do much worse. Septentrionalis 23:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I would like to find a way to actually provide some guidance in the difficult cases, without actually compromising the cases where all of us seem to agree. john k 17:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Why change the preference for the House of Prussia at 1700, the House of Saxony at 1815 (or is it 1806?) and so on? Septentrionalis 19:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't like leaning towards anglicization for, say, Grand Dukes of Mecklenburg or Dukes of Saxe-Gotha. Specialist usage is moving strongly towards German names for all German rulers.  For the ones you're likely to encounter in more generalist usage, like Kings of Prussia and so forth, you still see the anglicized forms, but things like "Francis Frederick IV" and "Charles Theodore of Bavaria" seem purposefully archaicizing to me.  Also, the articles on lesser German rulers tend towards the German form already.  For instance, we have Ernst I, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha and Ernst II, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, not "Ernest I" and "Ernest II".  All the Grand Dukes of Baden and Hesse are at German forms.  So are the Kings Ludwig of Bavaria.  And so forth.  I agree that changing preferences at random points in time can be silly, but I'm not sure how to do it - it's going to be odd and inconsistent at some point, no matter how we do it.  And I would say that the Saxon rulers should probably be just German forms throughout. john k 20:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * August the Strong? Or do you just mean the non-electoral Saxonies? Again, I don't support Louis I of Bavaria, much less Lewis I of Bavaria; those are horrors too. Septentrionalis 23:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, Augustus the Strong is a special case, as he was also king of Poland. I wouldn't mind Johann Georg IV, Elector of Saxony or Anton of Saxony, though. Less sure about the Kings Frederick Augustus. Certainly Maurice is best known as Maurice, and not as Moritz. john k 00:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I thank Mr Kenney for initiating this discussion since I think that we are going over some good points. It does seem to me that we are returning to the general position of "most common form of the name used in English" (I think that it would be better to say "English-language published works"). The problem seems to me to be that there are a lot of wiki-editors editing articles on topics about which they know very little (of course, that is both the strength and the weakness of Wikipedia). They just don't know how scholarship refers to a particular prince because they've never read anything about him (but still feel competent to change the title of a wiki-article). So I agree with Mr Kenney that more guidance needs to be given in these conventions. I think that the solution of "lean towards English" or "lean towards vernacular" when there is not a decisive "winner" may be helpful. I'm presently involved with a debate about und/and on the page Thurn und Taxis; feel free to contribute. Noel S McFerran 20:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes Noel, that's the basic issue, I think. I agree that I would much prefer us to say "English-language published works" to "English", and I think Naming conventions (use English) probably needs some overhaul (as does Naming conventions (common names)) on the relationship between common names and use English, and so forth.  I think I'd prefer a "lean towards vernacular" solution when there's not a decisive winner, because the vernacular is almost guaranteed to be used in at least some recent English-language sources, while the anglicized version has no such guarantee.  But I think it depends on what language is involved. Languages less familiar to Anglophones tend to be more likely to be anglicized. john k 21:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I have doubts about "English-language published works"; I predict it will be used to enforce some local usage which has been preserved in translation. When Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden was straightened out, there was persistent argument that he should be called Gustaf Adolf the Great, because
 * the Riksdag had declared him so, right after his death (1634, IIRC) and
 * some quite specialized book in English had used the name in its title. Septentrionalis 23:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That kind of nonsense comes through all the time. If we are clear that we mean "the whole array of english language published works" that would prevent such issues. john k 00:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Thinking Big
In reviewing the recent discussion, the following ideas and suggestions occurred to me and I set them forth for discussion:


 * 1) Why are we so enamoured with the idea of the "most commonly used form" in English or any other language? I understand that it stems from the umbrella wiki guideline, but to me this rule non-sensically causes endless debate and ignores the beauty of Wikipedia's technological framework.  Redirects (and disambiguation pages) are one of the greatest, and most underused, strengths of the technology.  It means that we can apply consistent rules to the naming of pages/articles without regard to "the most commonly used form."  Put redirects at every commonly used form (instead of arguing which is primary).  This would reduce debate and make it easier for users.  Inconsistency in personal naming conventions is one of the biggest frustrations to me as a user of Wikipedia.  Without consistency, I have to use the search engine to find people.  Thus the aim of "most commonly used form" --- ease of finding, right? --- is defeated.  That's why I agree that the current naming convention is "broken."  The "most commonly used form" is a great idea in theory, but hasn't worked well in practice.  So toss it and go with something practical that addresses the underlying purpose of the rule, i.e., ease of finding:  consistency, redirects, and disambiguation pages.
 * 2) Instead of arguing about brackets, how about "John I, King of England?" Why is it so important to leave out the title?  Why have one rule for monarchs and another rule for dukes?  (And in the case of a medieval duke that you think is a sovereign, how do you determine which rule should apply?  Make them the same and this problem, and all the discussion and grief it engenders, disappears.)  Another advantage to this style is that a simple but different rule for consorts would make it very easy to distinguish between regnant and consort queens:  "Elizabeth II, Queen of England" is regnant and "Queen Mary of England" is consort.  (Though in point of fact I prefer birth names for both queens and princesses, especially historical ones, e.g., Anne of Austria rather than "Queen Anne of France."  As long as the "Queen Mary" dab page includes a link to Princess Mary of Teck and lists all the relevant variations, and/or all the variations that clearly belong to her redirect to the correct article, that's good enough.)
 * 3) Consistent implementation of a rule (even if an arbitrary one) about using translations like Francis Joseph vs Franz Josef (I personallly prefer the latter) combined with redirects at all possible variations (and/or a dab page), e.g., Franz Joseph, with and without an ordinal, would eliminate much of the debate.
 * 4) The reason I came to this page was to find out (a) whether the naming convention for lesser people is "Albert VII, Duke of Mecklenburg" or ""Albert VII of Mecklenburg" (and why), and (b) whether I can change them to the "correct" form unilaterally, or do I have to propose it on the article's Talk page? I think I've found (a), but not (b).  Honestly, if every change has to be agreed by committee, then I'm not going to be to contribute very much on this point.
 * 5) I strongly support JohnK's suggestion of a wikiproject to bring together experts and editors to discuss these issues, and to move forward with adding redirects, implementing whatever naming conventions we choose, adding template tags, and creating articles that don't exist yet. Someone please just do it!  Laura1822 17:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Why not dump "English usage" in favor of consistent rules? I agree that "most commonly used name in English" leaves numerous unanswered questions, both because we have no more authoritative way of ascertaining it than an ad hoc vote of those who happen to be editing the page during the same week, and because it is inconsistently applied due to the fact that Wiki has other rules and objectives that demand compromises (e.g. Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom is hardly actually called that by anybody -- including "works published in English" -- but "The Queen" or "Queen Elizabeth II of England" are unacceptable because they violate other applicable Wiki principles). I like  your solution to improve matters by adopting a standarad format, sticking to it, and relying upon Wiki technology to get people to whatever they're looking for. Of course, that's exactly what "Firstname" "Ordinal number" of "Realm" is supposed to be, and despite all the tools, we still have inconsistency and edit wars. The reality is that some editors feel strongly about the namespace reflecting values they hold dear ("Use English", "Don't Institutionalize Anglocentrism", "Copy Scholarly Literature", "Wiki Has No Business Innovating", "simplicity, Simplicity, SIMPLICITY"). So we can review and tinker with broken conventions, but we will never fix them such that new editors won't unilaterally change articles and/or declare the convention a failure. Let's try anyway, but lower our expectations.
 * Why not just use titles instead of making up format rules to imply rank? Because some editors deem titles "monarchy cruft", i.e. excessive deference; others consider them POV; others find them distractingly long; and there are disagreements over titles, nation names, and even particles. Again, those few who care about such things, care A LOT -- and will make it an issue, demanding that the agreed-upon rule be applied/ignored depending on the result they want.
 * Why not set and enforce consistent rules, even if "arbitrary"? Because it's anti-Wiki. Wiki is inherently dynamic: Those who edited Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor yesterday, will be gone tomorrow, and tomorrow's editors bring different views and values, and will refuse to be bound by previous agreements. Thus, the best agreements are those which are 1. most intuitive 2. have the clearest rationale 3. rely least upon editors' having scholarly (or monarchical, or genealogical, or national, etc) knowledge and doing their homework before hitting the "Save page" key, and 4. are resilient enough to be ignored. "Nationalist" editors, if no others, will rebel against any rule that they consider insufficiently respectful of indigenous POV, and "republican" editors will delete what they consider "royalty-cruft", and finally "unilateralists" are simply confident that what they believe must be accurate, and are impatient with any process that obstructs their implementation thereof.
 * Must every article move be approved by Wiki committee?
 * Obviously not. But take your pick: you can seek consensus in advance, risking that your position will be overruled, or you can fight an edit war later, risking that you'll lose and be really, really pissed off. Worse, if you feel free to make unilateral changes for what seems obviously right to you, why should you not be reversed by the next unilateralist? If you want to change the name of an article and its redirects, but don't want to announce your intention on the talk page first and wait a few days, chances are that 1. you can't imagine that anyone would not agree with you, so why frustrate yourself by exercising patience and restraint? or 2. you already suspect that someone will object and you figure a swift offense is the best defense. Either assumption is a classic recipe for an edit war. Announce, wait, move.
 * If you have to get every article move approved by committee, why wouldn't that discourage you from contributing to Wiki? Wiki is a committee. Get used to it. And let's get used to the fact that committee membership changes daily, and a quorum is whoever happens to speak up. If I can't work in that environment, I'll be frustrated and so will other editors. The real issue is whether I'm going to engage that committee before or after I've implemented a move. In the past, doing so beforehand wasn't a big problem, but now that there are so many editors, so much relevant history, so many policies/guidelines, and so much complication involved in fixing re-directs, the unilateralists are getting away unchallenged with less and less, and their frustration and everyone else's is increasing exponentially. The truth is that for most changes, no one cares; for a few changes people will be satisfied with a clear advance explanation; and for the cases where that isn't the case, the move should definitely be vetted beforehand anyway. Announce, wait, move. We're building an encyclopedia here: Why should its content be driven by contributors' desire for the immediate gratification of changing that encyclopedia instantaneously and without input? Wikipedia isn't a blog -- or shouldn't be. Lethiere 21:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, to a point. I think that in cases where the "common name" is arguable, we should probably default to the native form.  But when common name is very clear, as it frequently is, I'd much prefer to stick with it.  Aleksandr II of Russia would be incredibly pedantic.
 * Yes, I've just discovered that the pipe trick now works for commas, and I think that, at least when disambiguation is necessary, this might be a good solution. Elizabeth II, Queen of England is a no-no, though, or we'll have hordes of Scots and Welsh upon us; and it ought to be John, King of England, not "John I," which he isn't called.  I agree with you about queens, to a point.  When a Queen consort's name is unique, and that is how they are best known, it makes sense to have them there. Queen Marie of Romania and Empress Elisabeth of Austria would be far superior to our current titles, I think.  Queen Anne of France much less so (and, at any rate, that title is not unambiguous, as Henri I's wife was Queen Anne).
 * Franz Joseph is the German name (Franz Josef appears to be an over-enthusiastic re-Germanizing), but otherwise I would agree that for German rulers, always using the German form would be fine. I'm much less sure about Fernando and Isabel.  And what's to be done about someone like Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor?  Calling him "Karl V" seems kind of perverse to me.  I would prefer a system where we default to a native form, unless it can be demonstrated that the anglicized form is more common (as opposed to the opposite, which now seems to prevail).  But I'm sure there are others (Septentrionalis?) who are less sympathetic to native names than I am, and I myself am highly ambivalent about the results that a consistent application of this policy would entail.
 * Go ahead and move it - nobody will object.
 * I think we need to work out the naming conventions here. We can only clean everything up once we know where we're actually supposed to be sending the redirects to, I think. john k 18:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * John, thanks for your responses.
 * I'm trying to make a distinction between tranliteration issues and "The Most Common Form." IMO whether to use "Alexander" or "Aleksandr" is an argument about translation/transliteration, not about TMCF.  TMCF is really about whether people refer to him as Alexander "of Russia," or "of All the Russias," or "Emperor of--" or "Tsar of" or "Czar of" (mix and match to find your favorite MCF).
 * But over here in America, everyone calls Elizabeth "the Queen of England." No one says GB or UK or Commonwealth, just England.  So that would be TMCF.  No, I'm not suggesting that we allow ignorance to dominate TMCF-- instead I'm using this as an example of why TMCF works in theory but not practice.  Re:  commas.  I didn't know that there was an issue with them and the pipe trick before.  I've been scratching my head trying to figure out why anyone thought "Henry VII of England" was preferable over "Henry VII, King of England."  (I trust this example is less controversial!)  In any event I'm glad you agree with me because if I could change one thing unilaterally in the naming convention, this is it.
 * Franz Josef is the current, and I think the original, spelling in Austria. Franz Joseph is a combination of English and German that's rather odd when one thinks about it.  (And they always use Karl instead of Charles.)  As for the others, I don't feel especially strongly whether we choose Ferdinand or Fernando (again, that's transliteration/translation);  the point is, we can pick either one, and put a redirect at the other one.
 * Yet User:Maed was blocked for doing that. How do I tell when it's okay to do it and when it isn't?
 * How about we make "here" into a wikiproject?
 * Apologies to everyone about how the structure of this discussion is turning out-- I should have done it differently. Laura1822 20:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) Okay, I see where you're coming from here. "Emperor of all the Russias" would seem to be the most correct form for the Tsars after 1721.  I have no idea what the most common form would be.
 * 2) Most common forms that are inaccurate and cause offense to large numbers of people tend to be avoided. I agree with you about commas.
 * 3) Franz Joseph is not a combination of English and German. check out de:Franz Joseph I. (Österreich-Ungarn), for instance.  I've actually looked at various scholarly books in German, and they all call him "Franz Joseph."  "Joseph" is a perfectly acceptable alternate German spelling - both "Josef" and "Joseph" appear in German names.  Note also Joseph Goebbels, for instance.  (On the other hand, note de:Franz Josef I. (Liechtenstein).) I have no idea about the "current spelling in Austria," but I've read a fair number of German sources that all use "Franz Joseph," with a ph.  As to Charles V, indeed, the Germans call him "Karl V."  The Spanish, on the other hand, call him "Carlos."  The Walloons  and Franche Comtoise call him "Charles Quint," the Flemish and Dutch "Karel," the Italians, "Carlo."  He ruled over all these peoples, and arguably Spain, at least, is equally important with the Empire.  My point here is that I don't like the idea of a one size fits all solution, where we either have to have "John Charles I" or "Nikolai II".  I want to be able to have both "Nicholas II" and "Juan Carlos I," to match how these people are actually known in English.
 * 4) Maed was blocked for continuing to move tons of articles after people told him/her to stop. I'd say that when it involves clearly moving articles closer to naming conventions, and something as simple as moving X of Y to X, Duke of Y, you have nothing to worry about.  I do it all the time when I come across articles that aren't at the right location, and I've never been blocked.
 * 5) The problem, I think, is that wikiprojects should not be used for major issues like deciding naming conventions. Once we have a guideline, a wikiproject is a great way to organize work for getting everything in order, but regular policy talk pages are the proper place to actually decide the guideline itself. john k 21:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: the wikiproject idea, I'v proposed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Royalty that it be converted into WikiProject Royalty and serve as a base for at least some conversations related to this. john k 16:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for Monarchical titles
Here is one concrete proposal. Let's deal with this idea, and then go on to others.

The convention presently reads:
 * 1. Pre-emptively disambiguate the names of monarchs, of modern countries in the format "{Monarch's first name and ordinal} of {Country}". Examples: Edward I of England; Alfonso XII of Spain; Henry I of France.

I propose changing this to read:
 * 1. Pre-emptively disambiguate the names of monarchs of modern countries in the format "{Monarch's first name and ordinal}, {Title} of {Country}". Examples: Franz Joseph I, Emperor of Austria; Alfonso XII, King of Spain; Maximilian I, Elector of Bavaria; Jean, Grand Duke of Luxembourg.

Various other small changes would be necessary throughout the convention to conform with this change. We would remove section 5 about "monarchs whose rank was below that of King".

If such a change did have consensus, I suggest caution in wholesale page moves without discussion on particular pages. Just because the convention says one thing, doesn't mean that there can't be exceptions for particular reasons (although I can't think of any myself). I just want to caution the people who like to do page moves without discussion.

Please add your vote below:


 * Support as nominator. Noel S McFerran 18:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support uncontroversial surely. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. No ordinal where it is unnecessary (e.g. Victoria, Queen of England). - Kittybrewster 19:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support, cautiously. This would involve moving a whole lot of articles. If we're also going to change other naming guidelines, I'd prefer that we figure out the full extent of the changes before we start moving pages.  john k 19:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * A further comment. Does this mean we'll have Edward VII, King of the United Kingdom? I might suggest using "King/Queen of Great Britain and Ireland" for the monarchs between George III and George VI, and "Queen of Great Britain and Northern Ireland," for Elizabeth II, or some other workaround. john k 19:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Erm wouldn't "Great Britain and Ireland" be anachronistic for post 1927 monarchs? In any case I think "King of the United Kingdom" is the only workable thing under this - "King of Great Britain and Ireland" just feels like called George W. Bush "President of America". Timrollpickering 20:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, no, this was precisely the style used between 1927 and 1953 - "King of Great Britain and Ireland," because the monarch remained King of Ireland (until 1949, at least) despite the United Kingdom no longer including all of Ireland. "By the Grace of God of Great Britain and Ireland King" was the style of George V after 1927, as opposed to "By the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland King".  Then in 1953 it was changed to "By the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland King" to account for the Republic's becoming a Republic.  Beyond that, "United Kingdom" was not commonly used in non-technical contexts until after 1927.  Articles like Princess Elizabeth of the United Kingdom is a lot closer to being bizarre than Princess Elizabeth of Great Britain and Ireland would be.  But it's not terribly important either way. john k 21:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Queen Elizabeth II is Queen of far more than UK of course. - Kittybrewster 23:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ack, we've been through this before. john k 00:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose, definitely. Not an improvement on the present situation, and therefore not worth all the hassle of moving everything. Deb 20:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it would be an improvement. For instance, it is not particularly obvious why Frederick Augustus III of Saxony should be the article about the King, rather than the elector, of that name.  john k 21:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, obviously you think it will be an improvement, otherwise you wouldn't have voted for it. But I don't have to agree. Deb 23:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The point of my statement wasn't so much to indicate (again) that I think it would be an improvement, but to indicate an example of a way in which I think it would be an improvement. If you disagree that this would be an improvement, you obviously have the right to, but I don't see why you have to act like I'm an idiot in responding to me. john k 00:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support (and, to John, I'd imagine any proposal is going to involve moving a whole lot of articles). But I have a question: if we're actually going to put "King of X" or whatever in the article title, will we use the actual title when this isn't the same as the country? Will we have, for instance, "King of the Hellenes", "King of the Belgians", "King of Scots", etc., or will we just adapt what we do at the moment and put "King of Greece" etc.? And presumably we'll still have "X, Holy Roman Emperor", rather than "X, Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire", so some alteration to the wording of the proposal would seem to be in order. Proteus (Talk) 23:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Both of these issues are already addressed in section 3 of the convention on Monarchical titles. Noel S McFerran 00:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what section 3 of the convention means in this context. The "King of Greece" example suggests that you are suggesting the second of Proteus's two options.  I very much disagree with the idea of calling Louis Philippe "King of France", or having Mary I, Queen of Scotland.  The former, in parcicular, is actively misleading.  The current formulation of point 3 seems quite problematic to me, in that it refers to "King of the Hellenes" as being an "obscure official name of the state," and doesn't address the "of territory" vs "of people" issue at all, which is the real issue.  To Proteus, I agree that any proposal would involve moving a whole lot of articles, but my point was that I don't want to change this rule, move all the articles, and then have us go back and modify the rules again.  While I think this is a step in the right direction, I also think that there's some other parts of the current conventions I'd like to modify, and that I don't want to have to move a bunch of articles only to have to move a sizeable number of them again, or, alternately, to have the fact that we've moved a bunch of articles be a reason why we can't discuss any further changes to the conventions. john k 00:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that the first of my options is much better. And my "support" vote is really for the general principle of "X, King of Y" for monarchs &mdash; I think I'd oppose any proposal explicitly forcing the use of incorrect titles. Proteus (Talk) 13:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Support. Actually, I have thought that X of Y was a very bad shorthand for kings, as we faced with Alexander of Greece. Kings and so on can very well have the same "X, something of Y" format as lower monarchical life forms already have. Shilkanni 00:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Support, cautiously. In theory this ought to be clearer for people to understand giving the title rather than a generic of country - especially where that country is unknown or no longer existing. However I'd certainly like a pause so we can work through whatever unforseen problem this would cause :) Alci12 16:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose Short names, actually usable in running prose, like Henry IV of France, are preferable. This may be a reasonable solution for cases like John of England, where (1) there is only one king of that name and (2) he doesn't use the Roman numeral I; but why generalize? Septentrionalis 18:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * An actual sample suggests that this isn't really true. The first 28 pages which link to Henry IV of France are evenly split between those that pipe the page name and those that don't at the first link, and all the and pages would look no worse with the proposed version. Most that do pipe it do so as Henry IV, which would be marginally shorter as Henry IV, King of France . If anyone can come up with a way to check all the pages, I'm all ears. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Laura1822 16:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support and hope it can be employed consistantly. Inge 13:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Support, wanted this for ages. The X of Y format, meant to avoid ambiguity, systematically creates its own ambiguity (is Matilda of Scotland queen of England, or of Scotland?) and produces absurdities such as Olaf I of the Isle of Man. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 05:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Questions:
 * What about monarchs whose title changed, for example Charles XIII of Sweden, who became king of Sweden in 1809, then king of Norway in 1814. Should it be Charles XIII, King of Sweden or Charles XIII, King of Sweden and Norway. Same thing with Oscar II of Sweden, but in reverse.
 * Oscar II should definitely just be "King of Sweden." I'd suggest that all the Kings of Sweden and Norway should probably be just called "King of Sweden" in the title - this is how they would be commonly called in shorthand.  But if we were to include Norway, I'd say it should be for the kings from Charles XIII to Charles XV. john k 14:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the kings of Sweden and Norway should be named with both countries since those were treated as two separate titles. The union was loose and the kings very much reigned as kings of two separate countries (the equality and details on each monarch's rule can alway be debated..).Inge 15:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, what about Christian VII, King of Denmark and Norway, Duke of Schleswig-Holstein-Glückstadt; Charles XI, King of Sweden, Grand Duke of Finland, Duke of Scania, Estonia, Livonia, Karelia, Bremen, Verden, Stettin, and Pomerania; Prince of Rügen? Charles I, King of England, Scotland, and Ireland; Maximilian II, Holy Roman Emperor, King of Hungary, Croatia, Dalmatia, and Bohemia, Archduke of Austria; Alexander I, Emperor of all the Russias, King of Poland, Grand Duke of Finland?  Philip II, King of Castile, León, Aragon, Portugal, Valencia, the Two Sicilies, and Sardinia; Duke of Burgundy, Brabant, Luxembourg, Limbourg, Gelderland, and Milan; Count of Barcelona, Flanders, Hainaut, Namur, Holland, and Zealand, etc.; William III, King of the Netherlands, Grand Duke of Luxembourg?  Elizabeth II, Queen of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Saint Lucia, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Belize, and Antigua and Barbuda?  The purpose of the territorial designation should be to identify the person, not to indicate the political status of all the places they ruled, because that can get very rapidly out of hand.  I would suggest a rule that only one geographical designator be used for any individual.  It's usually pretty easy to figure out the main one.  Only a few generally confusing cases, like Vladislaus II of Bohemia and Hungary, come to mind. john k 15:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Your examples are extreme, but I guess you wanted to prove your point thoroughly. I was only giving my opinon regarding that particular question. Your examples relate to other scenarios and many seem to be "subsidiary" titles. Having two countries in the title might not be too much of a hassle. But I was merely expressing my opinon and won't fight this either way. Inge 16:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry to be overwhelming. I wasn't meaning to attack you.  This is an issue that was certain to come up, and I think it's necessary to address it.  You just happened to have brought it up.  As to the specific examples, some of them are probably clearly subsidiary titles.  Others less so.  Others certainly are not.  There are people here who will insist on Elizabeth II's status as queen equally of however many countries it is, for instance.  Certainly Philip II held all his kingdoms separately.  Whether or not lesser titles are subsidiary is another question.  William III's role as King of the Netherlands and as Grand Duke of Luxembourg were completely separate, for instance.  So were George II's roles as King of Great Britain and Elector of Hanover (his seemingly equal title of "King of Ireland," on the other hand, was clearly a subordinate attachment to the Kingdom of Great Britain, while the title of "King of France" was purely notional, save for the Channel Islands).  I agree that giving two kingdoms isn't unnecessarily onerous, but I think that once you start going down that road, it becomes very hard to draw a line on where to stop.  The only examples I can think of where it becomes tricky are when the person was king of a smaller, less important country for a long while before they became king of a bigger, more important country.  In such instances I might support double naming - Vladislaus II, King of Hungary and Bohemia; Henry IV, King of France and Navarre; James VI and I, King of England and Scotland.  Sigismund III, King of Poland and Sweden might also fall under such a special exception.  But these are very special circumstances that don't occur very frequently.  With Henry IV, I think it's probably unnecessary, France being so much larger and more important than what was left of Navarre that the extra 17 years Henry spent as king of the latter probably still don't come close to nearing the importance of his rule in France.  john k 17:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * We don't do that at the moment, though, and for very good reasons. James VI and I, King of England and Scotland is an extremely unwieldy article title, and I think we should be avoiding things like that as much and possible. And, of course, exceptions (unless they're very clear) are generally a nuisance in conventions like this, as they necessitate discussion from article to article deciding whether someone fits into them or not, which tends to breed the sort of inconsistency we're specifically trying to avoid here. Proteus (Talk) 19:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I largely agree - that's why I suggested a one title maximum earlier. john k 19:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What about Popular monarchy? Do we write king of the x (people) or just king of x (country). Carl Logan 13:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Definitely "King of the People," rather than "King of Country," imo. As I said above, calling Louis Philippe the "King of France" is out and out wrong. john k 14:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Definitely, ditto, as in "King of the Belgians" rather than "King of Belgium".Mowens35 14:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose, but kudos for being bold. To me, this brings up far too much to be clarified than what needs to be clarified with the present convention. Also, the articles are long and drawn out. I think we are fine with Name Ordinal of Place for all kings and emperors and should work on lesser sovereigns. Charles 20:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

So what are we going to do about this? It's been sitting here for a week with no more talk or votes. I count 9 supports and 3 opposes &mdash; is that enough to count this as passed and start working on the rest of the system? Proteus (Talk) 19:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Obviously I'd have to go along with consensus, but there do seem to be a few queestions above that could turn into matters for dispute. Deb 12:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I would agree that we ought to clarify issues before going ahead. I might also suggest announcing this somewhere to people who don't normally look at this page, to see if we can get better buy-in.  Given how long the current convention has stood, it would be best if a small group of us don't change it and leave everyone else entirely confused. john k 13:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose I'm afraid - I just can't see Kings and Queens being X, King of Y - as per the above noted issues. Well done for being bold, but this alternative has no real merits over the current guidelines - they are fine as they are IMHO – DBD 13:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Undecided How about anything below an emperor and king has their title added (such as the Grand Dukes of Luxembourg, Electors, Archdukes... etc.) but kings and emperors go without as usual. I do have a problem though with some of the naming of queen-consorts, it's quite confusing sometimes. Gryffindor  10:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose - seems unnecessary - both in objective and in work necessary to achieve it. Michael Sanders 11:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, it replaces a 'most common name' with a fraudulent 'formal name' - 'Louis XIII of France' is acceptable, because he is always non-technically referred to as such. But 'Louis XIII, King of France' - he's also King of Navarre, etc. Also, in this format, would you include house names (e.g. 'Rudolf of Habsburg, King of Germany')? Surnames ('Henry VII Tudor, King of England')? Birthplace designations ('Edward III of Windsor, King of England')? Michael Sanders 11:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Related problem on Norwegian kings

 * I wholeheartedly agree that the naming should be consistent. We have a commonly agreed convention and we should stick to it. Now small groups may decide to go against that because they think a particular article is better suited with a different name. Several articles on Norwegian kings have been subject to individually suggested moves to "most commonly used name". Because they find it to be the scholarly most correct name. As a result Eric Bloodaxe was moved from Eric I of Norway and is AFAIK the only monarch article on wikipedia where the king's nickname is used in the title and where the title gives no clue that the subject is a king. As far as all the Norwegian kings are conserned the standard naming convention should apply. Several problems emerge if we want to use a nickname or a patronym: the title will not identify the subject as a king, some kings had more than one nickname, some of the nicknames have several english translations and the names have different spellings. All these variations can be adressed in redirects. It also blurres the division between the officially recognised Norwegian kings and the many pretenders. But above all we will end up with a mishmash of different types of names which will only serve to confuse those using wikipedia as a place to find information as opposed to those using it to deposit information. Inge 12:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Loads of similar articles: Charlemagne, Henry the Fowler, Edward the Elder, Charles the Simple, Louis the Blind, Suleiman the Magnificent, Alfred the Great, Congal Cáech, Ferchar Fota, Hywel Dda, and so on. Even for Norway, it's only true if you ignore the Baglers and Haakon Sigurdsson. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The inconsistancy is still very much there and some of the ones you mention are examples of that. The Baglers were pretenders and Haakon Sigurdsson was a Jarl (Earl). With the new proposal for a standard naming he would be Haakon Sigurdsson, Jarl of Norway thus removing any misunderstandings. There is a settled list of recognised Norwegian kings and those should follow a consistant naming. You may argue that a patronym might be more correct as that was probably what the king would have used himself or that a nickname would be desirable as that was what other people might have called the king, but none of them form a basis for consistancy and all of them create grounds for misunderstandings. Eric I of Norway or Eric I, King of Norway lets you know that this person was a king of Norway and he was the first one named Eric. There is no room for misunderstanding who or what he was or which particular person you are referring to. But above all we can't have a system where we as a community agree on a set of conventions on how to do things only to be overruled by a smaller minority on some individual articles. Inge 14:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * They would have been consistent had it been possible to agree whether Harald I of Norway should be Harald Fairhair or Harald I Fairhair. Five out of six editors who bothered to express an opinion favoured moving the article from Harald I of Norway, but couldn't agree where to move it to. There wasn't much point in going any further. As for "the community", how many people do you see discussing the question here ? Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well then you would have 55 kings named according to the common convention, 2 named with nickname and one or two with patronym. Other kings had nicknames and patronyms as well. How is that consistent? Historians have compiled a list of rulers of Norway and assigned ordinals accordingly in order to easily identify them. Should we disregard that work? The list might be critisised, but is overwhelmingly regarded as the best solution and is the one used by the Norwegian government and royal house. There are some speshial cases which need their own solution, such as the non-ruling child co-king Olaf Magnusson of Norway which has not been assigned an ordinal because he was not seen as a proper king by the historians. Eric I and Harald I are not two of those speshial cases. This is not a discussion over it is correct to call Eric I Eric Bloodaxe or not. This is a discussion on how we are to best name monarch articles on wikipedia. Should we have a common system or should each article be named according to the whim of any particular author or group of authors (or for that matter a Google count)?Inge 15:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * We should follow the methods of the appropriate experts, as we do in all things. Who'd be served by having an article on John III, Emperor of Russia ? Norwegian historians may use these numbers, but there doesn't appear to be much sign of English-language writers, rather than indexers, doing so. Apart from anything else, Harald Fairhair/Finehair wasn't king of Norway, and it doesn't really help anyone to include modern countries in the titles of pages on pre-national monarchs. This is a general point, applying to Scots, Poles, Norwegians, Swedes, Franks and all the rest. Of course, some might argue that we should follow indexers rather than authors. But isn't that what we have redirects for ? Harald Gille and Harald IV Gille should end up at the same place, as should Harold Gille and Harold IV Gille. Only one of those exists, and that ought to mean something. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 16:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * P.S.: I don't know what the ratio would be, but it wouldn't be 55 to 2. If you adopted the Harald I Fairhair variant, it would be all the kings down to the Kalmar Union. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If you have the view that Harald I wasn't king of Norway I can understand why you are so set on removing any reference to that from the article title. But you should at least recognise that that is your opinion. The issue is not clear cut one way or the other, but that view is not a good basis for a discussion on the topic at hand. When it comes to English language use I think it is valid to point out that if we were to rely solely on that kind of research or publications we would narrow our scope considerably and totally give in to systematic bias. But I think this boils down to the conflict between an historian's obsession on getting every possible information as historically correct as possible (according to the school he follows) and the encyclopedist's need for compiling imformation made available by historians in a format and form agreeable to all schools and as comprehensible as possible to lay readers. From a historians POV you can argue that Eric Bloodaxe is the historically most correct name, but from the POV that we are writing an encyclopedia (in a completely new format) it would be best to name articles regarding similar topics the same way. Inge 12:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

As the proposal above seems to be going through I just realised it opens up a posibility for compromise: Eric I Bloodaxe, King of Norway and Harald I Fairhair, King of Norway. This way all the Norwegian kings follow the common convention and nicknames can be added if deemed apropriate. Inge 14:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Common convention? Nowhere else is {Name} {Roman numeral} {Epithet} used. Septentrionalis 04:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The common convention now is {name} {roman numeral} of {country}. And my view is that all Norwegian kings should follow the convention. If the convention is shifted, as proposed in the vote, to {name} {roman numeral}, {title} of {country} the articles should be changed accordingly. But the convention, allthough it has remained undisputed and stable for a long time, has lately been difficult to uphold with regards to some articles on Norwegian kings. Mainly because Angus proposes to move them. If I get it right his view is that an epithet should be used when naming Norwegian monarch articles. Now I believe that the spirit of the convention is to clearly identify the subject as a monarch of a spesific country and to disambiguate using numerals where they are available. In order to prevent the monarchs from being named in totally different ways and so we don't have to revisit this argument over and over I proposed a compromise which embodies both wishes even though I would prefer the standard. Inge 14:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * {name} {roman numeral} of {country}? Really? This seems like a very weird convention. I am not going to read through tons of archived discussions to find the reasoning behind, but I guess there must be one.
 * I'm not sure how Norwegians themselves refer to their kings, but in Denmark medieval kings are most certainly called by their epithet whenever they have one. In all English language books I have seen, this is also the case, usually with the anglicised version of the name, which should of course be the case here. Everybody who knows Eric Bloodaxe knows him by his nickname, so why shouldn't that be the name of the article? Nobody will search for his article under "Eric I of Norway", so redirecting from "Eric Bloodaxe" just seems redundant. --dllu 11:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * @Angus: I can't help but notice that you didn't include English or Scottish medieval kings in that list of yours. So England and Scotland were nations in the 9th and 10th centuries but the Scandinavian countries weren't? If that's what your implying (and I'm sorry if it isn't), that's just a big load of poobah... --dllu 11:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Alfred the Great? Edward the Elder? and he could have added William the Lion, which we probably should use. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Have your say: moving Óengus I of the Picts
I am minded to move Óengus I of the Picts to something less original. My preferred solution is the banal Óengus son of Fergus (d. 761) for the reasons set out at Talk:Óengus I of the Picts. If you agree, disagree, or have anything to add, please speak up. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I see this didn't go through; but it encourages me to tone down the section involved. We don't actually use X of the Goths, and Angus opposes Z of the Picts. If anyone objects, feel free to revert. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Maiden name rule, again
There have been various moves and discussions on Alix of Hesse and by Rhine, again. While I deplore this, it seems to be working itself out. However, in the process, some editors commented as though the "maiden name rule" for consorts were consensus, and expressed surprise that there was any further discussion.

All regulars on this page know perfectly well that it isn't consensus; some of us think it should be. Even those disagree on the nature and scope of the rule, and whether or not it is just a rule of thumb, like many guidelines.

I think we should state the actual status of the rule, and stop confusing the newbies, and will now edit to that effect. This is largely intended as a demonstration; if you revert, please bring the edit here. Septentrionalis 19:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why you say the present convention is not consensus. It may be that there are alternative preferences, but it seems to me that no other individual solution has the same level of support. Deb 12:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It may well have a plurality, as you say; but that's a long way from WP:Consensus. Do you think the demonstration edit was wrong about where we are on any individual article? Septentrionalis 15:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * And I've temporarily move-protected the Alexandra page against moves by non-admins. I think it's okay for me to do that as I haven't been involved in the most recent "war". Deb 12:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You may be able to unprotect now. Septentrionalis 15:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Brunswick-Lunenburg, etc
Before anyone comments on Lunenburg, yes, I know, haha. Anyway, some time ago I commented on the varying territorial designations used for members of the "House of Brunswick". For instance, we have a lot of people at Brunswick-Lüneburg when they were members of the Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel line and so on. The discussion sort of died down a bit and is now archived. Are there any other thoughts as to how the situation can be rectified? It's also a great way to recategorize such people into house categories to future "maintainence" will be easier. Charles 02:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest that we use whatever the territorial designation was - Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, Brunswick-Kalenberg, Brunswick-Grubenhagen, Brunswick-Celle, Brunswick-Göttingen, and so forth. It gets confusing (especially since Brunswick-Celle is sometimes called 'Brunswick-Lüneburg'), but I'm not sure there's much to be done about it) john k 03:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think this definitely needs to be applied. Also, there is uncertainty over which dukes/princes of the sublines should have the titles appended to the end of their names, if at all. Do you feel that, for instance, *the* prince of Wolfenbüttel should have Duke of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel appended to the end of his name? It makes me wonder if the margraves of Brandenburg need to be similarly renamed. Charles 05:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Er, I think that all agnates in the various Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel lines, emphatically including *the* Prince of Wolfenbüttel, should have "of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel" on their names. The head of the house should be "X, Duke of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel"; cadets who got no special title of their own (like Brunswick-Bevern) should be at "Duke X of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel" or "Prince X of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel").  I'm not sure what you are saying about Brandenburg.  Don't we already do this for Brandenburg-Ansbach and Brandenburg-Bayreuth?  Those were the only immediate lines.  There's also Brandenburg-Schwedt - do we have any articles on them? john k 16:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I also agree that the territorial designation is the best way to identify the individuals. Regarding Brandenburg, most of the Hohenzollerns are already at the correct titles as far as I can tell- see Category:Margraves of Brandenburg-Ansbach, Category:Margraves of Bayreuth, & List of rulers of Brandenburg and Prussia. Regarding Principality of Ansbach and Principality of Bayreuth, I could understand renaming them to Brandenburg-Ansbach and Brandenburg-Bayreuth, with the accompanying category change to Category:Margraves of Brandenburg-Bayreuth. Things seem ok with a quick glance at List of rulers of Brandenburg and Prussia. There was also at least one Margrave of Brandenburg-Küstrin (John, de), but there is no article for him yet. Please let me know if there are any discrepancies (besides the nonuniformity between English/German names). Olessi 16:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Russian imperial naming
Where do we stand on this now? We have various categories that were being discussed: Grand Duchess by marriage and by birth, Empresses etc. I think this is something that needs to be tackled. There is great differences in the naming of various grand duchesses at least, some under birth name with or without titles and some under married names with or without titles and/or territorial designations. It's an absolute mess. I can't find the previous discussion, although I could be blind. I think we can start fresh and get it done though. Ideas? Charles 02:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

For empresses, I think the model Alexandra Fyodorovna (Alix of Hesse) has been settled upon. For the Grand Duchesses, It is, I agree, a total mess. For those born grand duchesses, I'd suggest we stick more or less with the general naming rules. For consorts, remove the title, but use patronymic. E.g. Olga Constantinovna of Russia. For those not consorts, include Grand Duchess: Grand Duchess Tatiana Nikolayevna of Russia. For those who were grand duchesses by marriage, I'd suggest modelling off the rule for empresses, e.g. Grand Duchess Elisabeth Fyodorovna (Elisabeth of Hesse). I'd also suggest that when the same name+patronymic combination is held by different people, even if the naming convention gives different titles, they be additionally'' disambiguated by birth and death year, and that the main pages be or redirect to a disambiguation page. Thus Olga Nikolayevna of Russia would be a disambiguation page, in spite of the fact that that title should technically go to the Queen of Württemberg, while the daughter of Nicholas II should be at Grand Duchess Olga Nikolayevna of Russia (which should also be a disambiguation page, I suspect). We also ought to come up with standardized spellings for names and (especially) patronymics. john k 03:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Now that you've recounted your previous proposal, I agree with it. I do agree as well that the patronymics and the names ought to be standardized as well. For some reason I've also found Feodorovna to be more appropriate that Fyodorovna... Certainly, I think, Nikolaevna is preferable to Nikolayevna... Just how many forms do these patronymics take? Charles 05:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * As many as there are transliterations of Cyrillic, I suspect; and that's a lot. Septentrionalis 15:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I also prefer "Feodorovna", but I seem to recall that being a minority position in previous discussions. I have no especial opinion on "Nikolayevna" vs. "Nikolaevna", save that I detest "Nicholaievna", which seems to be used on numerous wikipedia articles. john k 16:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There is a guideline at WP:RUS, but it sensibly says that English usage should be followed where clear. If there is clear usage, it's probably Nikolaevna, but I think WP:RUS supports Nikolayevna otherwise. Septentrionalis 02:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * On Olga Nikolayevna of Russia: do we really need a dab page? If there are only two of them, let's have dab headers, and save everybody a click. Septentrionalis 15:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It should be a dab page, I think, because under the naming convention, that title would go to the Queen of Württemberg, but clearly the primary referent is Nicholas II's daughter of the same name. I'd suggest having general disambiguation pages at Grand Duchess Olga of Russia, Grand Duchess Tatiana of Russia, and so forth (although I'm not sure where that leaves Princesses of Russia). john k 16:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

In terms of transliterations, I tend to dislike the "y's," so "Feodorovna" and "Nikolaevna" strike me as more aesthetically pleasing than the versions with y's, but I don't know. john k 05:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I concur with you. To my eyes it seems to be more "complete", if that makes any sense. Charles 06:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Those -y- represent an important part of those names, it can usually as well be -i-. However, it is needed, in my opinion. Nikolaievna, or Nicolaievna, if you want to avoid -y-. Shilkanni 20:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't really care which it is, so long as we are consistent in transliteration; ya/ye/yo/yu what Romanization of Russian says to use, so that's fine by me (but ia/ie/io/iu should be redirected). Ye is "ye", yo is "yo": Grand Duchess Tatiana Nikolaevna of Russia scores rather badly: Татьяна Николаевна &rarr; T-a-t- -ya-n-a N-i-k-o-l-a-ye-v-n-a. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I prefer "Nikolayevna" to "Nikolaievna", and both to "Nicolaievna". As someone who doesn't speak Russian or read Cyrillic, "Nikolaevna" looks the best to me, and conveys the same phonetic information, but I'll defer to those with more knowledge.  A comprehensive romanization scheme might be best for the patronymics, even if we anglicize the given names. john k 00:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think we should be consistent. Either go with the full Russian names including the titles, or go with the name they were born with. About the transliteration we can talk later, but let's try to get some consensus first. Gryffindor  21:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Margraves of Brandenburg-Schwedt
What would be the correct article title for Christian Ludwig of Brandenburg-Schwedt? de:Brandenburg-Schwedt mentions three margraves of Brandenburg-Schwedt: Philipp Wilhelm (1688-1711), Friedrich Wilhelm (1731-1771), and Heinrich Friedrich (Friedrich Heinrich; 1771–1788)) as ruling margraves. This link mentions "Charles" (Karl), a son of Frederick William, Elector of Brandenburg, as an earlier margrave. This link mentions an "Albrecht Friedrich" (1711–1731) as ruling between Philipp Wilhelm and Friedrich Wilhelm. I haven't found any links starting that Christian Ludwig actually ruled Schwedt like his brother Philipp Wilhelm, but he definitely has been called the "Margrave of Brandenburg(-Schwedt)". Would this be a substantive or courtesy title? Olessi 00:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * To what extent did the others actually "rule" Schwedt? Schwedt was certainly a mediate, rather than immediate territory, and owed its allegiance to the Elector of Brandenburg, not to the Emperor directly.  I'm not really sure beyond that how any of it worked.  john k 05:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Substantive titles
Quick question here. It appears aristocrats with substantive titles are to be named with '{name}, {title}', whereas those without are to be named as '{title} {name} of {place}'. Is there a particular reason for this, and could we have some more clarification on what exactly constitutes a substantive title? (I have just moved Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria to Franz Ferdinand, Archduke of Austria, and am very uncertain about this move now. The reasons I suggested as to why it may constitute a substantive title are that Ferdinand was the heir apparent to the Austro-Hungarian throne, and that Ferdinand was the head of his family. Feel free to undo the move -- in that case, I apologize in advance for all the double-redirects I've inadvertently created.) I appreciate any expertise that can be offered. theProject 05:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Franz Ferdinand was not the heir apparent (he was the heir-presumptive - he would have been displaced if Franz Joseph had had another son), he was never the head of the family (his uncle Franz Joseph was head of the family for his entire life), and he certainly did not rule over Upper and Lower Austria as a sovereign, which would be what a substantive "Archduke of Austria" would do. "Archduke of Austria" is a title held by all members of the Habsburg and Habsburg-Lorraine families, not just by the heir-apparent or heir-presumptive, like "Prince of Wales" or "Prince of the Asturias".  So it's not a substantive title, and I'm moving the article back. john k 05:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice! By the way -- could it be explained why people without substantive titles are titled this way on Wikipedia? Thanks again. theProject 06:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Because he was "Archduke Franz Ferdinand"; any history book will so call him; but he wasn't "Archduke of Austria". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

German Names of rulers
The kings of Württemberg are currently listed under their English equivalent names. I understand it is kind of unclear if not already anglizised rulers should be listed with their native names or the English equivalent. Ithink the native names should be kept, for not yet decided rulers. I think the translating of the names of rulers is an habit that was more common in the 19th and early 2oth century and isnt really necessary anymore.It is more correct to use native names, in the case of german its not really a problem Frederick=Friedrich for example. I am not asking for the change of people like Frederick the Great! Im more concerned about the more exotic minors. For example Württemberg.--Tresckow 03:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I prefer the English forms for all but the most extraordinary of cases. The "habit" is not one of the 19th and early 20th century, but one the applies to the monarchs of that era. Contemporary monarchs (such as Baudouin/"Baldwin" and Juan Carlos/"John Charles") are not anglicized but previous monarchs generally are. Charles 03:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Members of the House of Orléans
I was going through the template listing members of the House of Orléans and found it to be a complete mess. There are several different ways in which members of the house are named. For instance, some use d'Orléans and others include of Orléans. Some include Orléans before a substantive title and others do not. Some give the substantive title in French and others in English. Can we standardize the naming a little? I feel that all holders of the substantive titles, save for the head of the house at any given time, should be titled Prince Givenname, Count/Duke of Place. All others without substantive titles should be titled Prince(ss) Givenname of Orléans. What does everyone think? Charles 00:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree in general, at least about the descendants of Louis-Phillipe. In fact, I think we should do the same for the heads of the House; the numbers are PoV. (If Louis-Phillipe was king, the present Count of Paris pretends to be Henry VI.) For older Orleans, like Charles of Orleans, Prince would be an anachronism. (and do we really need it for Princes in pretence?). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * All of the substantive titles used in the House of Orleans are historical, having been previously borne by princes or nobles who belonged to different houses. Some of their titles, such as duc de Guise and comte d'Eu are more associated with other dynasties. Therefore the surname d'Orléans helps readers understand to which family a particular titleholder belongs. As for ordinals being POV, so long as Wiki accords Ernst August V, Prince of Hanover that name, it is hard to argue that the various Henris who have headed the Orléans should be denied the same form of disambiguation. Lethiere 22:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I should have clarified, I do mean the most recent and extant House of Orléans (mostly the descendants of Louis Philippe of the French), rather than any historic House of Orléans. The ordinals themselves are not in the article titles but only in the template. Those can be removed and I would not protest. I feel that the current Princes of Orléans (or of France, as some call them) should have Prince in the title. They are members of the dynasty, not heads of it. Charles 02:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm going to disagree again - for exactly the same reasons I have stated many times before. The kind of "standardization" that Charles wants CHANGES scholarship.  An encyclopedia like Wikipedia collects scholarship; it does not alter it. Most of the people on the Orleans template are not known in English-language works as "X of Orleans"; more commonly they are known as "X d'Orleans" (with or without accent).  "Count of La Marche" is just plain silly and shows the problems of translating titles which are not normally translated. Noel S McFerran 05:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Count of La Marche is not silly at all, nor is it an invention, if that is what you are thinking. "La Marche" is the designation. Count of the Marche would be silly, yes. We are including substantive titles for these people in a number of different forms, which itself isn't exactly scholarly when any other work would treat such people symmetrically as members of the same house and family. Using English forms of titles isn't changing scholarship either, it's saying exactly what these people are in terms relating to exactly what they are in French. Charles 08:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Count of La Marche may not be "silly" when used to refer to a nobleman who historically held that fief, but it is arbitrary when used to half-translate a title that does not refer to any title or territory actually possessed, now or ever, by the House of Orléans. When texts speak of pre-Orleans titleholders, La Marche was an important fief, the source of revenues, authority and territory that mattered, supporting the importance in French history of the family that then possessed it. But it is today a dynastic style recognized out of courtesy, not a sovereignty, nor a fief, nor a legal title belonging to or heritable by the Orléans agnate who happens to use it. Whereas speakers of French, Italian, Spanish and German are accustomed to the fact that a particle (de, di, von, zu) used to refer to a person may indicate a genuine territorial association (Prinz von und zu Liechtenstein, Princesse de Monaco) or merely a nominal association (Fürst von Bismarck, Prince de Broglie, Principe de la Paz), but most English-speakers rarely encounter "of" in someone's name, and so tend to associate it with royalty or a legally-held peerage. Thus translation of foreign nominal particles into "of" mistranslates the sense of the title, artificially elevating, e.g. "Baron François Xavier de Sambucy de Sorgue", an untitled, very junior cadet of a minor French family ennobled only in the 1800s, but who uses a courtesy title in French society that is widely understood as such, into "Francis Xavier, Baron of Sambucy of Sorgue", which sounds more like a legal peerage than it should. A title should be translated for ease of comprehension in compliance with Wiki norms, but the territorial designation should be as most commonly used, i.e. Count de La Marche. The Duke of Lorraine and the original Duke de Guise were brothers, but the "of" marks one as a continental sovereign and the "de" suggests that his younger brother was a nobleman in the peerage of France, which is historically correct. The kind of confusion found at List of rulers of Elbeuf results partially from failure to make such distinctions easier for readers to grasp. Leave particles associated with surnames untranslated unless customarily translated in modern English. Lethiere 22:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I must agree with Charles here; two dozen scholarly uses of Count of La Marche are pretty good; although most of them refer to the historic counts, not to the Orleans claimants. The corresponding search for comte de la Marche turns up primarily works or quotations in French, and that is indeed what the French Wikipedia should use. But there is a wider issue, for which I have made a new section. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The members of this family use "d'Orleans" as a surname, not as a territorial principality. Giving the title "Prince of Orleans" to them  is fine if one is a supporter of Louis Alphonse, Duke of Anjou; for the legitimists the Orleans are just (i.e. only) that, princes of Orleans.  But today the members of the house of Orleans tend to style themselves in English "of France" (since they seem to ignore the fact this this is unhistorical). Even though I personally am a great admirer of Louis Alphonse, I don't think it is appropriate for this minority view to be the standard for a Wikipedia template (in the same way, even though I am one of the most active contemporary Jacobites, I don't insist on the Windsors being renamed in their Wikipedia articles). Noel S McFerran 21:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not aware that Orléans cadets use "of France" in their dynastic titles, in English or French. So far as I know, since 1883 only the children of Orléans pretenders (past or present) and of their heirs apparent and heirs eventual use that style. Cadets should be and are properly referred to (whether by French Legitimists or Orleanists) as "of Orleans" (d'Orléans). Coupled with the princely prefix and HRH, that is also the usage, between 1830 and 1883, of agnatic descendants of Louis-Philippe of France and their dynastic wives. Lethiere 00:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Princes in pretence
Should we use the courtesy title of Prince in any article about someone who is not accorded it by law or clear English usage?

We have articles on Charles Edward Stuart and Henri, comte de Chambord, although one of them pretended to a substantive principality, and the other was, in his childhood, actually, officially, and universally called Prince. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * For that matter, the founder of the House of Orleans and his son, the Prince Regent, are Philippe I, Duke of Orléans and Philippe II, Duke of Orléans. We can discuss the accent elsewhere; but if we do not style them Princes, why should we do so for their very distant descendants? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * For the same reason that the current British monarch's second son is not found at Andrew, Duke of York but at Prince Andrew, Duke of York: noble titles were historically borne by royalty to distinguish them from one another, not to distinguish them from non-royalty. Everyone who had occasion to know of them at all already knew they were dynasts. It was not the custom in 18th century France for royalty to bear the prefix prince or princess. But that custom changed early in the 19th century, and the princely prefix is borne, by custom or law, by all royalty for more than a century now (unless a different prefix is used as substitute, i.e. archduke for Habsburgs, grand duke for Romanovs, infante for Braganzas, etc). Royalty are nowadays referred to interchangeably -- and confusingly -- by their noble titles and their dynastic prefix (e.g. "Prince Andrew" aka "the Duke of York", "Prince Willem-Alexander" aka "the Prince of Orange", "Prince Don Felipe" aka "the Prince of Asturias", "Princess Mathilde" aka "the Duchess of Brabant", and "Prince Henri d'Orléans" aka "the Comte de Paris"). Wiki readers today cannot be presumed to intuit that Anthony, Duke of Clermont-Tonnere is a nobleman (born 10July 1962) whose title is legally borne under current French law, while Henry, Count of Clermont was the assumed title of pretence of the man widely recognized as heir to the defunct throne of France and who, as such, is more intrinsically notable than a similarly-titled duke, despite only being a "count". Because it's much easier to confuse a royal dynast's title with that of an ordinary nobleman nowadays, it makes sense to help readers out by distinguishing the two in the commonly accepted fashion à la Prince Andrew, Duke of York. Lethiere 22:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "Early in the nineteenth century"? When? Under Napoleon or under Charles X?


 * Neither and both. Revolutionary France abolished titles of nobility, and established (in 1791, only to abolish it -- along with the monarchy -- a year later) that dynasts of the Royal House would bear the title Prince français (Napoleon would give the same title to his dynasts in 1804); until then, they were prince du sang royal de France but this was a rank, never a title, because none was considered necessary -- for the exact same reason that in the Commonwealth monarchies Elizabeth II is not referred to as "Queen Elizabeth" but as "the Queen", and her daughter is not "the Princess Royal Anne of the United Kingdom" but "the Princess Royal": there being only one monarchy, one monarch, and one royal family, such distinctions had not traditionally been considered necessary. This was generally true of monarchies until the late 1600s, when it became fashionable for members of foreign dynasties to flock to the court at Versailles. As a result of the fact that these princelings often came from Germany (princes of Brunswick, the Palatinate, Hesse, Nassau, Leiningen {Linange}, Saxe-Lusatia {Luzace}, Wurttemberg {Montbéliard}, etc) where there were numerous reigning families with widely varying titles, title inflation occurred in France, as can clearly be seen in Père Anselme's histories of the royalty and nobility of France: the previously unknown style of "le Prince Firstname" gradually became prevalent in the houses of France's princes étrangers (Lorraine-Guise, Rohan, La Tour d'Auvergne, La Trémoille, Monaco, etc) over the use of noble titles such as "comte de La Tremoille" which could, by custom, be assumed by any noble, including those who lacked any legal title at all. It was inevitable in this environment that the quaint French habit of addressing the King's younger daughters as "Madame Firstname" and the King's eldest brother simply as "Monsieur" did not survive when the ancien régime rolled back the clock in 1815 (nor was the 1791 law restored). But strictly speaking, under both the restored Bourbons and the reigning Orléans, the prefix of "Prince/sse" never became official -- but became universal nonetheless: check the Almanach de Gotha, Libro d'Oro and the Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels, the most widely-accepted authorities on European titles, all of which accord the princely prefix to members of reigning dynasties retroactively, even when (as in France, Denmark, Greece, the UK until 1864, and all the Balkan monarchies), such titles were traditions, never matters of law. That is because those reference works (popular with diplomats precisely so that, e.g., a retired, self-made American millionaire appointed Ambassador to Luxembourg could quickly learn how to avoid faux pas that he cared nothing about, but which his social-climbing wife would give him hell over!) grasped that in a modern world that understood less and less the distinction between royalty and nobility, the distinction needed to be highlighted, so that, as Wiki has also found, that which is used and practiced should not be overlooked in favor of what is pedantically correct. All of these folk are considered, referred to and addressed as prince, although their technical right to that title may or may not be valid. Lethiere 01:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * More importantly, we don't use it in the titles of articles about Princes of the Houses of France from the late nineteenth century either; see Napoléon Joseph Charles Paul Bonaparte. None of these are recognized by the present laws of France, even to the extent of exiling them; why should we?
 * Our naming conventions require the "most common name used in English", even when inaccurate (as it is here: the correct and legal surname of the Imperial Bonapartes has been "Napoléon" since 1806-- not Bonaparte). But that's for ease in locating articles. Readers, however, come to an encyclopedia to learn what they didn't know already about the subject, including accurate titulature. Wiki's articles are notoriously inconsistent on the use of titles in articles, which is what this guideline should enable to be fixed if we can ever agree on what to fix: Right now, at least two pretenders who don't actually seek restoration of monarchy (since their dynasties' realms haven't existed on a map for nearly 150 years) are even accorded styles in Wiki as if they are reigning monarchs -- Ernst August V, Prince of Hanover and Archduke Sigismund, Grand Duke of Tuscany!!! French republican law, by the way, does legally recognize dynastic titles, if inherited rather than assumed. The lawsuit brought in 1987 by the comte de Clermont against the use of the title of pretence, Duke of Anjou, by his cousin, the French Legitimist pretender Louis Alphonse, Duke of Anjou in 1987 lost because the House of Orléans lacked standing to challenge a particular title to which they never held a legal right, not because France does not recognize royal titles (although, in fact, duc d'Anjou is a titre de courtoisie, never legal in either branch of the Bourbons who now use it). Wiki should accord or explain titles that are widely known, used, claimed or widely attributed to dynasts and ex-dynasts, because that is the kind of information a reader would expect to find upon looking up that dynast in an encyclopedia. Lethiere 01:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree we should follow common usage; and we do: the common usage, and what the reader expects, is "comte de Paris" and "Count of Paris", not Prince. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The reader expects entries on people who are notable for being royalty to be identified as such by unambiguous terms like emperor, queen, and prince. Lethiere 06:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If we do it for the sons of the House of Orleans, do we do it for the legitimists/Carlists? Are they "royal dynasts"? Let's not go there. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course we should, except where the title of pretence makes it clear that the subject under discussion is royalty rather than nobility. Nobody disputes that members of the Carlist branches are dynastic princes, even though their claim to the Spanish throne is disputed. The Segovia/Cadiz branch is more debateable, because the King of Spain only recognizes the French Legitimist claimant as a cadet of the Spanish Bourbons under the style "His Excellency don Luis-Alfonso de Borbón y Martínez-Bordiú". More usual is, for example, Prince Nikola of Montenegro (in September his Wiki bio was wrongly moved from "Nikola, Prince of Montenegro" to "Nikola, Crown Prince of Montenegro": Since crown prince is only attributed in reputable dynastic chronicles to heirs who have actually borne it under the monarchy, and Prince of Montenegro ceased being suitable 3 June 2006 when it became an independent republic, "Prince Nikola of Montenegro" or "Prince Nikola Petrović-Njegoš" are the only available titles he seems to have been actually known under). The compromise I suggest Wiki adopt is that only when a title of pretence is below prince or duke (since these titles have historically been borne by sovereigns and dynasts, as well as being the most common titles of pretenders), should the princely prefix be inserted. Thus Jean of Orléans, duc de Guise and Maria Emanuel of Saxony, Margrave of Meissen, but Prince Juan of Bourbon, Count de Montizón, and Prince Henri of Orléans, comte de Paris, with exceptions where a pretender is so well known by a specific name in English that Wiki should retain that usage, e.g. Don Juan, Count of Barcelona and Henry, Cardinal York. Lethiere 01:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * An encyclopedia doesn't come up with arbitrary rules of its own; it follows what the scholarship in the area does. Wikipedia doesn't "recognise" princes; it merely summarizes what scholarship says about people.  If the scholarly record generally calls somebody a prince, then so does an encyclopedia.  If not, it doesn't. Noel S McFerran 03:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Fine; what is the scholarship? I looked for scholarly references to the Orleans claimants, and found nothing. Prince Andrew, however, is easy to find. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * But where did you look, ie in what scholarly references? Online? Or at a public or research library, ie books about members of the Orléans family, etc? Scholarly biographies and histories would seem to trump sources found solely online. Frankly, in many instances, royalty, minor or otherwise, is a scholarly subspecialty best covered in books by specialists in the field.Mowens35 20:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I looked at scholar.google.com, since I was primarily looking for English uses of Comte de La Marche. It is, however, the responsibility of those who claim sources to identify them. What scholarly texts on the Orleans pretenders? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Current royal peeresses
Just had a thought - why is "The" present in the titles of Camilla, Sophie, etc., but no "The" in their husbands? If the definite article is there to signify their being the present peeress, why not the same case for Charles or Edward? – DBD 20:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * For women, the "The" is necessary to differentiate them from any possible former holders of that title. For men, there can never be any such ambiguity. (Once the Earl of Wessex, always the Earl of Wessex) -- Ibagli ( Talk ) 15:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Is it necessary? We have an elaborate system for distinguishing the present Duke of York from all previous Dukes of York; why won't this work for the Duchesses? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Dukes of York don't lose their titles when they get divorced or widowed. That's the differences. Deb 21:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I think (a) it's completely unnecessary and (b) it looks horrible. But it seems I'm in a minority. Proteus (Talk) 22:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I wholeheartedly agree.
 * This is an encyclopedia, not a social secretary. Forms of address and styles belong in an infobox, not in the article title.
 * Peers have lost their titles, but we call them George Nevill, Duke of Bedford and so on all the same.
 * In fact, we sensibly call the present Duchess of York Sarah, Duchess of York. We should leave her there, like Georgiana Cavendish, Duchess of Devonshire; rather than moving her to Sarah, the Duchess of York, then (if it so happens) to Sarah, dowager Duchess of York, then back where she is now. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe, Mr Anderson, that you misunderstand slightly - Sarah Ferguson is not the Duchess of York - her being the duchess lapsed upon the divorce - "Sarah, Duchess of York" (thus, and exactly thus) is merely a courtesy style for a divorced peeress. – DBD 00:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * My error. But I remain of the position that this is where she should always have been. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, we went to the current naming system as recently as the end of 2005 - see the last archive for the full debate, which culminated in a proposal being accepted. Should we really be having the argument again so soon? Deb 12:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Why not? Consensus can change. As PMA said, [t]his is an encyclopedia, not a social secretary: the question is dull in the extreme, and indicative of the narrow, pedantic focus of this supposedly broad guideline. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I expected someone to come up with that comment. But the point is that several of the people who are raising the issue now were involved in that last debate.  I would therefore at least suggest that people who have something to add should look at archive #9 first so as to familiarize themselves with the issues rather than going over the same ground again. Deb 23:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm so happy not to have disappointed you. Perhaps you'd want to involve a rather broader group of editors in any future discussions. I agree that it's difficult to get a huge input into things like this, but if you have any suggestions, short of kidnapping editors, or relating it to Star Trek episode naming somehow, I'd be interested to hear them. Let me make a simple, and bold, proposal: this guideline is redundant given the existence of WP:NAME, WP:COMMONNAME, and WP:NAMEPEOPLE. It should be marked as historic, with an admonitory essay prepended recounting the evils of Instruction creep and feeping creaturism. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with PMA and Proteus - I'd much prefer Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, Katharine, Duchess of Kent, Sophie, Countess of Wessex, and so forth. There is no confusion or ambiguity about who is being referred to, and this would seem, at any rate, like the obvious way to refer to these people. Also, we don't use this form for other peeresses by marriage - see for instance Natalia Grosvenor, Duchess of Westminster and Fortune FitzRoy, Duchess of Grafton. Why should royal peeresses be treated differently? I'm not sure what to make of Angus's comment - names of royals and peers and so forth are complicated, and some kind of naming convention is in order. Whether the current one strikes the right balance, I don't know, but jettisoning the very idea of such a naming convention seems odd to me. john k 19:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The current convention was created to try to clear up confusion between the current wives of royal peers (The Duchess of Cornwall, The Countess of Wessex, etc.) and the divorced wives (Diana, Princess of Wales and Sarah, Duchess of York). I am not sure why the convention was never applied to non-royal peeresses. The old convention had no difference between the two. Now, to be sure, the information is included in the article text, but this was decided to be an easy way to have the information up front. I agree with John, it might not be the correct way to handle it (even thought I supported it), but until a better way is found, I don't know how else to handle it. Prsgodd e ss187 19:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm still not sure I see a need for such a distinction, and I certainly don't remember any confusion when we had both divorced and current wives at X, Duchess of Y. As long as the text of the article makes their marital status and correct style clear, I see no reason why titles can't be ambiguous. (To make a simple analogy, no one complains that the articles Catherine Howard and Catherine Parr don't make it clear from their titles which one was beheaded and which one survived.) Proteus (Talk) 20:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that there really is much difference in the treatment of royal and non-royal peeresses, either here or in the "real world". We did have Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire (who was divorced) until someone moved it -- I can't quite remember what the reasoning was behind that.  However, in general we have relatively few entries for non-royal peeresses (particularly divorced ones) and the surname is really the key to it.  In practice, the naming tends to be a bit random, depending on whether their notoriety comes from their marriage or from something else, eg. Marion Stein.  With the royal family, a precedent has had to be set because people know these women and have to know how to address them. It's not such a big issue for other peeresses. Deb 21:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Georgiana Cavendish, Duchess of Devonshire wasn't divorced, by the way. Proteus (Talk) 21:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * My mistake. That explains it, then. Deb 22:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe she was moved to include her surname, just as we call her husband William Cavendish, 5th Duke of Devonshire; I have no particular opinion on this decision. Her successor, who was widowed, is under Elizabeth Hervey, not Elizabeth Cavendish, dowager Duchess of Devonshire. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, you're right, and that's my point about the non-royal peeresses. The royal ones don't have a surname. Actually, it was me who created Elizabeth Hervey, and I'm still not sure whether I put her at the right place. The fact is that she is much better known as Lady Elizabeth Foster, but she also wrote novels (I think - I'm still trying to check up on that one) as Elizabeth Hervey. Deb 12:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

September 2007
Hi, just wanting to restart the debate – I'm very much in favour of removing "The" – do we reckon a poll might be nigh? DBD 22:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Margaret of Parma
There is a proposal to move this to Duchess Margaret of Parma. Since this name is not English usage (I've never heard it before, and scholar.google.com gets one hit, which may be spurious), we may want to consider how this fits into this policy if it is not moved.

In any case, come and comment! Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Dauphins
Recently there has been a lot of moving, most of it undiscussed, of the articles for the French dauphins. The disambiguation page has also been moved several times and is (currently, but who knows for how long) located at Louis, Dauphin. What do we properly name all of these dauphins? Were some better known by ducal titles? I think this needs to be clarified. Who knows how many triple and double redirects have gone unnoticed from the high volume of recent moves. Charles 00:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't like "Louis-Ferdinand" for Louis XV's son, who I've never heard referred to that way. Most of the others seem adequate. john k 01:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I would agree with Charles and move the article back to Louis, Dauphin of France (disambiguation), the current title is awful. The current format for some of the articles such as Louis-Joseph, Dauphin of France seems fine to me. What exactly was the problem, is it because the last name was added as well? I don't think that's necessary. Gryffindor  10:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * First of all, there was one man whose name was only Louis, Dauphin of France (the son of Charles VI). I can't find any non-wikipedia-based references to him ever being known as 'Duke of Guyenne' (a title he received at the same time as becoming Dauphin, so he wouldn't be called that, just as you wouldn't list the current Prince Charles as 'Duke of Cornwall'). Then there are Louis-Ferdinand, Dauphin of France and Louis-Joseph, Dauphin of France, who are disambiguated by their names (I did suggest on the Louis-Ferdinand discussion page that they could be disambiguated by dates, but cfvh didn't bother to reply). Then there are also the various people who owe their article names to their 'most common names' (and I'm seriously considering changing Louis, Grand Dauphin to Louis, Dauphin of France (1661-1711) - it's one thing to title his son's article as Louis, Duke of Burgundy, because the man is always so called, and was such for most of his life - but 'Grand Dauphin' is merely a nickname) that could be listed as 'Dauphins of France'. As for the new title, it is such because a person might also be searching for one of the Dauphins of Auvergne. Michael Sanders 11:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * In fact, decided - Louis, Grand Dauphin is now Louis, Dauphin of France (1661-1711). The old name seemed to violate title rules, and since Charles the Bold is Charles I, Duke of Burgundy... Michael Sanders 11:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Michael, for Louis, Duke of Guyenne, I don't see any reason to assume that the way people were styled in the 16th to 18th centuries applies to the early 15th century. That "Dauphin" would have  superceded other titles later does not  mean it would do so then.   But I don't know - a reference would be useful, either way.  As to Charles I, Duke of Burgundy, that article title is a travesty, and certainly shouldn't be used as a model for other articles. john k 16:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I know that Charles VII (who also held some sort of ducal title) was referred to as Dauphin - indeed, Joan of Arc referred to him as such even when he was technically King (but uncrowned). As for Charles the Bold, I don't see any problem with the current article title - particularly as he is also referred to as 'Charles the Rash' (just as Louis, Grand Dauphin was misleading - le Grand Dauphin means 'the Big Dauphin', not 'the Grand Dauphin' or 'the Great Dauphin', both of which imply 'grandeur' of spirit, force of arms, etc). Michael Sanders 16:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't really care about the Grand Dauphin, and you are, of course, right a bout Charles VII. On the other hand, Charles the Bold may occasionally be referred to as  "Charles the  Rash" (which is, indeed, a better translation of the French Téméraire), but the name Charles the Bold is so predominant and so unique that I think it should be used for the article. john k 20:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think we're getting side-tracked here - does anyone have any problems with Louis, Dauphin as the disambiguation page for all men named Dauphin and Louis, and are the titles of the articles led to by that page acceptable? Also, are Louis, Duke of Burgundy and Louis, Duke of Brittany acceptable titles for those men? I've seen the Duke of Burgundy referred to as the Dauphin, and occasionally as le Petit Dauphin - a flawed soubriquet, I believe - but predominately as 'Louis, Duke of Burgundy', I don't believe I have ever seen the Duke of Brittany referred to as the Dauphin in passing (I may have seen references to him becoming Dauphin on his father's death, but don't hold me to it), and they were of course Dauphin very briefly; on the other hand, it is the highest title the two held. What does the policy dictate there? Michael Sanders 00:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * As I only have time to comment briefly (I will comment on the rest later), I do have a problem with Louis, Dauphin. We don't have princesses named Alexandra at Alexandra, Princess. It should either be (and wait, discuss it first, don't just move it) Dauphin Louis or it should be split into Louis, Dauphin of Auvergne and Louis, Dauphin of France. Furthermore, there is no confusion as to the use of "Grand" in English. Charles 02:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

In English, would you describe someone as Grand if you meant big or large? Michael Sanders 13:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Moreover, I don't believe I have ever seen Dauphin placed before the name - it is always after. But I would see no major problem with moving it to Dauphin Louis. Michael Sanders 17:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer "Dauphin of France". john k 14:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much sense it makes to have this conversation. Michaelsanders just goes ahead and changes things. He doesn't seem to understand that the goal is consensus. I reverted one of his name changes because I thought that this issue was still under discussion. But he just changed it back, since clearly he believes that his opinion is the only one which counts. Noel S McFerran 22:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It is incredibly annoying and it needs to be fixed. Charles 23:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * What is incredibly annoying, and needs to be fixed? Compliance with rules regarding titles? Desire to properly disambiguate names? There's nothing that requires fixing. Personally, what I find annoying is editors who complain about issues, and who then fail to make constructive suggestions when it is clear that they won't get their own way (you still haven't suggested a title you would think appropriate for the son of Louis XV). Nor did I see any point in continuing this discussion - or that on Louis-Ferdinand - when it clearly wasn't going anywhere, because you preferred complaining to making constructive suggestions. Michael Sanders 23:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I have separated the disambiguation pages into Louis, Dauphin of France (disambiguation) and Louis, Dauphin of Auvergne (disambiguation). Charles 16:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Shortcuts
Any objection to making the "official" shortcuts for this page WP:NCNT and WP:NC(NT)? Olessi 18:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * None here. Charles 04:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I created the redirects and added the guideline header to the page. Olessi 20:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

French princes revisited
Earlier I started a discussion about the naming of members of the House of Orléans (specifically of this house) and other members of other French lines. Currently, there are many forms being used, some in English, some in French and some as mixtures of both. In addition, some variously include the title of Prince before a name while others do not. Some use of France, some use d'Orléans or of Orléans. Furthermore, some of the women who married into the family are variously identified by their full premarital title, by their marital title, or a mixture of both (e.g. Infanta NN, Duchess of X or just Infanta NN of Spain). The last problem seems to pop up in many royal families represented here on Wikipedia, but that's another discussion...

I think a move needs to be made to fix these forms and bring them into line with an identifiable convention. My personal opinion is to use the convention that is used for all other royals. Dukes, counts, etc of the royal family should be titled Prince NN, Duke/Count of X (in English). I don't think d'Orléans or of Orléans needs to follow the forename. Heads of the house after the monarchy can drop the title of Prince and just have their title appended to the end of their name (e.g. NN, Count of Paris), as is done with all other pretenders on Wikipedia. Princesses who do not qualify for any other title (marital or otherwise) should be titled Princess NN of Orléans.

The original Bourbon line is different, as there really was no title of Prince or Princess as far as I can tell (it was a rank, not a title; prince du sang) while the House of Orléans is frequently attributed the title of Prince or Princess. Therefore, members of this house don't necessarily need the title of Prince or Princess preceding their forenames although any titles should be appended to the end of the names in English (e.g. Duke/Count of X...). Princes and princesses of sub-branches (those using designations derived from their father's title) are an issue as I don't quite understand if prince or princess should be used in front of their names.

So, in summary, this is what I feel should be done:


 * House of Bourbon-Orléans:
 * Princes and princesses without ducal/comital titles: Prince(ss) NN of Orléans (unless under another convention due to marriage)
 * Princes with ducal/comital titles: Prince NN, Duke/Count of X
 * Princesses by marriage: Whatever the existing conventions are, which probably need clarification
 * Pretenders: NN, Duke/Count of X


 * House of Bourbon:
 * Princes and princess without ducal/comital titles: NN of France (unless under another convention due to marriage
 * Princes and princesses without ducal/comital titles taking a surname/designation (X) from their father: (Prince(ss)?) 'NN of X
 * Princes with ducal/comital titles: NN, Duke/Count of X
 * Princesses by marriage: Whatever the existing conventions are, which probably need clarification
 * Pretenders: I think these are all correctly titled

After this, I think there can be discussion about the Bourbons of Spain. Charles 10:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Examples would be helpful; for example, do you mean this to apply to the eighteenth-century Dukes of Orleans? (Discussion above suggests not, but be clear...) In general, as a matter of WP:UE, I prefer of Orleans and Count of Paris, Count of Chartres. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * "Count of Paris" is not very frequently used - most English books I have seen would use "Comte de Paris," and this has been the standard form for a long time.  See this google news archive search, which gives the New York times referring to the 19th century Comte de Paris as, well, "the Comte de Paris."  There's also Google Scholar.  Nearly three times as many hits as for "Count of Paris," and a large percentage of the hits for "Count of Paris" are for the 9th and 10th century counts.  This is not some kind of newfangled hatred of English - the French form has been standard in English since the 19th century.  Beyond that, I'll just note that there is, in fact, absolutely no current convention for princesses by marriage, so yes, that does need to be clarified.  At any rate, I'd support French forms of titles (and names) from at least the 18th century onwards. john k 14:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think English is preferable in cases such as this, but do you agree that the forms in general are alright (regardless of the language)? Charles 16:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The forms are fine, with the exception of the issue of language. "Count of Paris" strikes me as being similar to John Charles I of Spain - a needless and awkward anglicization. john k 16:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Language, to me, has only ever been an issue of given names. Of course, we do not call the Spanish king "John Charles", just as we would not call the Orléanist pretender "Henry". However, the title itself is a different issue. I shudder to think that we would have an article titled "Kaiser Wilhelm". Charles 16:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Wilhelm II, German Kaiser would not seem like a self-evidently terrible title. But historically, French titles have been left untranslated far more than German ones.  I think we should reflect this. john k 16:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Pmanderson, I am speaking chiefly of the issue and descendants of Louis Philippe who constitute the most recent House of Orléans. The rest fall under the original House of Bourbon. Charles 16:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, another objection: only fils and filles de France without other title should be at "N of France." Others should be at "N of Orléans," or "N of Anjou," or "N of Bourbon" or what not. john k 16:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This is true, I should have stated it above under "Bourbon". I have added my idea of it. I don't know if "Prince" or "Princess" would apply in such a case. Charles 17:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I find it laudable that Charles is trying to find a solution and a format. I agree with his proposals, should a particular case be problematic, we can always reconvene. Gryffindor  14:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Gryffindor! Have you any particular thoughts on the use of English vs French? As stated earlier, I find English to be preferential. I feel that the French titles can stay for non-royal/non-Bourbon French nobles but that members of the House(s) of France should have English titles. Charles 14:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you provide some sources in English that refer to the "Count of Paris" when referring to one of the three pretenders since 1848 who have been known by that title?  john k 22:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * There are a comparable number of results in a book and scholar search (I added Orléans to avoid the old, old counts). A search of "comte de Paris" gave me a number of French language results. All in all, I would say that there are enough results to support the English usage of the title. The searches were "Count of Paris" + Orleans and "comte de Paris". Charles 23:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I will concede that both forms seem to show some usage in English. I believe, though, that our difference on this is basically philosophical, rather than based on disagreement about the empirical facts.  My preference is to anglicize only when the anglicized form is obviously predominant, and otherwise to stick with native forms.  Your preference appears to be to use the anglicized form whenever that form is not entirely unnatural.  We'll have to agree to disagree over which is preferable, but we still need a way to figure out how to decide which to use in article titles. I'm open to suggestions. john k 02:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Charles has made the following suggestions, however he hasn't shown that all of these suggestions are common English usage, or even English translation of common French usage (I'm not arguing against all of them, merely saying that there should be some precedent for what we do - and that we should know what that precedent is):


 * House of Bourbon-Orléans:
 * Princes and princesses without ducal/comital titles: Prince(ss) NN of Orléans (unless under another convention due to marriage)
 * Princes with ducal/comital titles: Prince NN, Duke/Count of X
 * Pretenders: NN, Duke/Count of X
 * House of Bourbon:
 * Princes and princess without ducal/comital titles: NN of France (unless under another convention due to marriage
 * Princes and princesses without ducal/comital titles taking a surname/designation (X) from their father: (Prince(ss)?) 'NN of X
 * Princes with ducal/comital titles: NN, Duke/Count of X


 * 1. A Google search shows that "House of Orléans" is far and away a more common designation than "House of Bourbon-Orléans".
 * 2. There is little precedent in the scholarly literature for the usage "Prince NN, Duke/Count of X". This is a Wikipedia invention which needs no further encouragement.  It makes no sense for Sweden or the UKGBNI; let's not extend it to another country. Noel S McFerran 03:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know... I think the proposals by Charles are good so far. I agree that "Bourbon-Orleans" is probably a non-starter, it should be a simple "House of Orléans". About Wikipedia inventions, take a look at the husband of Queen Victoria, which is also slightly unusual. Queen Victoria herself is also listed as "Victoria of the United Kingdom", also a bit unusual when she is almost universally known as "Queen Victoria".... hm. Gryffindor  21:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Married princesses
Currently, the conventions are unclear as to how to title princesses who marry into other families and who gain other titles. I can think of a few categories that ought to be discussed:


 * Princesses who married cadet/junior princes
 * Princesses who married cadet/junior princes bearing substantive titles
 * Princesses who married sovereigns below the rank of king
 * Princesses who married pretenders
 * Princesses who married nobles bearing substantive titles
 * Princesses who married nobles with non-substantive titles
 * Women of noble and less than princely rank who married princes

Of course, there may be more cases. Any ideas? Charles 16:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure various things have b een proposed  in the past. I'm not feeling up to think about it at the moment, but perhaps I'll come back to it. It's a general mess. john k 16:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * We should either go with their pre-marital name and title, or go with what they became when married. I agree it's a mess, maybe it has to be decided on a case-by-case basis? Gryffindor  09:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with the last statement: "maybe it has to be decided on a case-by-case basis". The most general convention overall is "use the most common form of the name used in English".  We do this with women who were not born princesses.  If they are best known by the name with which they were born, then that's their article title.  If they are best known by another name (usually a married name), then that's their article title. Wikipedia shouldn't invent names for people based on some regulated system.
 * The problem comes with less well-known individuals where there is little written about them. But then, the question should be: is it appropriate for an encyclopedia to have an article about a person summarizing the incredibly little which has been written about that person? Noel S McFerran 13:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Marie Antoinette of Austria
I see that several of us have voted to move this to simple Marie Antoinette. Ny only reason for disagreeing is that, if the "maiden name convention" has any value, it should be applied here - it is clear what House she is from. If it has no value, we should dump it. Which? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I feel that the naming conventions are to be used when there is no overwhelmingly common or famous name for a royal. Indeed, there are conventions about common names as well. Every rule has notable exceptions. Marie Antoinette is one of them. If you notice, I am a fervent supporter of the naming conventions, but I also recognize when an exception is to be made. Charles 20:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Then we should add a note to that effect to the section on Past Royal Consorts; we should document what we actually do. At the moment we imply that X of Y is an exception to most common name (as it certainly would be for Elizabeth of Bavaria or Alix of Hesse. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That is a wholly reasonable suggestion. Have you any idea on the appropriate wording? Charles 22:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I would wait until the move passes, as seems likely. Wording may occur to me by then. Should Elisabeth of Bavaria be Empress Elisabeth of Austria, under the same reasoning? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It will pass. Added minimal wording. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * In this case, I think the anticipatory modification is fully justified. Charles 17:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The same reasoning would certainly seem to apply to Sisi. john k 22:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

And Michael Sanders is insisting that Marie Antoinette of Austria appear in the first line. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I made a move request on Sisi. Discsuss at Talk:Elisabeth of Bavaria. Let's see which way this goes. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I honestly hope it goes nowhere. Nowhere near as notable an "exception" as Marie Antoinette. Charles 03:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The move result is (properly) No consensus. The opposes, however, include Michael Sanders' (unsubstantiated) claim that Elisabeth of Bavaria is actually more common in English, and a piece of Wikilawyering from Lethiere on whether the discussion should take place here or on the article talk page. On the question I am interested in, there seems now little support for the "maiden name rule" against English usage (Sanders denies that they are in fact in conflict here). I propose to edit in this sense; comments? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see how the vote at Talk:Elisabeth of Bavaria supports abandonment of the "maiden name rule" (My "Wikilawyering" votes on both Marie Antoinette and Elizabeth of Bavaria derived from the "overwhelmingly known as" exception permitted in the Naming Convention. What other evidence indicates that "there seems now little support for the 'maiden name rule'"? Let's have a thorough discussion of the implications, and evidence of consensus here for a different convention. Lethiere 05:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Friedrich Wettin von Sachsen
What would be the best title for this article about a Grand Master of the Teutonic Knights? Most English texts I have found call him "Frederick of Saxony" or "Duke Frederick of Saxony". He was the youngest son of Albert, Duke of Saxony, and never ruled territory; upon entering the military order he would have surrendered his claims. Before being moved to the present title, phrasing not used in English, the article was at Friedrich of Saxony (1473-1510). Olessi 06:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, all of the Wettins are Saxon dukes, so Duke Frederick of Saxony would be fine. It does not imply at all that he was a sovereign. And, of course, that is how he can be found in English texts as you say. Charles 09:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Is it not the case that non-reigning dukes of Saxony are titled X, Duke in Saxony? DBD 12:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I have only ever seen the use "Duke in Saxony" (as a secondary "house" title, not a princely territorial one) used after the partitions of the Saxonies into various duchies. As the singular title of "whole" lines, I have only ever seen "of". Charles 13:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the input. I moved the article to Duke Frederick of Saxony as per Charles' suggestion. Olessi 22:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I also created a redirect for Frederick of Saxony (1473-1510); I have no objections to that being the title either. Olessi 00:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Philip (II) of France?
Apparently, Philip of France (1116-1131) is better known as Philip (II) of France, or so it would seem from the fact that it's been moved. I suppose this means that all sons of a king of France who died as heir apparent and weren't duke of X or count of Y will be moved. Is this sensible? Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Philip wasn't an heir apparent, he was King. At that point in time, the Capetian Kings had their eldest sons crowned King in their lifetime, and the son ruled with his father until one of the two died; at which point, if it was the father who had died, the son would rule on his own. Since Philip was a King and has no better recognised soubriquet (not the case with Henry the Young King, say, who is exactly the same case), but is not included in ordinals (which only include Kings who weren't under the authority of their fathers), this would be the title accepted by monarch rules. Michael Sanders 22:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Off the top of my head there's Hugh "Magnus" f. Robert II. Probably others, but I'm too bloody lazy to check on which sons of kings were consecrated at Reims and predeceased their fathers. If I write Hugues de France (1007-1025), will we one day discover that you've moved it and that France has a hitherto unknown king Hugh II? This is one of those Marie Antoinette bad ideas. It's not as if it could be called Philip, son of Louis the Fat, because that's ambiguous. If the X, Y of Z names had been adopted, you could have had Philip, King of France (son of Louis the Fat) or Philip, King of France (1116-1131), but they haven't been. So you can't. Try as I might, I can't find Philip (II) in print, except when referring to Philip (II) Augustus. Put it back the way it was. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I wrote the Hugh Magnus of France article; and named it as such on the basis that it is more well known and locatable a name than Hugh (II) of France (perfectly in line with monarch naming rules). And there are no others. And he was King of France, which means that he requires a title fitting the monarch conventions (and he would have been called 'Philip, King of France' in his lifetime). So what do you propose naming an article for the second King Philip of France if his ordinals don't allow Philip II of France? Michael Sanders 00:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What I called it to start with: Philip of France (1116-1131). Well done with the Hugh Magnus article; I have made a few tweaks, most importantly the year of his death (now said to be 1025, presumably the usual when-does-this-source's-year-begin? nonsense). Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Heraldica says he died in 1026. Michael Sanders 01:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * As for Philip, your title doesn't fall in with Naming conventions (names and titles):Pre-emptively disambiguate the names of monarchs, of modern countries in the format "{Monarch's first name and ordinal} of {Country}" Hugh Magnus, on the other hand, arguably falls under the common name rule (you are welcome to press for Hugh Capet to become Hugh I of France and Hugh Magnus to become Hugh II of France, however, if you consider that insufficient). Michael Sanders 01:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It is perfectly consistent with that advice, which Angus helped write. The king's teen-age son may be a co-king, but he is not the monarch, the sole ruler. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Silly argument: there were plenty of men and women whom you would define as monarchs who did not rule on their own. What about Mary II of England? Michael Sanders 21:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Mary II of England is English usage, to begin with. She also had equal powers with her husband, and twice reigned by herself in his absence. None of this is true of this fifteen-year-old. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Legally, Mary II and William III were co-monarchs - they ruled together. Same is true of Louis VI and his son Philip. Michael Sanders 22:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That is absolute nonsense regarding William and Mary. The February 13, 1689 declaration of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons says "that the sole and full exercise of the regal power be only in, and executed by, the said Prince of Orange, in the names of the said Prince and Princess, during their joint lives". Does Michaelsanders really believe that a 12-year old boy actually ruled with his father? Noel S McFerran 01:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * From a legal point of view (as appropriate to the time, anyway), yes: the sons of the Capetian Kings were crowned as the equals of their fathers, and in theory would exercise equal power. If you're arguing that because he died when only 14/15, he would not have exerted much power (questionable, given his description) - well, plenty of child monarchs (or adult monarchs) who did less. Michael Sanders 13:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * And get your stories straight: did William and Mary have equal powers, or was power exercised only by William on behalf of both? Michael Sanders 13:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Mary did in fact exercise regnal power when necessary; she preferred not to, out of womanly deference to her husband. See Macaulay for details. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Which means that 1)They were monarchs, but ruled jointly (so not literally 'single ruler') and 2)Why would the Lords say that the sole regal power be only in the Prince of Orange, on behalf of himself and his wife? Michael Sanders 23:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Philip (II) of France
I have initiated a proposal to rename this page. Another editor feels that the present name conforms with these conventions (which he thinks are rules). I'm not sure what change should be made to these conventions in order to avoid this kind of thing. Noel S McFerran 20:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's a thought: don't change the conventions/rules, simply because they create a situation you don't like. Michael Sanders 21:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Family names
Recently an editor has removed the name "Farnese" from all of the members of that family who ruled Parma (e.g. "Pier Luigi Farnese, Duke of Parma" is now Pier Luigi, Duke of Parma). This is in response to guideline 8 "No family or middle names, except where English speakers normally use them." The same has been done with other Italian rulers. I think that the particular example I cite comes under the exception. How can we address this in the guidelines? Give examples? Noel S McFerran 21:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * He seems to be going rather far; although he has retained the (cognomen?) in Henry Raspe, Landgrave of Thuringia, he has moved Guglielmo I Gonzaga to William I, Duke of Mantua; I think the William is not English usage, and I'm sure the Gonzaga is. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Aren't the Farnese, the Gonzaga, the Sforza, and the Visconti, among the most obvious examples of why 8 has an "except..."? It may not be consistent, but it seems conventional to refer to members of these families, and many other Italian noble clans, including their family names as often, or even more so, than their titles. I'm with PMAnderson: William I, Duke of Mantua is rather odd. The guideline seems clear enough to me now, and I don't have any great ideas on how to make it clearer. Did anyone ask Rajofcanada (who seems like a reasonable bloke based on my past dealings with him) why he thought they should be moved? If we know why it seems unclear to him, we can try to fix it. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Queen consorts
I see that it has been decided (with what level of support, I'm not sure) to change the status of the convention to that of a "discussion". I feel this is going the wrong way altogether - the purpose of the "Naming conventions" page is to explain the naming conventions, not to debate them. I would therefore like to amend the paragraph in question as follows:

Past royal consorts
English and French queens are traditionally referred to in English by {Name} of {Place}, like Margaret of Anjou, Isabeau of Bavaria, or Mary of Teck, where the place is country or House of origin. This "maiden name rule" has been generalized into a convention for all past European royal consorts; however, the convention does not apply where it is contrary to actual English usage.

The aim is to provide a consistent and largely unambiguous nomenclature for a large number of articles, mostly on subjects who have no surname, properly speaking, and to avoid anglocentrism where possible. Potential exceptions to the conventions include:
 * English princesses who marry abroad; these are often traditionally known by the name of the their husband's country. For example: Elisabeth of Bohemia; usage on Margaret of Burgundy is divided.
 * Other queens and empresses are usually known by the name of their husband's country, like Marie of Romania; follow this convention where the "maiden name rule" produces a name unintelligible to the mere reader of English, like Alix of Hesse.
 * {Name} of (place), applied to the daughter of a reigning queen, can produce the same name as her mother. The Empress Frederick is listed as Victoria, Princess Royal, not Victoria of the United Kingdom; but other cases may not have such titles.
 * There is no agreed convention on naming of male consorts of reigning queens - compare Prince George of Denmark and Albert, Prince Consort.
 * The convention does not apply where consorts are native subjects of their spouses, eg. Catherine Parr.
 * Where the name by itself is unambiguous or primary usage, the convention does not apply: Marie Antoinette, not Marie Antoinette of Austria.

I would like other people's opinions on this proposed new wording for the convention. Deb 11:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This text would declare the "maiden name rule" to be a convention applying generally but with many exceptions, rather than a rule of thumb; I mildly oppose that; I don't think the exceptions leave enough instances to be useful, and they are put vaguely. For example, does this endorse or oppose Marie of Romania?
 * And it's a discussion because we don't in practice agree on the convention here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Sir James Douglas and the use of accurate title in article titles
The above man has always been known by this title, with alternatives Good Sir James; James, Lord of Douglas or the Black Douglas. He was the first of his family in the 13thc. to bear the name James, and it is generally considered that all James Douglases out there are named for him or for someone named for him. There are other Sir James Douglases out there but they have all been non-martial knighthoods. The use of parentheses to describe a person's career or nickname is clumsy, for Example Sir James here was known by his enemies as Black Douglas, but to his friends Good Sir James. Furthermore, the first Douglas to be called Black by his own contemporaries was his son, Archibald Douglas, 3rd Earl of Douglas. He was a Scottish Warlord, Guerilla, Landowner, Administator, Crusader. He was officially on charters Dominus de Duglas or Lord/Laird of Douglas, but that was before the Scottish Peerage had been formally organised. I move that biographical article titles should use "Sir" where appropriate and certainly where there is more than one holder of the same title it should be the first to use the name. A dab header should be used to refer to later or less well known personages. Brendandh 21:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Our usual practice would be James Douglas, linked to often as "Sir James Douglas". But we do need to disambiguate him. Is Sir James Douglas unambiguous enough? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Are second Baronets always notable?
See Articles_for_deletion/Sir_William_Arbuthnot%2C_2nd_Baronet. The subject is the son of a Conservative MP, who retired with a baronetcy. Most of the argument for retention seems to be that he is a baronet, so a nobleman, so must be notable. Is this reasonable?

The father would be notable, as an MP, even without the rank; although I'm not sure we need everybody who has ever sat in the Commons. Is the son? Do we want having a baronetcy to automatically be notability enough for an article? Come and discuss. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There is the start of a discussion about it here - however the people I was discussing it with were all from the "Baronet Project" so their views were pretty on sided.--Vintagekits 22:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps a centralised discussion would be better. Vintagekits makes a fair point - WikiProject Baronetcies is inevitably likely to regard Baronets as fascinating creatures who are always worthy of study. However, an individual AfD can easily be sidetracked by individual features. As this one happpens to be a Wikipedian as well, views are inevitably influenced by their views of the subject. (And discussing on a page about naming conventions is a bad idea, too) Sam Blacketer 22:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps this isn't the best place for it, but here's my two cents. Nobody, regardless of occupation, status etc is automatically notable. The primary notability criterion is if someone has been the subject of multiple independent non-trivial sources, so an encyclopedic article can be created. If there's only enough for a stub, unless the person is particularly important an article isn't merited. One Night In Hackney 303 23:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I concur. No encyclopedia other than Wikipedia would even consider having an article on every holder of a baronetcy. Noel S McFerran 00:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, no encyclopedia other than Wikipedia would be capable of it. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 02:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Does Who's Who count as an encyclopaedia? Or Debrett's? Deb 11:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Not by me; they incorporate only small slivers of the Great Circle of learning. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Too right! Only wikipedia encompasses it all! Deb 10:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Elizabeth of Bohemia
The irrepressible Gryffindor took it upon himself to move the Winter Queen to Elizabeth Stuart (still ambiguous, and not primary usage)> I have proposed to move back at Talk:Elizabeth Stuart. Please comment. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Categorization (royalty related)
This seems to be the best place to ask, since it concerns the naming of the royalty articles. How is one supposed to categorize royals and nobles who best fall under their territorial designation? For example, would it be:


 * Pless, Daisy, Princess of or
 * Pless, Daisy of, Princess or
 * Pless, Daisy of (Princess)

Many thanks. Charles 18:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well. I would expect to be listed as "{e.g. Rees Jones, Dai}", my surname, a comma, then my given name. Princess Beatrice of York is best identified by her territorial designation and then given name, so, I personally would use either:

But both of those pretty much result in the same sorting, in which case the distinction would matter little, because no-one would actually see the specific notation... And then there's the argument that, as royalty, given name-only is best:
 * York, Beatrice
 * York, Princess Beatrice of
 * Beatrice of York, Princess


 * I would definitely use forename as the key in the case of Prince/Princess, unless they were better known by a title (eg. Duke of Edinburgh). Deb 21:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Scouting in Hawaii
Hello. I need a question about how to address Queen Liliuokalani answered on Talk:Scouting in Hawaii. Thank you. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 05:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

False Titles (Emperor Norton)
There is a discussion going on at the moment about moving Joshua A. Norton to Emperor Norton, on the argument that he is more commonly known as "Emperor Norton", and that since he wasn't actually the Emperor of the United States, our naming conventions for royalty don't apply. I can't quite wrap my brain around this - if he isn't an emperor, the page title should include "Emperor", but if he is it shouldn't? This isn't a Queen Latifah issue - he didn't claim "Emperor Norton" as a pseudonym, he claimed to be an emperor. Do we have a general policy for false titles? Thanks in advance for any illumination that can be provided. DenisMoskowitz 13:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It absolutely does not apply. The naming convention for common names applies in this matter. He claimed to be emperor, yes, but he wasn't an emperor. Therefore he is not named Norton I of the United States as these conventions would otherwise prescribe. He is, however, most commonly known as Emperor Norton, which is the name that the convention for most common name would prescribe. Norton simply does not fall under WP:NCNT because none of it is applicable to him. Charles 16:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Foreign titles
I'm having a bit of trouble finding out what is the naming policy for royals of a country who are given a foreign title. For instance, we have many Portuguese royals who used foreign (mostly other Iberic) titles: Also, I don't know what to do with royals who held foreign consort titles (non-sovereign), and were definetely known by their foreign titles: Shouldn't all these articles be renamed Infante(a) Name of Portugal, Title of Place? Otherwise we get odd things with a Portuguese title before the name (Infante/Infanta) – never specifying they're and Infante of Portugal – and with a foreign title at the end... Please, can you clarify? Joao pais  01:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Infante Pedro, Count of Urgell
 * Infanta Branca, Lady of Guadalajara
 * Infanta Branca, Viscountess of Huelgas
 * Infante João, Duke of Valencia de Campos
 * Infante Dinis, Lord of Cifuentes
 * Infanta Teresa, Countess of Flanders
 * Infante Fernando, Count of Flanders
 * Infanta Maria, Marchioness of Tortosa
 * Infanta Beatriz, Countess of Alburquerque
 * Infanta Maria Francisca, Countess of Molina
 * The current situation with these articles is odd - but that's because you yourself changed the titles of all of them back in July 2006 (at the time citing these naming conventions as justification). Several of these pages should never have been moved to the current name.  This is particular the case with Infanta Maria Francisca, Countess of Molina, where the title Count of Molina was a title of royal pretence (i.e. Molina claimed to be king of Spain) and was only held by Maria Francisca as his wife.  In several other cases infante of Portugal is probably anachronistic; we shouldn't make up titles for people who didn't actually use them. Noel S McFerran 04:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have changed them to their current state. First because it is easier for disambiguation, and second because they absolutely used the title Infante of Portugal, at the same time as their foreign title. By the way, I have to disagree with you with the anachronism of the title. Iberic kingdoms always used the title infante since Middle Ages. You can check a Portuguese source here where you can see the issue of Portugal's first king, Afonso I. It might sound strange to you but the the title effectively used in the early days of the monarchy was Infanta (feminine form), that later evolved to Infante for men, and Infanta for women. Henry the Navigator was "D. Henrique, Infante de Portugal, Duque de Viseu", and is absolutely correct to have his article named "Henry the Navigator", since he is known in English by this. And I wouldn't oppose it to be called Prince Henry the Navigator either, as it is also common to see in English historical writing, although it is incorrect. Infanta Maria Francisca of Portugal died in 1834, when her husband was in fact a pretender. He only started using the title Count of Molina (which is not a title of royal pretence) after 1845, when he abdicated his rights to the throne. So she never used the title. I assume my error, I'll have it changed. As you can see I'm willing to have the articles above named according to the rules. I respect your opinon but your comment was everything but helpful. Can you answer this question: What would we do with a hypothetical 19th century French princess who would be given the Portuguese title Duchess of Cadaval? Princess Louise, Duchess of Cadaval or Princess Louise of France, Duchess of Cadaval? Joao  pais  01:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "Tarasia regina domni Adefonsi Yspaniarum imperatoris filia" donated "monasterio Sancte Marie quod cognomento Viminerium" to Cluny by charter dated 23 May 1127, confirmed by "Infans Ildefonsus…Comes Fernandus…Comes Monio…Infanta Sancia" (from Medieval Lands). Here you have. As you can see, two Infantes signed this charter in 1127: Infante Afonso (future Afonso I of Portugal) and his sister Infanta Sancha, both children of Henry of Burgundy, Count of Portugal (at the time already dead) and his wife "Tarasia regina domni Adefonsi Yspaniarum impetatoris filia" (Queen Teresa, daughter of the "Emperor of Hispania" Alfonso VI of Castile). She donated the monastery in a time when she styled herself Queen of Portugal, thus the "regina". Is this sufficient for you to understand they were styled infantes? Joao  pais  01:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "Infanta" is sometimes substituted in English as a term synonymous with "Iberian princess" (unlike, for instance, the Russian term Kniagina which is not recognizable to enough English-speakers to be used): When so used, it is general, simply distinguishing that the person is "royal" rather than "noble", and is not intended to be her exact title, nor to identify her nationality (by birth or adult residence), just as "Princess Marina, Duchess of Kent", Princess Elizabeth, Countess of Toerring-Jettenbach and Princess Alice, Countess of Athlone are not intended to tell the reader what country the subject was a princess "of" nor what country she was a duchess or countess "in": one must read the article for that extra information. No problem results if 1. it is accepted that the prefix may not derive from the same fount of honor as the suffix, or 2. when maiden names or married names are used to name articles on royal women. But confusion results when maiden and marital titles are combined -- as they now are on WP in articles on Portuguese infantas. I wouild suggest that if an Iberian princess is known by the title of her non-royal husband, the "Infanta" should be retained as in Infanta Maria, Marchioness of Tortosa and Infanta Elena, Duchess of Lugo Lethiere 21:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Naming conventions for wives of peers and knights
I can't spot a clear cut naming convention for the wives of peers and wives of knights.

Currently there's a small debate at Talk:Elizabeth Douglas-Home, Baroness Home of the Hirsel about what name should be used for articles on the various spouses of UK Prime Ministers. Some are clear cut (e.g. Anne Chamberlain) but there's dispute about whether those whose husbands were subsequently enobled some use the same name form as their husband when in office (the very rule for locating their husband's articles) or use the "highest title" or even something else.

Part of the problem IMHO is that most of these individuals are known precisely because of who they were married to and so should their article titles be in line with those on their spouses?

Of the women involved (including some who don't have any titles but for completeness's sake) we currently have:

Husbands peers in office
 * Catherine Wellesley, Duchess of Wellington aka Kitty Pakenham
 * Mary Stuart, Countess of Bute
 * Georgina Gascoyne-Cecil, Marchioness of Salisbury

Husbands enobled after losing premiership
 * Margot Asquith not Margot Asquith, Countess of Oxford and Asquith, husband at H. H. Asquith
 * Lucy Baldwin, Countess Baldwin of Bewdley not Lucy Baldwin', husband at Stanley Baldwin
 * Violet Attlee, Countess Attlee not Violet Attlee, husband at Clement Attlee
 * Clarissa Eden, Countess of Avon not Clarissa Eden, husband at Anthony Eden
 * Mary Wilson, Lady Wilson of Rievaulx not Mary Wilson (although Mary Wilson is a disambiguation page), wife of Harold Wilson
 * Audrey Callaghan, Baroness Callaghan of Cardiff not Audrey Callaghan, husband at James Callaghan

Created a peeress in their own right
 * Joan Canning, 1st Viscountess Canning - enobled after George Canning's death
 * Mary Disraeli, 1st Viscountess Beaconsfield - died before her husband's enoblement
 * Clementine Churchill, Baroness Spencer-Churchill - enobled after Winston Churchill's death

Husbands not enobled
 * Catherine Gladstone
 * Charlotte Campbell-Bannerman
 * Anne Chamberlain
 * Norma Major
 * Cherie Blair
 * Sarah Brown (Prime Minister's wife)

Died before husband in office
 * Hannah Primrose, Countess of Rosebery
 * Annie Bonar Law
 * Margaret MacDonald (Prime Minister's wife) (on an aside is this a useful disambiguator?)

Died before husband enobled
 * Catherine, Lady Walpole, first wife of Sir Robert Walpole
 * Maria, Lady Walpole, second wife of Sir Robert Walpole
 * Margaret Lloyd George, first wife of David Lloyd George
 * Lady Dorothy Macmillan, wife of Harold Macmillan

Died before husband in office and had inherited/received best known title
 * Charlotte Cavendish, Marchioness of Hartington wife of William Cavendish, 4th Duke of Devonshire
 * Lady Caroline Lamb, wife of William Lamb, 2nd Viscount Melbourne

Special cases
 * Frances Stevenson, the second wife of David Lloyd George (previously his secretary). They married long after he lost office and she was alive when he was enobled as Earl Lloyd-George of Dwyfor.
 * Elizabeth Douglas-Home, Baroness Home of the Hirsel had more names than any other once married woman. Her husband renounced his Earldom a few days after accepting the premiership but after retiring from the Commons altogether accepted a life peerage.

Male
 * Denis Thatcher

And no articles yet for many of the 18th and 19th century wives who contain many more of these issues.

Another problem are those whose husbands were/are knights - currently we have Catherine, Lady Walpole and Maria, Lady Walpole, but Charlotte Campbell-Bannerman.

My personal inclination is that all the articles should use the same form as their husbands - the argument that the woman "are not very well known so should be at the highest title" doesn't ring true as generally when they are known it's by the same surname and title/lack of title as their husband's.

Thoughts? Timrollpickering 19:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * For a start, Mary Wilson and Audrey Callaghan are in the wrong place, as neither of them is a Baroness. A Baroness is the female equivalent of a baron.  A baron's wife is called "Lady".


 * Apart from that observation, I agree with you as a general rule, but there will be exceptions like those "special cases" mentioned above. Deb 19:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * If Mary Wilson and Audrey Callaghan are currently in the wrong place, then so is Elizabeth Douglas-Home, Baroness Home of the Hirsel - her husband held the Home of the Hirsel barony. This leads to what title she should be at.


 * The other point here is that her husband renounced his hereditary peerage(s) and under the Peerage Act, 1963]] the renounciation applies to both husband and his wife's styles. Caroline Benn is to my knowledge the only other woman whose husband renounced his peerage. I don't think Elizabeth Douglas-Home, Countess of Home is appropriate. So do we have Elizabeth Douglas-Home or Elizabeth, Lady Douglas-Home? Timrollpickering 20:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry Deb you are wrong. The male is a Baron, so the female is a Baroness. They are known as 'Lady' but are Baroness. I believe, as I have disuccused with Timrollpickering before, that unless they are widely known by their name then they should have their peerage titles included. For one it creates uniformity with other peerage articles. Most of these women are not known widely known now, so I see no reason why their peerage title be excluded. I really think that excluding them creates unnecessary confusion and complication, as shown by all the "exceptions" and differing circumstances above. It would be far easier if we just say all wives have peerage titles unless they are very widely remembered without them. --UpDown 07:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, I have looked it up and I see you are correct, though I have never heard it used in practice. In fact I looked up both Audrey Callaghan and Mary Wilson before I reverted your changes and could not find any reference to them as "Baroness".  However, it is never okay to move pages without consultation when the matter is the subject of controversy - so I would appreciate it if you would revert them yourself ASAP. Deb 11:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Mary Wilson is certainly not contraversial, as it is policy to avoid brackets where possible, and this is the only way to do it. Regardless, I don't consider my moves contraversial - as I said they create a uniformity for peers wives across Wikipedia. Unless somone is widely known without peerage title all peers should have them included. Thats MoS policy, and don't see why it should not apply to these women. --UpDown 12:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Erm which precise MoS page? "Widely known" is a relative term referring to whether the titled or non titled form is more usually used, not a requirement for the individual to have huge fame before they can be located at the more natural location. Your argument about uniformity just doesn't stand up because many peers are at locations based on their intermediate peerages (e.g. Frederick John Robinson, 1st Viscount Goderich) or just the pre ennobled name (Robert Walpole) and the arguments are much the same. Timrollpickering 12:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The mere fact that we are having the argument demonstrates that these were controversial moves, and UpDown should revert them and make a move request in the correct manner. Deb 17:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I would disagree. Just because you disagree with me does not make them contraversial. That would mean every single discussion on Wikipedia would be on a "contraversial" subject. I do not view this as contraversial, merely a disagreement. It would be nice if more people would get involved in the discussion as there are currently only 3 people, so not enough to say a new guideline as been agreed. --UpDown 11:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Further cases
To give complete consideration, here are all the PM's wives for whom we don't yet have articles on:

Husbands peers in office
 * Henrietta Pelham-Holles, Duchess of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, husband at Thomas Pelham-Holles, 1st Duke of Newcastle-upon-Tyne
 * Mary Watson-Wentworth, Marchioness of Rockingham, husband at Charles Watson-Wentworth, 2nd Marquess of Rockingham
 * Elizabeth FitzRoy, Duchess of Grafton, husband at Augustus FitzRoy, 3rd Duke of Grafton
 * Dorothy Cavendish-Bentinck, Duchess of Portland, husband at William Cavendish-Bentinck, 3rd Duke of Portland
 * Anne Grenville, Baroness Grenville, husband at William Grenville, 1st Baron Grenville
 * Louisa Jenkinson, Countess of Liverpool, husband at Robert Jenkinson, 2nd Earl of Liverpool
 * Mary Grey, Countess Grey, husband at Charles Grey, 2nd Earl Grey
 * Emma Smith-Stanley, Countess of Derby, husband at Edward Smith-Stanley, 14th Earl of Derby
 * Harriet Hamilton-Gordon, Countess of Aberdeen, husband at George Hamilton-Gordon, 4th Earl of Aberdeen
 * Mary Temple, Viscountess Palmerston, husband at Henry Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston

Husbands titled in office but later received a higher title
 * Anne North, Lady North, aka Anne North, Countess of Guilford, husband at Frederick North, Lord North not Frederick North, 2nd Earl of Guilford
 * Louisa Petty, Countess of Shelburne, aka Lousia Pettt, Marchioness of Lansdowne, husband at William Petty, 2nd Earl of Shelburne, not William Petty, 1st Marquess of Lansdowne (she was the second wife)
 * Sarah Robinson, Viscountess Goderich, aka Sarah Robinson, Countess of Ripon, husband at Frederick John Robinson, 1st Viscount Goderich, not Frederick John Robinson, 1st Earl of Ripon

Husbands both commoners and peers in office
 * Frances Russell, Countess Russell, husband at John Russell, 1st Earl Russell not Lord John Russell

Husbands not enobled
 * Lady Catherine Pelham or Lady Catherine, Lady Pelham if such a stule is ever used (her father was a Duke, her husband a knight), husband at Henry Pelham
 * Elizabeth Grenville, husband at George Grenville
 * Jane Perceval, husband at Spencer Perceval
 * Julia Peel or Julia, Lady Peel, husband at Robert Peel

Died before husband in office
 * Sophia Petty, Countess of Shelburne, first wife of William Petty, 2nd Earl of Shelburne

Special cases
 * Hester Pitt, wife of William Pitt, 1st Earl of Chatham (aka Pitt the Elder) was both a Baroness suo jure but also a Countess by marriage - Hester Pitt, 1st Baroness Chatham or Hester Pitt, Countess of Chatham?
 * Ursula Addington or Ursula Addington, Viscountess Sidmouth, wife of Henry Addington, 1st Viscount Sidmouth. Her husband is rare amongst British Prime Ministers for being even more notable in a later office, by which time he had been ennobled, and so the article title includes the Viscountcy.

Oh and it's perhaps also worth noting:

Wives of enobled Prime Ministers in other parts of the Commonwealth
 * Ethel Bruce, wife of Stanley Bruce, Australian Prime Minister 1923-1929. Stanley Bruce was enobled in 1947, when Ethel was still alive. We have him at Stanley Bruce, not Stanley Bruce, 1st Viscount Bruce of Melbourne

Of course there are many, many cases outside the premiership as well.

Most of these cases are actually easier than the 20th century ones - 10 husbands already had the title in office whilst 4 died commoners (although whether or not to include the title derived from the knighthood still needs resolving). John Russell is at the peerage title he had in his second term so it would make sense for his wife to also be there.

Of the rest I particularly think that if the wives of Shelburne and Goderich qualify for Wikipedia articles just by virtue of their marriages then it will be absolutely ridiculous to not have the names "Shelburne" and "Goderich" in there. By the same reason Anne North should probably be at the title she had when her husband was Prime Minister.

Ursula Addington is one of the tough cases that a convention will need to thrash out - if notable for being the wife of the PM then Ursula Addington would be the natural place, regardless of her husband's subsequent enoblement; but if consistency with her husband is key then Ursula Addington, Viscountess Sidmouth would be the place.

Hester Pitt is a problem of which there are many other cases - which takes priority, the peerage in her own right or her title derived from her husband's peerage? Whilst all her titles came because of her marriage, this isn't the case for some other "double" peeresses.

Ethel Bruce may get a Wikipedia page - seven of her successors already have them and I can imagine fireworks if the title is attached.

Timrollpickering 20:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Moving forward and a proposal
There's been rather limited discussion on this and silence for a while so I'd like to be bold and suggest the following policy (not yet worded as such):


 * Women who primarily derive their notability from their marriages (e.g. wives of Prime Ministers) should only be at article forms using their title derived from their husband's peerage when their husband's articles are at the same form.
 * (So we would have "Margot Asquith", "Lucy Baldwin" and "Ethel Bruce" but "Ursula Addington, Viscountess Sidmouth".)
 * Exceptions:
 * Women who held a peerage in their own right that was superior to any held by their husband or who died/were divorced before their husband was ennobled.
 * (So it would be Joan Canning, 1st Viscountess Canning and Clementine Churchill, Baroness Spencer-Churchill, both of whose husbands were never peers, Mary Disraeli, 1st Viscountess Beaconsfield, who died before her husband's enoblement, but Hester Pitt, Countess of Chatham.)

Does anyone have any objection to the basic principle of notable wives' article names following those of their husband's? Timrollpickering 19:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Beats me why there are constant discussions on how to list and address people. There is Correct Form in Great Britain (and indeed in all the other countries where there are titles) and that should be sufficient guidance and avoids all the arguments with the French Revolutionary factions. David Lauder 11:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Brunswick and Lunenburg (again!)
To rehash, here is a the previous discussion on the matter, which explains the situation:


 * Before anyone comments on Lunenburg, yes, I know, haha. Anyway, some time ago I commented on the varying territorial designations used for members of the "House of Brunswick". For instance, we have a lot of people at Brunswick-Lüneburg when they were members of the Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel line and so on. The discussion sort of died down a bit and is now archived. Are there any other thoughts as to how the situation can be rectified? It's also a great way to recategorize such people into house categories to future "maintainence" will be easier. Charles 02:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest that we use whatever the territorial designation was - Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, Brunswick-Kalenberg, Brunswick-Grubenhagen, Brunswick-Celle, Brunswick-Göttingen, and so forth. It gets confusing (especially since Brunswick-Celle is sometimes called 'Brunswick-Lüneburg'), but I'm not sure there's much to be done about it) john k 03:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think this definitely needs to be applied. Also, there is uncertainty over which dukes/princes of the sublines should have the titles appended to the end of their names, if at all. Do you feel that, for instance, *the* prince of Wolfenbüttel should have Duke of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel appended to the end of his name? It makes me wonder if the margraves of Brandenburg need to be similarly renamed. Charles 05:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Er, I think that all agnates in the various Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel lines, emphatically including *the* Prince of Wolfenbüttel, should have "of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel" on their names. The head of the house should be "X, Duke of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel"; cadets who got no special title of their own (like Brunswick-Bevern) should be at "Duke X of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel" or "Prince X of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel").  I'm not sure what you are saying about Brandenburg.  Don't we already do this for Brandenburg-Ansbach and Brandenburg-Bayreuth?  Those were the only immediate lines.  There's also Brandenburg-Schwedt - do we have any articles on them? john k 16:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) I also agree that the territorial designation is the best way to identify the individuals. Regarding Brandenburg, most of the Hohenzollerns are already at the correct titles as far as I can tell- see Category:Margraves of Brandenburg-Ansbach, Category:Margraves of Bayreuth, & List of rulers of Brandenburg and Prussia. Regarding Principality of Ansbach and Principality of Bayreuth, I could understand renaming them to Brandenburg-Ansbach and Brandenburg-Bayreuth, with the accompanying category change to Category:Margraves of Brandenburg-Bayreuth. Things seem ok with a quick glance at List of rulers of Brandenburg and Prussia. There was also at least one Margrave of Brandenburg-Küstrin (John, de), but there is no article for him yet. Please let me know if there are any discrepancies (besides the nonuniformity between English/German names). Olessi 16:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Who can think of the main designations that should be used? There are duchesses of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel here whose fathers are listed as dukes of Brunswick-Lunenburg, etc. It's a mess. Charles 17:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you think "it's a mess" that the three artists Marcel Duchamp, Raymond Duchamp-Villon, and Jacques Villon have Wikipedia articles with different surnames - in spite of the fact that they were all brothers? Scholarship is sometimes "a mess".  But it is not the place of Wikipedia to tidy up scholarship.  We summarize what has been written.  IF (capitalization intentional) a lady is known in the scholarly literature by a variant of her father's surname, then Wikipedia should follow that convention which is established in scholarship.  If, on the other hand, it's just a case of sloppy editing, then something needs to be corrected.  The particular case cited by Charles is a difficult one.  But the answer, I believe, lies in doing what has been done in written scholarship for her and for her father. Noel S McFerran 19:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know enough of those artists to question whether or not the fact that they all have different surnames is a mess or not. I am primarily concerned with royalty. I don't know if there is enough of a case to support the recent mixed language designation (indeed, the seemingly incorrect one) to Louis Rudolph, who was duke of the Wolfenbuettel territory. I would find it difficult to believe if scholarship gave most dukes of Brunswick and Lunenburg (a title all members of the house shared), who ruled any given division, the "ruling" title of Duke of Brunswick-Lunenburg. Indeed, it should be investigated, but also it should be made easier for navigation and reading. Charles 20:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * In the case of Empress Elisabeth Christine, it is unfortunately not just a choice between Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel and Brunswick-Lüneburg. I just found the book Anton Ulrich und Elisabeth Christine von Braunschweig-Lüneburg-Wolfenbüttel: eine durch archivalische Dokumente begründete Darstellung ihres Ubertritts zur römischen Kirche by Wilhelm Hoeck (1845). Too many choices! Noel S McFerran 22:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I have always been under the impression that Brunswick and Lunenburg was one entity and common to all the members of the B-L line of the House of Este and that it was Lunenburg was dropped and replaced with a division name. The Lunenburg is still "there", but not used. Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel is in the form of A-B, where "A" is really two names (Brunswick and Lunenburg) with only one being used. I have always thought it was hard to come across Brunswick-Lunenburg-Wolfenbüttel or Brunswick-Lunenburg-Calenberg, etc, in all but genealogies of the entire house. Brunswick-Lunenburg essentially does not differentiate between the various lines of the house any more than referring to all of the Wettins as "of Saxony" does (which factually can be done). Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, etc, are all rooted in history as names used for various territories and family lines. Charles 22:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Mecklenburg-Strelitz and Mirow
What is the proper name for Charles Louis Frederick, Duke of Mecklenburg-Mirow? He never was Duke of Mecklenburg-Strelitz, predeceasing his elder childless brother, and he was apparently Prince of Mirow. He is ennumerated in some sources but given varying names. Is he named Mecklenburg-Mirow like the non-reigning Margraves of Brandenburg-Ansbach and -Bayreuth? Charles 21:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Baronets

 * See also Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions (names_and_titles)/Archive 9

I would question the 'concensus' on the page headings for Baronets. Baronets are known as Sir Whatever Whatever, Bt. British law dictates that their correct form of address when written is such and The Standing Council on the Baronetage [] confirm that. Both Debretts Corrrect Form and A & C Black's Titles and Forms of Addresses - a Guide to their Correct Use specifically lay down the form of printed address for Baronets. It seems incredible to me that any 'consensus' is required and that in itself is most unencyclopaedic unless people are trying to 'buck the system' or are simply opposed to hereditary titles and are importing their personal hang-ups into Wikipedia. Putting up a page in the name of Sam Brown is entirely meaningless in a reference book when the person concerned has always been known, and is fully entitled in law to be known as, Sir Samuel Brown, 3rd Bt. This is not a big deal but it should be properly addressed. Even the Encyclopaedia Britannica would not stoop to French Revolutionary tactics in registering Baronets' pages as simple Misters. I urge that Correct Form be adopted. David Lauder 10:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I very much support this. Wikipedia should most definitely reflect the correct legal naming of baronets, which also corresponds with how they are best known by the public. --Counter-revolutionary 13:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by known by the public, most of them are unknown to the public, outside of the areas they live.--padraig 17:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This seems reasonable. It pretty much corresponds to what we do with peers, which is to use their highest title in the article name, even if held for a very short period, except for very exceptional cases like Frederick North, Lord North and Robert Stewart, Viscount Castlereagh, who are overwhelmingly known to history by their courtesy titles. Choess 16:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I totally agree. If we use peerages titles its illogical not to use baronetcies in article titles. --UpDown 16:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree- we should use the correct term for Baronets in line with conventions. Astrotrain 17:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Disagree, why should Baronets be treated any different to anyone else on WP, unless it is necessary to disambig.--padraig 17:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That is totally illogical. They are different because they have legal titles, otherwise you could say why is Prince Charles under "Charles, Prince of Wales" and not "Charles Windsor". If we includes peerages we should include baronetcies. And often baronets are very widely known by them. --UpDown 17:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * They are not royalty, they inherited their titles they didn't earn them, outside their own little world they are nobodies.--padraig 17:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * As usual the POV comes out, it always does in these discussions. Royalty also inherit their titles, how else did Prince Charles become Prince Charles?? Baronets are exactly the same as peers. And they are not nobodies, in the UK they are often notable people. --UpDown 17:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Padraig, they are non widely known or in any way important individuals and illogical. We already have a guideline for these people and I agree with it. They should only be disambed if there are more than one person of the same name.--Vintagekits 18:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If they are not notable they wouldn't have articles. Those who are and do should be treated like peers, with baronetcy included. Please tell why they should differ from peers in their article titles? --UpDown 18:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Because they are not peers. Peers are notable beacause their title allows, or did allow, them to sit in the House of Lords. Their title, for a large number, is their notability. Baronets are not peers and have none of the rights, therefore their notability for inclusion is based on what they have done. The articles are based on common concensus that also means their is no Elton John CBE or Dr Graeme Garden article. Nuttah68 09:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * A hundred years ago they may have had some claim to status, nowadays they are mainly glorified landlords, nothing else.--padraig 18:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Once again in the above we see POV, attacking the baronets rather than actually telling us why their articles titles should differ from peers...--UpDown 18:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Baronets have a place in the Order of Precedence in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Astrotrain 18:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Is this when I am supposed to say "WOW"? Order of Precedence is a seating plan - whats that got to do with naming conventions?--Vintagekits 18:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * They are legally, conventionally and generally known by their titles, except in exceptional circumstances (where the title usually hasn't been claimed in the first place!) WP ought to reflect the legal reality, that is neutral! They hold an honour from the Her Majesty's Government!--Counter-revolutionary 18:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I have never heard or them being refered to in this manner. Like I said we have a format for naming these people and I see no strong arguement except pomposity to name them in any other way. The are not even royalty and have no legal power they are non-marks.--Vintagekits 18:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * But it's their legal name! --Counter-revolutionary 18:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yet move POV!! So you have never heard Sir Oswald Mosley referred to as Sir Oswald Mosley, ditto for Mark Thatcher, Edward Elgar etc etc etc. The argument is they are legal titles like peerages. Why don't you answer that, you haven't as yet. Why should they be different from peers. --UpDown 18:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason to change the guidelines for an unimportant title. --Vintagekits 18:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, POV "unimportant title" - says who? And you still have not answered the point, why should baronets differ from peers? --UpDown 18:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Isn't is your POV that they are important, I judge people on their notability for what they have contributed in life, not because they inherit a title.--padraig 18:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, failing to answer the question. We are not discussing whether baronets are inherently notable, we are discussing that when they do have articles (like the people I mentioned above), why should they not have the baronetcy in them like they would if they held peerages? Do you feel like answering that you will you avoid it and give me your POV again? --UpDown 18:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I see no reason for unessecary disambing, that is the reason I oppose it.--Vintagekits 18:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

A couple of points. Firstly, wikipedia is not about having its titles replicate the correct form of written address for a person. Secondly, why should baronets be treated any differently from knights? If we have Sir Oswald Mosley, why shouldn't we have Sir Winston Churchill, as well? Thirdly, I simply don't see a reason to mandate that all knights and baronets be titled according to their full style. Oswald Mosley is a perfectly recognizable name. So is Winston Churchill. We give the full information in the first line of the article. What's the big deal? I think that baronetcies and knighthoods should only be included in the title when it's necessary for disambiguation. john k 19:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Because baronets have inherited there baronetcies, like peers inherits peerages. Why should it be different for baronets and peers? They are both legal hereditary honours. Oswald Mosley may be recognisable as Oswald Mosley, but he is more recognisable as Sir Oswald Mosley, in the same way Lord Nelson is recognisable as Horatio Nelso, but more known as Lord Nelson (hence Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson not just Horatio Nelson). --UpDown 19:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * What in the world are you talking about? The majority of currently living peers did not inherit their peerages.  Many baronets in the past (although, I think, very few currently living) also did not inherit their titles.  What does heritability have to do with it? The reason we use peerage titles is because these are often how the person is called, and because they are often different from their surnames.  john k 19:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly, just because its a legal title doesnt mean we should disamb. Do we dosamb as military ranks even though they are legal titles also? The answer is no!--Vintagekits 19:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * But no-one has answered the question: why isn't Wikipedia following the normal conventions on forms of address like every other directory/encyclopaedia on the planet? I am reading above people's personal opinions on why they don't like inherited titles, why its all garbage etc etc., all meaningless. Unless, that is, Wikipedia has become a vehicle for personal prejudices. David Lauder 19:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Isn't your wanting to use the full titles not a personal prejudice on your part, WP has rules on disambig in the case of names, so why should Baronets be treated any differently to anyone else thats notable enough to have a article in WP.--padraig 19:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No the question is why should they be treated differently from hereditary peers? And rules can change, so quoting current Wikipedia policy constantly about disamb is not relevant. --UpDown 19:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * What's PoV about wanting to use legal names? --Counter-revolutionary 19:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Are they legal titles outside of the UK or British Empire?--Vintagekits 19:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. It's illegal for an Englishman to smoke in Paris after all! --Counter-revolutionary 19:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And how is it relevant in the slightest way anyway? They are legal titles within a legal country. End of story. --UpDown 19:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Completely irrelevant remark by Vintagekits. Unless he is saying that all British subjects should be denied their titles and correct forms of address arbitrarily the minute they step outside of the UK. And how can it possibly be suggested that anyone wishing to see published correct forms of address for all people be considered a prejudice. Beyond belief.David Lauder 19:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Why are my remarks "irrelevant" - please respect others opinions. These titles might be legal in the UK but in my opinion they mean nothing in society and I dont see why wikipedia should feel the need to unecessarily disamb a page title because of it.--Vintagekits 19:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Baronets should be treated differently from hereditary peers because it's perfectly correct to call Sir Robert Peel "Robert Peel," but it is not correct (or, at least, it would be deeply confusing) to refer to the third marquess of Salisbury as "Robert Gascoyne-Cecil". Peerage titles change what someone's name is. Baronetcies do not. And I would really like someone to explain why baronetcies should be treated as distinct from knighthoods. john k 19:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I will add, to David Lauder, that I have nothing against titles, and no desire to eliminate them from wikipedia. I simply think that baronetcies, which do not change someone's name, are simply not necessary to put into article titles except for disambiguation purposes. Peerage titles, on the other hand, normally are important enough to put in, as this is how the person is called for at least part of their lives, and there's no other way to include it. john k 19:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * A peerage title does not change someone's name, it merely adds a title to it. Baronetcies are different because they are hereditary, and should be treated in the same way as peerages (ie with ",3rd Baronet" after name). A knight would only have "Sir" before it, and nothing after. --UpDown 19:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No, the peerage title is part of a person's name. It's a part of someone's name which is different from both a surname and a forename, but a part of a name nonetheless.  Are you suggesting that Lord Salisbury's name isn't "Salisbury"?  Beyond that, I genuinely don't understand the distinction you are making with respect to heredity.  Non-hereditary peers still get their titles in their article, so long as they are widely known by their peerage title (i.e., it's not a retirement honor).  And the fact that there's nothing to come after a knight's name doesn't really make any difference.  Why should we have Sir Oswald Mosley, 6th Baronet and not Sir Winston Churchill?  What is the substantive difference that makes it absolutely necessary to include the baronetcy in article titles, but not the knightly title? john k 21:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * But under current WP policy that can be dealt with in the article lead, it is not justification for included it in the article title.--padraig 19:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes it could, but it should be in article title as well - like peerages. --UpDown 19:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Why.--padraig 20:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Excellent way of avoiding the question (as usual). I have answered that several times, as have many editors. Because it it their legal title, and to match with peers. And now your turn to answer...--UpDown 20:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * What question is Padraig avoiding?  You are the one who is clearly avoiding the question, by simply asserting what "should be" without providing any convincing reasons for the various distinctions you're making.  john k 21:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't feel that strongly about it. But let's consider why we have the knighthood policy, anyway. I assume it's for reasons of convenience: people are often awarded knighthoods after a period of public service during which they, perhaps, become commonly known. Putting Elton John at Sir Elton John (a redirect) would be a little ridiculous. On the other hand, some people are almost always referred to with the included "Sir," when most of their notable career has occurred after knighting. The same more or less applies to the baronetage; people may be granted or inherit baronetcies early or late in life. Certainly we should have redirects from "Sir X Y" to "X Y" for all appropriate values of "X Y", and ditto for the baronetcies; whether we should change the policy on use of "Sir" in titles to better reflect the careers of individuals is perhaps worth careful consideration, not that we're likely to get that in the present atmosphere here. Choess 20:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly there is no point to it. General's, Colonel's, Captain's and Volunteer's are usually refered to with their rank/title also but we dont disamb them unnessecarily.--Vintagekits 20:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "Rank" not title, crucial difference. Why are these different to peerages???--UpDown 20:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Why are they different from knighthoods? They certainly look a lot more like  knighthoods than they do like peerages.  They are different from peerages in that peerage titles  provide a new name to the individual concerned.  Baronetcies don't do that.  john k 05:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Choess - sensible all around. Another issue with knighthoods and baronetcies, though, is that many people best known as "Sir Suchandsuch Broadley-Smite" become peers at some point in their life.  A blanket exclusion of "Sir" unless necessary for disambiguation means that we don't have to consider these awkward cases.  Consider, for instance, John Anderson, 1st Viscount Waverley, Anthony Eden, Samuel Hoare, John Simon, 1st Viscount Simon, restricting ourselves here just to political figures who served in Neville Chamberlain's cabinet.  At any rate, I could see an argument for including the knighthood and baronetcy titles in article titles, although I'm disinclined to think it's a very good idea.  I cannot see any possible reason to have a separate rule for baronets than we do for knights. john k 21:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And all this forgets why we use full style for peers, which is chiefly to disambiguate one Lord Berkeley from another. Not even full style, rank within the peerage, and full name are enough for this; the Barons Berkeley had an inordinate fondness for calling their heirs Thomas and Maurice. So we use number, doubtful as that can be.


 * Baronets don't have these problems: we don't say Sir Baskerville for Sir Henry Baskerville; and fewer baronets of the same family have identical names. (Partly because baronetcies aren't as old, on average; but mostly because baronets mostly have middle names) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This discussion is confusing title, rank and style, which often overlap or serve double-duty, but are not the same thing. A title is not a name; it is used in lieu of a name. Styles usually augment rather than substitute for a name (and when they do substitute, they cannot, alone, disambiguate: "His Grace" {referring to any duke} and "Officer" {speaking to any policewoman} are examples of such styles). "Sir" is a form of address, which is a type of style. It prefixes the given name. It is accorded by custom, not law. The legal rank of a person bearing the style of Sir is either baronet or knight. But these ranks are not titles, thus neither can be used in lieu of the name, although their abbreviations, "Bt" (or "Bart") and "Kt", may be suffixed to the name. Titles are used as article names in Wikipedia not because they are legal or correct (although they are both), but because they are usually the term by which the article's subject is most widely known -- "recognizability" being the criterion for selection of article names. But when the person's name is used, the style (usually) becomes unnecessary. I personally prefer the use of styles in Wikipedia and elsewhere. But that preference is rooted in the value I place on tradition and protocol, and is a personal, aesthetic preference that I can't justify imposing on others. Lethiere 08:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you you that clarity.--Vintagekits 08:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No clarity at all in that really. If a baronet is recognised on the Official Roll of Baronets then they are legally Sir John Smith, 10th Baronet. That is not custom it is law. Custom is referring to a baronet like this when they are not on the Official Roll, which some appear not to be. --UpDown 10:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If they don't appear on the Official Roll of Baronets then they are unproven and they cannot use the title.--padraig 10:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, which is what I said. But they would most likely be refered to as Sir John Smith, hence custom. But we should be talking about legal baronets. --UpDown 10:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you point me to a document outlining the details of address being legal requirement rather than tradition? Nuttah68 09:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * --Counter-revolutionary 10:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That is custom not an legal reguirement in law.--padraig 10:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That's great, but I'll ask again. Can you point me to a reference that says UK Law dictates a Baronet must be addressed as Sir X, Baronet. as is claimed in the opening paragraph of this debate. Nuttah68 10:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Read this in detail --Counter-revolutionary 10:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Fascinating, but I must believe you misunderstand ot are being deliberately obtuse. You still have not provided anything of use. There is nothing there backing up the original claim that UK Law says a Baronet MUST be addressed Sir x, Bt. Nuttah68 10:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That just confirms that only those on the official roll can claim the title, it dosen't address the issue that the use of this title is regulated in law, were in the law does it say that they must be addressed by this title.--padraig 10:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * may also help --Counter-revolutionary 10:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No, nothing in your vague link. I take it you do not know of anything that actually backs up the claim? Nuttah68 10:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

No, all that provides is a link back to the first link you provided, THE STANDING COUNCIL OF THE BARONETAGE it dosen't address the issue where in british law is these titles legal rather then tradition or custom.--padraig 10:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's governed by the Department for Constitutional Affairs for goodness sake! --Counter-revolutionary 10:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * So what? Do you know of a reference that backs up the claim or not? There is no point or benefit in you posting links that offer nothing to resolve this issue unless your aim is to cloud the debate. If you don't know the answer why not leave it to someone who can help, such as the original poster. Nuttah68 10:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Correct, and even if it was the law in the UK, is it the law in Ireland, rst of Europe? America etc?? I dont see why an international website like wiki would change to suit the custom of a few.--Vintagekits 10:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * What a stupid argument. Should we stop referring to Brown as PM as he isn't in Ireland? --Counter-revolutionary 10:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Please remain civil, do not call arguments "stupid" just because you disagree with them - what how you say if I said you were stupid because the title of Gordon Brown didnt refer to his "legal title" is PM!?--Vintagekits 11:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The PM is an office of state, not comparable to you claim that Baronets are titled in law.--padraig 11:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It is a "stupid" argument; what is law in one country should be observed throughout the world. Elizabeth II is not legally Queen in the USA, so should we not have her at Elizabeth II of the UK because of that? You are all delibratley failing to see the legality of the situation. You have been provided with links and facts, but you are ignoring them. I presume you think that you'll get your way and insert your normal POV that way (what a surprise you brought in Ireland! You always do, inserting your anti-British POV. Why not try being neutral?). We are trying to insert neutrality by inserting baronetcies like we do peerages. --UpDown 14:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Its not law, there is no legality to ignore. Interestingly though, do you live by the rules of Sharia or believe 14 year cousins can marryNuttah68 14:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It is the law that those who are legally baronets are styled the way the are. Thats the law - why can you not see that? Unless you are pretending you can not see that?--UpDown 14:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Provide a reference that states UK Law says a Baronet MUST be addressed Sir x, Bt. Nuttah68 14:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This discussion misses the mark. Periodicals, books, and so forth, inside or outside of the United Kingdom, generally refer to baronets and knights as "Sir", just as members of the Saudi Royal Family are referred to as "Princes," because these titles are acknowledged as a matter of general consensus. The fact that some of our editors can't acknowledge these titles without, apparently, suffering from internal bleeding is neither here nor there; unless they can produce some sort of non-parochial evidence that the titles are commonly ignored, Wikipedia should do what the rest of the world does. (This is not to say that "Sir" should necessarily go in the title of these articles, but Vintagekits' argument about their status outside of the UK admits of no distinction between placing them in the title and placing them anywhere in the article.) Choess 15:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That misses the point of this discussion though. The proposal is that naming convention be changed and that Sir MUST go in the article title because it it is a legal requirement. The legal requirement argument is a fallacy and no one is objecting to the form of address being given in the article. Nuttah68 15:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * So you can't provide a source that these titles are legal, rather then just tradition and custom.--padraig 15:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * We have provided sources, but you chose to ignore them, so you can continue to insert you POV. For another source see here. Of course I know you will ingore it, but please actually read it and the the ones above. They confirm that those who are legally baronets are legally Sir John Smith, 10th Baronet. That's a simple fact that you cannot seem to grasp and I can't understand why. It must be because of your POV that you are blind to the law? They are legally baronets like peers are legally peers? What is the difference, unless you think we should remove peerages from article titles as well?--UpDown 15:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I can only assume you are being disingenuous here. Yet again another 'reference' is provided that makes no comment on the legal requirement on how a Baronet must be addressed. Maybe I am missing it, would you care to cut and paste the sections that state Baronets MUST BY LAW be addressed Sir X, Bt. Nuttah68 15:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And you are being delibratley aggreviating. There is not "MUST" about it, not more than there is a "MUST" that Arthur Wellesley "MUST" be addressed as Duke of Wellington. No one "MUST" be addressed as anything, you could address The Queen as John Smith if you really want - your not breaking the law. However, there are titles that people legal hold and legally are referred to in official documents, hence Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington and hence Sir Herbert Smith, 1st Baronet. Unless you are suggesting all peerage titles should be reproved from article titles, then you have no argument. --UpDown 15:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The opening statement of this debate, and the reason given to change consensus, is "British law dictates that their correct form of address when written is such". You now to appear to accept this is a fallacy. Regarding peers, no this is a diffentent situation. They have inherent notability because their peerage confered the right to sit in the Lords and for a great many this is their only notability. Baronets are not notable for their title and must establish their notability per WP:BIO like any other person. As their title is not important to their notability, there is not need to include in the aticle title any more than Dr., Gen., Lt. Cdr., CBE., and so on. The full form of address can be included in the article as it currently is. Nuttah68 15:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Their correct form of address is Sir Herbert Smith, 1st Baronet, this does not mean they MUST be addressed as such, but legally they are entitled to, per the DCA and SCB! --Counter-revolutionary 16:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Why do you bring in notablity? That is not the argument, this argument is about baronets who are notable and have articles anyway, so the notablity is totally immaterial. And also many peers are not notable because of their peerage, but for different reasons, so should we remove the peerage? The opening sentence is correct, but you take it to litterally (again for your POV). When written in legal documents or encyclopedias etc, baronets should be titled as the law entitles them. --UpDown 16:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Round in circles we go. I have explained my reasoning and you choose to be obtuse. The basis of notability is my reasoning on how to form article titles, that's why I mention it. Law entitles me to address myself as Lt. Cdr. Dr. XYZ CBE, CEng, CPhys, MInstPhys, it doesn't mean it has to be used. Regardless, it is obvious there is no concensus to change this guideline so this argument is pointless. Nuttah68 16:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * How convient for you! I wonder if you have delibratley made this argument go round in circles so you could say that! But there is little point in arguing with you, as ignore sources, you ignore the law, indeed you ignore anything that does not conform to your POV. Shame. --UpDown 16:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Here we go. Show me the law that says Wikipedia should use a full address to reference a Baronet. Oh sorry, I forgot, you admitted earlier there isn't one. So exactly which law am I ignoring? Nuttah68 16:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said, no point in arguing when the other person doesn't listen or try to see the other viewpoint. You are failing on both. So I won't waste my time. --UpDown 16:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If any title that people legally hold and legally are referred to should be used in the article title, it would become very large (plus we would get the whole HRH mess up again, only even worse). So we don't use it unless we have good reason to. For peers, we do have good reason to, because the "Firstname Lastname" format may well never during the person's life have even been part of how the person was known. The same, of course, is not true about Baronets. This is a point that John Kenney has already made, along with the point that if you have Sir for Baronets, you must have Sir for anyone who's entitled to it. -- Jao 16:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The London Daily Telegraph carried an obituary today. The headline did not say Ian Anstruther, (as that would be incorrect), but "Sir Ian Anstruther, Bt." They then repeat that in the text. Baronets are entitled to their proper and correct form of address in all things. I just don't see that personal opinions enter into it. David Lauder 19:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * David - do you feel the same way about knights? If so, please say so.  If not, please explain why knights are different.  Could you also explain why we don't have to include full titularies of all sorts in article titles.  After all, HRH The Duke of Edinburgh is always referred to as such, not as just "Duke of Edinburgh."  The prime minister is, by rights, The Right Honourable Gordon Brown, not simply Gordon Brown.  Once we start this, where does it lead?  I will tell you where - to ridiculously long article titles for no good reason.  This is, I think, one of the most tiresome businesses I've ever come across in wikipedia.  There is obviously no legal requirement that we use any particular form to refer to people in article titles.  We title articles for convenience, recognizability, and preciseness, as well as for accuracy.  In most cases, all of this is sufficiently achieved while excluding use of the baronetcy in the article title. john k 20:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Honourifics as you describe, and legal titles, are very different. --Counter-revolutionary 20:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * But Baronet titles are not legal in law, as has been admitted in this discussion.--padraig 21:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * WHERE? of course they're given in law! I sent you the link from the Department of Constitutional Affairs relating to this! --Counter-revolutionary 21:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You provided and link that refered to a link to THE STANDING COUNCIL OF THE BARONETAGE it dosen't address the issue where in british law is these titles legal rather then tradition or custom.--padraig 22:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Look at all the links I have provided. --Counter-revolutionary 22:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I have it dosen't provide the answer to the question, so can you a direct link to where this exact info is available, you are making the claim therefore its up to you to provide evidence that these title are legal in law.--padraig 23:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Counter-revolutionary, your reference confirms there is no legal 'style of address' for a baronet and goes on to give examples of how it has changed with tradition and custom. Nuttah68 06:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course they are somewhat different. But there's simply no natural place to draw a line.  Wherever we draw a line, there'll be things just on the other side that one could justify moving the line to include.  As it stands, we have a perfectly serviceable line, and I see no reason to redraw it. john k 22:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * What line is that? A line between listing them correctly, or incorrectly? Which side do you prefer? David Lauder 12:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Does all this make a difference? Being a baronet is maybe enough in practice (rightly or wrongly) to get a wiki article, but it is not strongly notable compared with even semi-important actual achievements. Most of the important people who are baronets and not known as baronets. Is there really such a difference between Sir Ascoigne d'Ascoigne, 12th Baronet and The Right Honourable Gordon Brown M. A. Ph.D? Maybe there is, but I don't think it will be easy to draw a meaningful line that everyone will agree on. That said, if certain people are notable only for have such minor peerages, then sure, they can have those names in titles, but we certainly shouldn't have important people like Margaret Thatcher referred to by what are in today's world pretty unimportant titles, esp. in the international context where it looks like English antiquarian parochialism. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 23:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately these are all personal opinions and conflict with actuality. Just as a Peer is entitled in a form of address to be called The Earl of X so is a baronet is entitled to his form of address (and it states it on his Letters Patent). It also says so in every single book on correct form etc., and it matters not one iota whether people here don't like baronets, feel they're meaningless or whatever. Not one iota. If you are going to have a respectable encylcopaedia readers will find it very odd if you buck convention. As for the remark above that most important people who are baronets are not known as baronets, that is just wrong. A fantasy. The opposite is true as any number of obituaries and histories will demonstrate. The biggest problem with Wikipedia is where people try to govern it with personal opinions, whether they be revolutionary, republican, or whatever. The French abolished their House of Peers in the late 19th century but we still address the Count of Paris et al as such. Not as Henry de Orleans. David Lauder 19:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, for God's sake. Once again, do you  think we should do this for knights as well?  If not, explain why.  If so, please say so, because this is becoming deeply, deeply tiresome.  I have absolutely no agenda here to try to deprive people of titles.  I just don't think it's even vaguely necessary to include baronetial titles in article titles unless it's necessary for disambiguation, just as in numerous other cases we don't include every title a person is entitled to in the title to their article.  john k 19:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * God doesn't enter into it. Yes, I do think knights should be listed under their correct form, Sir John Johnson or whatever. There may be ten thousand John Johnsons, known for little or nothing, but only one Sir John Johnson, known for something or he would not have been awarded a knighthood. I have tried to explain, simply, the mere facts of the matter. Where the Crown bestows a knighthood, a baronetcy, or a peerage the forms of address and title for that individual change. I have never known anyone to question that and find it incredible that such people are being listed on Wikipedia as nobodies, a denial of the right bestowed upon them by the monarch and by which they become known. David Lauder 12:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying that you support changing policy for both baronets and knights. Are you, btw, contending in addition that all knights and baronets are inherently notable and deserve wikipedia entries? john k 21:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No I am not suggesting that, as we all know that many are not and therefore there may be no point in them having a Wikipedia article - unless it is decided that Wikipedia should contain a full guide to the British Peerage and Baronetage (or indeed, the European nobility). Of course, once they become knighted or become a baronet they are immediately more notable (however modestly) than you or I because they carry a title bestowed by the Crown. They may seem a meaningless titles to some but that is the realm of personal opinion, not fact. My argument throughout has been that the Crown afforded them the right to a formal address - Sir James Smith, Bt., or whatever - and thats the way we should list them. David Lauder 18:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

A point for inclusion in the introduction. Usually for someone to be addressed as Sir they must have done something to please the powers that be that they should be knighted, in which case I assume that it will be noted - when, where and why - in the text of the person's Wikipedia biography. Baronets are different in that they do not have to do anything to be addressed as Sir. I think it helps if their title is mentioned in the introduction to an article, so that people who are using Wikipedia as a reference know why the person was known as Sir. If we are going that far we may as well use a standard -- For example I still do not know if we are meant to use Sir James Harrington, 3rd Baronet or Sir James Harrington, 3rd Baronet of Ridlington or miss out the Sir in the title. Also an important practical point these families like many others have a tendendy to name children using the same family christian names, so for disambiguation perposes using "nn Baronet" is useful (see for example Harington Baronets they have only used 6 fornames over 15 holders of the title, and the Bacon Baronets are even more complicated with more than one "Sir Nicholas Bacon, 1st Baronet" as well as an unimaganative collection of first names). --Philip Baird Shearer 19:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * In the opening line, I think we always use Sir James Harrington, 3rd Baronet. In titles we have tended not to, except when necessary.  We should clarify that on this talk page we are only discussing the issue of article titles. john k 21:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If it is in the opening line, then why not include "3rd Baronet" in the name of the article as it helps with disambiguation? --Philip Baird Shearer 10:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * When the baronetcy does disambiguate (from actually notable people; diambiguating a baronet from his country ancestors with no claim to notability beyond the title has no interest for me), we should use it to do so. But I am not convinced that is so common as it is with peers; I await evidence. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The members of Baroncey project having failed to have this guideline change are now trying to enforce the change as can be seen Here where a editor has been blocked for 3 weeks for moving incorrectly titled articles in accordance with these guidelines, the blocking admin is also amember of the project, the editor blocked has not broken any of WP rules or policies.--padraig 13:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Must be nice to live in dreamworld. The above is rubbish, and highly POV. Vintagekits has broken the rules and been very disruptive. Given his threats and background the block was the most sensible thing to do. --UpDown 13:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * What rules has he broken ? none he followed the guidelines as set out, this is an attempt to enforce a change that failed to pass consensus.--padraig 13:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Consistency
A good argument for including the full titles of baronets as the article title is consistency. At the moment, full titles are included only when it is necessary to disambiguate from baronets who have the same name and title. This applies to a good number of articles. Some articles initially do not get this disambiguation as it does not initially seem necessary, but then the necessity develops, when it turns out there are in fact notable people with the same name and title. The article then needs to be retitled. In the meantime, anyone looking for one of the other people with the same name and title (when the person does not yet have an article) will find the wrong person, but this will not necessarily be apparent. The resultant confusion and misunderstanding that can arise is detailed by BrownHairedGirl on User_talk:Vintagekits. Come what may, we end up with various articles with name and title, while others just have an ordinary name. I can't see that this is at all helpful to the reader. There needs to be a consistent system. An easy way to solve the problem would be to just use the name and title for baronets. Alternatively, put the ordinary name with the title in brackets, e.g. "Charles Hamilton (Sir Charles John James Hamilton, 3rd Baronet)". The pressing need is for an article title that can be relied on, which does not need chopping and changing, and which the reader can interpret clearly. Tyrenius 00:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Correct Form
The only way to list a page correctly is to follow Correct Form for the country which issues the titles. That way you avoid all personal opinions from those clearly opposed to them. David Lauder 11:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Most of the questions about whether or not to include titles are not motivated by opposition to them but whether or not it produces article titles that are not how people are best known. I'm willing to wager that very few of her readers would be aware that Baroness James of Holland Park is P. D. James, and the best article title for someone notable as an author is the name on their books (unless they're notable in other fields as well). It's telling that of the three hereditary peers who now sit in the Commons only one uses as their given name anything approaching the "correct form" (Thurso) - having an article entitled Michael Kerr, 13th Marquess of Lothian is going to put someone who was quite a senior politician for a period at a name absolutely no-one will recognise and which he himself doesn't use professionally. It's hardly French Revolutionary to suggest the article would be better placed at Michael Ancram. Timrollpickering 17:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * They are absolute exceptions. I am sure you realise that. Using them as examples for everlasting arguments about how to list people is unacceptable in my book. I agree with you that in exceptional cases such as those you've mentioned it would be best to put them under a 'popular' title. That should not affect how the other 999 are listed. Unless a firm recognised and official guideline such as Correct Form is adopted there will be endless arguments. There should be no requirement for "consensus" on such things. It equates to all manner of people listing others as they think fit, not as is proper and correct. David Lauder 18:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * But there are a lot of exceptions, especially as many people ennobled are considerably more notable for activities either pre-enoblement (such as politicians) or in fields where they never use their titles. Bertrand Russell is most famous as a philosopher, Thomas Pakenham as a history, P. D. James as a novelist - and in all three cases those are the names on their books. Margaret Thatcher is the name by which she was loved and hated in her day, Frederick John Robinson, 1st Viscount Goderich is the title the man had during his premiership, Michael Ancram is how he's always called in public life and so forth. Then there are wives who have declined to be known by the title they derive from their husband's - e.g. Dame Norma Major not "Lady Major", Beatrice Webb not "Lady Passfield", Susan Cunliffe-Lister, Baroness Masham of Ilton not the (Dowager) Countess of Swinton. These are far from exception cases as all the lengthy discussion first on the conventions for hereditaries, then for lifers and then the numerous individual exception cases have gone. I don't see how an application of "correct form" (which could raise questions in other areas such as the forms for married women) adds anything beyond what we already have - a workable system with a default assumption of the highest title unless individual circumstances suggest a lower or no title is better. Timrollpickering 19:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I am unable to see how endless pages of arguments could be described as "a workable system". And these arguments will continue ad infinitum because all you are using here are people's personal opinions. Its hopeless unless you can round up a dozen or so fellow-travellers to support you and then you can say "ah! we have consensus". of course, that doesn;t make it right. Correct Form, by the way, does lay down how wives should be titled/addressed. I suppose you either have anarchy, or you don't. David Lauder 15:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Noel S McFerran's proposal
Last year Noel S McFerran forwarded a Proposal for changes to monarch name conventions. This proposal has twice the support that it has opposition. That strongly suggests that this should be implemented. I should say that pre-13th century monarchs in catholic Europe (about whom this naming convention concerns) generally describe themselves and are described by gens (people) not by place, so Wilhelmus, rex Anglorum, Henricus, rex Anglorum, but Eduuardus primus rex Angli(a)e. This would result in William I, King of the English, Henry I, King of the English, etc, but Edward I, King of England if it was taken seriously. In some places, such as Scotland, this fossilized so that the monarchs were usually called rex Scot(t)orum rather than rex Scotiae in Latin at least well after the 13th century. So a decision may have to be made to ignore this, or to devise specific rules to deal with it. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 02:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

What ought be the cut off in this scenario? john k 05:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the rules would have to be very complicated ... and really, how important is it that these styles change? I just brought this up to preempt future scenarios which I envisage this change of convention would entail .... i.e. so that something preemptive may be said in the guide. I can see certain people being inclined to perform such moves on such a basis. I'd be of the opinion that it is mostly bad. Articles like Style_of_the_British_Sovereign might be a guide for important monarchies like England, but it's surely sillyness to have wikipedians pouring through charters and engaging in complicated discussions about provenance and significance of manuscript material just to name one King of Navarre or Bohemia. I'm not of the opinion that formal styles used in charters should dominate over more (in modern times) natural styles which were used informally (and sometimes formally) at the time. And anyways, it is already Robert III, Duke of Normandy, not Robert III, Duke of the Normans. Maybe in some cases it could be used ... particularly thinking about the Picts-Alba-Scots problem, but even then you'd need to know some pretty detailed history to know which name to type into your browser (though I suppose that isn't such a bad thing if the redirects work and there is a good relationship between such redirects and google). Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 06:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That was NOT my proposal. My proposal was merely that we include the titles king, queen, emperor, and empress in the headings for those people (just like we do for grand duke, duke, etc. - and just like we do for Holy Roman Emperor and German Emperor). I was NOT suggesting that we be "accurate" with the territorial designations, distinguishing between those who reigned as e.g. "king of Scotland" and "king of Scots".  I have always been an advocate that Wikipedia should follow established scholarship, NOT "correct" the scholarship which has already been published. William the Conqueror is generally known as "William I, King of England", not "William I, King of the English"; Wikipedia should not change this. Noel S McFerran 13:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Erm ... I didn't say that was your proposal. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 16:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * We are writing about the Middle Ages, sometimes; but we are always writing for the twenty-first century (and we are writing in English, not Latin). Henry I of the English will elicit surprise, and puzzlement as to why we are doing this. We should mention the usage (and make clear whether it appears to occur in vernacular text), and we should make redirects; but we should not adopt it; it offers no real advantage over what we do now. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No, no. The forms which gained support above are not of the kind Henry I of the English, but Henry I, King of England, which are better than the current forms; moreover, the discussion above was a preeptive discussion about forms like Henry I, King of the English, not Henry I of the English. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 02:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I see, but I think Henry I, King of the English only a hair better than Henry I of the English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it's a little better, but don't support it generally for the reasons stated above in response to john k. But there was a discussion a while back in which I did not participate arguing that the Scottish kings should get those forms, namely because from the 12th century onwards it is their preferred style (and you'll often hear Scottish people boast about this style, believing it to be more democratic when it fact it is just a fossilization of 12th century styles used in Latin.). Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 03:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Back to the main point, given that Noel S McFerran's proposal has twice the support of the guidelines as currently phrased, I'm pushing for these to be changed accordingly. The current guidelines have no authority any more and remain on the page contrary to the "consensus" established above. I'd ask someone else to do this as soon as possible, because it'd be better if it wasn't me, but if no-one does so in the next few days, then I will have to. This obviously won't necessitate a mass moving of scores of articles immediately, but presumably that will follow in good time. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 03:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * As someone who has voted for the proposal, you really shouldn't be involved in moving it. Consensus on the new wording has not been reached, and if you were to move articles to the titles you think have been agreed, I would feel obliged to move them back. Deb 11:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Who said anything about me moving anything? I was talking about editing this page to accord with Noel's proposal, which has twice the support as the current version. If you disagree with this, and I dunno if you do, perhaps you could explain why Noel's proposal, or the discussion/survey thereafter should be rejected? As far as I can see, the current wording has no validity as guidelines, because it is not generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 12:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I've seen nothing to suggest that the current guidelines are not generally accepted or that they are not followed. The naming of the articles in question would seem to contradict that statement. Deb 18:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I presume you didn't look at the proposal then? Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 22:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That's absurd. The fact that articles follow a naming convention only shows that editors follow naming conventions, not that they agree with those naming conventions. If your logic were followed no naming convention could ever be changed, as we'd have to assume the existence of an overwhelming silent majority, refusing to take part in discussions but actively supporting the current convention by not constantly moving articles covered by it. Proteus (Talk) 13:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Two points here:
 * 1 - The thrust of the argument for change seems to be that "the current guidelines have no authority any more". This is patently untrue.  If the articles on monarchs were all over the place and were not following the established convention, it would be correct, but that is not the case.
 * 2 - Those supporting the proposal seem uncertain about what it is (as shown by your statement below). Let's hear it stated clearly, and then we can decide whether we support it or not.   Deb 09:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that something should be done to put the proposed convention into practice. Perhaps someone could set out what seemed to be agreed (Henry I, King of England, it would seem) so we can have a clear vote on whether to keep the status quo or adopt the proposal. Proteus (Talk) 13:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Wives (again)
There's been no response since I last posted this. Is anyone able to word this better for the conventions?


 * Women who primarily derive their notability from their marriages (e.g. wives of Prime Ministers) should only be at article forms using their title derived from their husband's peerage when their husband's articles are at the same form.
 * (So we would have "Margot Asquith", "Lucy Baldwin" and "Ethel Bruce" but "Ursula Addington, Viscountess Sidmouth".)
 * Exceptions:
 * Women who held a peerage in their own right that was superior to any held by their husband or who died/were divorced before their husband was ennobled.
 * (So it would be Joan Canning, 1st Viscountess Canning and Clementine Churchill, Baroness Spencer-Churchill, both of whose husbands were never peers, Mary Disraeli, 1st Viscountess Beaconsfield, who died before her husband's enoblement, but Hester Pitt, Countess of Chatham.)

Timrollpickering 17:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well I disagree, these should not be the conventions, and I'm unsure what has given Timrollpickering the idea that this is consensus. (I missed his proposal above). I fundamentally disagree that wives should mirror their husbands. The whole idea of the naming conventions ignoring peerages if for those who are exclusivly known without it. Their is no reason why this should extend to their wives. They should be covered like any other peeress would be (unless well known in their own right, like Cherie Blair if Tony is ever enobled). People like Margot Asquith, Lucy Baldwin and Ethel Bruce do not fall into this category so should follow the conventions for other peeress. --UpDown 17:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Margot "the t is silent" Asquith isn't famous in her own right? Leaving that aside, we know what to call the subject: the same thing that the sources call them. ODNB: Margot Asquith, Hester Pitt, Charlotte Canning, Clementine Spencer-Churchill... Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Interestingly enough, if you're familiar with the 1958 Life Peerages Act and the 1963 Peerage Act and the concept of Barony by writ, Baroness Spence-Churchill did, in fact become a suo jure hereditary peeress! A story for another day though! --Counter-revolutionary 15:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * In regards whether or not there's a consensus, the general silence on the matter has made it hard to move forward - hence starting a new discussion section and trying to get some momentum one way or another.


 * The conventions for peeresses aren't too clear in some regards, particularly those who both held a title in their own right that is of a lower rank to their husband's (Not only do we have Hester Pitt, but Charlotte Cavendish, Marchioness of Hartington was also the 6th Baroness Clifford in her own right and she died before her husband became Duke of Devonshire) but also those who are best known for their activities before the title came in. Women who are best known for who they were married to generally are best known by the name they were known as when their husbands were in office, not by a title derived from their husband's retirement honour. (And it's into the realms of speculation, but Cherie Blair does not strike me as the kind to ever use "Lady Blair" if Tony ever goes to the Lords, just as Norma Major has explicitly chosen to be "Dame Norma Major" - her title in her own right, not "Lady Major" - the title she can use by right of John's enoblement.)
 * I don't see how most of the wives are different from their husbands in this regard. (Joan Canning, Mary Disraeli and Clementine Churchill all held peerages in their own right and were never peeresses because of their husbands so are somewhat exceptional cases.) But the fame of the others does rest on pre-enoblement activities. Wives of Prime Ministers are in this regard no different from their husbands. Timrollpickering 18:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Replying to Angusmclellan, it doesn't matter what other sources or reference works call them, we can't go by that. The whole of idea of this discussion is to form our own rules not merely to copy others. (And you may be right on Margot Adquith, but thats another discussion!). I think the general conventions would be that those who held two titles (like Charlotte Cavendish above) would be to use the higher title, mainly because normally this is how they will have been known. And your most likely right about Cherie, but even if she did use Lady Blair all the time, she I think the coventions would fall under the coventions like PMs do, as she would be widely known without it. As I've said before, I do believe that wives are different. As a rule I don't think they should be many exceptions to the dont include peerages in articles titles if very famous rule; and while I accept PMs are exceptions and I don't believe their wives should be. But we really need more people in this discussion.--UpDown 07:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * ""it doesn't matter what other sources or reference works call them, we can't go by that." On the contrary, it is general Wikipedia policy, the basis for WP:NAME, to use what other reference works do, and to alter it only when some real advantage is found in doing so.
 * If yet other reference works and serious scholarship disagreed with ODNB on this issue, we would have to decide between them: which is more common? which is more convenient for us? Which is clearest to our readership? But I don't think that is true, excluding special purpose works like the Complete Peerage; and I think that Margot Asquith passes all three tests (as does Robert Peel, btw.). We do not use Clementine Churchill for the convenience of pre-disambiguating the peerage; but we would do well to reconsider whether that makes sense for life peers, who are not generally ambiguous with other holders of the title. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Maria Klementyna Sobieska
Interested parties might like to take a look at the requested move on Talk:Maria_Klementyna_Sobieska. Noel S McFerran 13:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Adolf Friedrich of Mecklenburg
What would be the proper article title of Adolf Friedrich of Mecklenburg? Olessi 16:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * From the most cursory of glances, Duke Adolf Friedrich of Mecklenburg DBD 11:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Mecklenburg-Schwerin might be the best territorial designation, unless it was dropped once the Strelitz line had died out. Charles 11:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The German Wikipedia simply has him as a Duke of Mecklenburg (as opposed to -Schwerin). He was a son of Grand Duke Friedrich Franz II, but Adolf Friedrich was not the heir (Friedrich Franz III was). I am not an expert with WP:NCNT; does this mean Adolf Friedrich's title as "duke" was a courtesy title? The article had been at Duke Adolf Friedrich of Mecklenburg until a recent move. Olessi 18:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The male-line descendants of the Grand Dukes of Mecklenburg were all titled duke or duchess of Mecklenburg with a differencing territorial name. It was not a courtesy title, but a title much like Prince of the United Kingdom or Grand Duke of Russia. Also, from what I have seen with German Wikipedia the namings are an absolute mess. Charles 23:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposal: Delete point 1 of "Monarchial titles"
This point says that it is an exception to "the general rule of the most common English name": quite simply, it shouldn't be. The most common English name should be used for monarchs, especially monarchs who ruled over English speaking countires. These guidelines should be made to agree with the normal rules of disambiguation, ie, disambiguation is only used where necessary. The number of "exceptions" to the guidelines, and the fact that, in all cases, the exceptions apply to monarchs of non-English speaking countries, merely serves to underline the absurdity of this guideline. Physchim62 (talk) 13:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it should be a guideline only and should not trump WP:NC(CN). Charles 13:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I too agree the most common name should be used, and redirects should exist from the "Xperson Xnumber of " or whatever. NikoSilver 20:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This partly echoes a current discussion at the village pump, where someone proposed the most common name should be used in preference to the "Name of Country" for monarchs. It is worthwhile for any interested party to read the discussion there. It could perhaps be continued here. Gwinva 22:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Both this and the VP are echoes of Talk:Queen Victoria Talk:Victoria of the United Kingdom to be exact. I suppose we need to centralize it somewhere, and I propose queen vic's talk where there's also a poll. NikoSilver 22:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If need be, I might open an RfC on this issue, but I'll wait to see if the current discussions lead anywhere.--Father Goose 22:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not necessarily that simple to work out what the "most common name" is. Most uses of a name appear in a particular context. Which "Henry IV" other people are talking about will be obvious from the context, but that doesn't help in naming an article. Monarchical names are tediously ambiguous. Short of digging up the offending monarchs and throwing stones at them, which might make us feel better, there isn't much we can do about the wheens of Williams, flocks of Philips and Fredericks, hordes of Henrys and Harolds, exaltations of Edwards, and cohorts of Charleses.
 * On the other hand, I like bynames: I'd move William I of England to William the Conqueror in the flash of an eye, if I thought I'd get away with it. Same for William Rufus, Harald Hardrada, Olaf Kyrre, Philip Augustus, Philip the Tall, Henry Beauclerc, William the Lion, Robert Curthose, Richard the Lionheart, Henry Curtmantle, Louis the Fat, Hugh Capet, Henry the Fowler, blah, blah, blah. In some cases we could be rather more ruthless in picking an article to be at the ambiguous name: for example, there's only really one Athelstan and one Edgar.
 * Mind you, all this sort of monarchycruft has already been written. It's not like we're actually missing that many articles on kings and queens of X where this guideline would be of any relevance. Given how in need of attention many of the said articles are, rather than rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic it might be better to spend the time fixing them up. As for the naming, redirects are quick and so are dab pages. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. In short, the point is that the guideline tries to preserve a consistency through naming articles to something other than their common names, while that consistency could very well be preserved through maticulusly consistent redirects to the common name. NikoSilver 23:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * By the text of this page, we should use some of these; I am genuinely surprised to see Louis the Fat, Hugh Capet, Henry the Fowler called by number, and find it weird, thus invoking the exception; on the other hand, I'm not sure which Henry is Henry Curtmantle, and it is certainly less commonly used than Henry II (which is, of course, ambiguous). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Check your links; there are at least two King Edgars, plus tons of other non-king "Edgar"s. ;-D But otherwise I quite agree.  We should use (in order of preference): most common name (if neither contentious nor ambiguous, i.e., William the Conqueror); simplest name (i.e, Ivan III); or either of the first two plus disambiguation.  The current standard is "simplest name plus mandatory disambiguation",  which defeats the whole purpose of using the simplest name.  There are dozens, maybe hundreds of monarch articles on Wikipedia for whom we have both common and simple names redirecting to a needlessly disambiguated name.
 * The articles in question aren't sinking; there are all sorts of fixes that are worth doing all over Wikipedia. Switching to less-looney titles is as good as any other project.--Father Goose 23:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hear hear. Well said, Father Goose. Gwinva 01:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If anyone searches for just-Edgar, they aren't looking for Hoover (although they may be looking for a way to get to J. Edgar Hoover, so we should certainly provide one). Sticking a dab page at X rather than X (disambiguation) is usually not a good thing. Assuming we created the appropriate dab pages and redirects and hatnotes and wikilinks for readers, what might an editor expect Edgar to link to? (Answer here, but please don't cheat.) Probably not Étgar mac Maíl Choluim. Perhaps the SEC thing, but that's EDGAR, or the places, but they're all one-or-fewer horse towns, and probably not the opera. What does that leave? Eadgar Eadmunding seems like the obvious choice and nothing is a waste. And we have all those dinky dab hatnote templates. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * In the case where a page title is truly ambiguous, as is the case with "Edgar", our option is either to have a disambiguation page there, redirect to one (which is pointless), or keep it as a redlink. Disambiguation pages without a "(disambiguation)" disambiguator (eesh) are a necessary evil.--Father Goose 09:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * In the case of just using a name and enumeration though, I think that the territorial designation should be mandatory. Charles 05:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Any reason why? If the disambiguation isn't necessary, why can't the lead supply that information?  Ivan IV, Tsar of Russia, aka Ivan the Terrible, etcetera, etcetera.  Why do we have to go "Ivan IV of Russia" if there isn't an Ivan IV of Narf-Um-What-Brain-Lumpford-Something-Shire in contention for the same page?  In a number of cases, there are multiple monarchs with the same name, but I believe there are more monarchs who have a unique name (either through bynames or enumeration) than monarchs that overlap.  The Philips and the Johns may have made life hard for themselves, but I don't see why we should force this hardship upon the Maries and the Ivans.--Father Goose 09:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, ordinals aren't in the same rank as cognomens, it seems to me, as they don't come by reason of acclaim or anything of the sort, but rather being inherent. While there are no rules, I don't think all order and structure of the NCs should be totally lost. While there may only be one Louis XIV, it isn't really like Frederick the Great or anything like that. An ordinal alone seems wholly incomplete as an article title while a popular cognomen would close the deal. Charles 10:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This proposal will make linking much harder. Why should editors hae to guess whether Henry VII is ambiguous or not? Henry VII of England isn't that hard to type and is often a better way to intoroduce him into an article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, although I also prefer the titles such as Catherine the Great, etc. Charles 03:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * All editors have to (well, ought to) check whether their links go to the articles they intend. Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors.  Separately, the convenience for editors is not that great, since they have to pipe the link back to a normal, undisambiguated name.--Father Goose 05:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Father Goose, I think, misses the point: often, more often than we do, we should not pipe back to the ambiguous name and number; we should specify in text whether we mean Henry VII of England or the Emperor Henry VII. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Take a look at Henry VII of England, for one example. A very large number of the links to other nobles in that article are piped to simpler names (Richard III, Edward IV, John of Gaunt, etc.).  When using the names of nobles, it more appropriate to use their "real" names, not the names Wikipedia has decided they should have.  I'd say people have talked themselves into creating a big problem in order to try to solve a small problem.--Father Goose 23:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes but for a reader a consistent form of name for monarchs is useful for the search box, as well as for browsing in categories and so forth. The problem with a free reign "common name" application for monarchs is "common name" at what level? Generally listings of monarchs, including entries in encyclopedias, will give priority to a common name format, whereas discussion of individual monarchs tend to be more flexible (and biographies written in the same or successor countries tend to assume that their subject is the primary usage). Much writing about monarchs is at national level so the country isn't always given because it's already obvious from the context. Some nicknames are treated almost as though they're the natural name of the monarch ("William the Conqueror"), others are somewhat obscure ("John Lackland") and others are mixed and/or in multiple languages (e.g. Richard Coeur-de-Lion/Lionheart). "King John" to an English audience tends to be "the bloke who signed Maga Carta", but there are so many rulers called John, including a Scottish king, that we've even got disambiguation pages for separate numbers. A "common name" rules will open up floodgates as to what the "primary" meaning is (and currently "King John" is an article on the Shakespeare play) and arguments over which monarch gets the page.


 * I think for an encyclopedia this is an area where we have to stick to a "common name format" so that the articles are consistently preseted. We're not dealing with the odd article here and there but an entire structure in an area where there are already common ways to name lots of monarchs at the same time and recognition of the difference between given names and nicknames. Timrollpickering 10:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The naming scheme used should be that of our basic naming conventions: a simple, non-disambiguated name when there is little or no ambiguity (Elizabeth II or Queen Elizabeth II); a disambiguated name when there is ambiguity (Elisabeth II of Bohemia); and a dedicated disambiguation page for those names that are inherently ambiguous (Queen Elizabeth). There is no fight over whether Elizabeth II should link straight to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, so why can't we let her be just Elizabeth II?  There are hundreds more cases of such unnecessary disambiguation in Wikipedia's royal ranks.--Father Goose 23:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I absolutely agree with Timrollpickering - "most common name" is potentially a very difficult thing to agree on - which of course is why we have the convention. Deb 16:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * When it isn't a difficult thing to agree on, don't use disambiguation. When it is, do use disambiguation.  Don't apply a solution to hundreds of articles that only needs to be applied to what appears to be a minority of them.--Father Goose 18:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

How to proceed
Removing point 1 of "Monarchial titles", as proposed by F Goose is hardly a step that in itself would solve the issue, if we're willing to proceed with this:
 * WP:NC(CN) contains this in its lead paragraph: "The principal exception is in the case of naming royalty and people with titles. For details of the naming conventions in those cases, see the Naming conventions (names and titles) page." Removing that there probably would need a consensus on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (common names) before proceeding. As a side-note, the last paragraph of Naming conventions (common names) also mentions Naming conventions (names and titles), but I don't see a problem of contradiction with a "rewritten" Naming conventions (names and titles) there: all NC guidelines at some or another level contain exceptions to the "common names" principle, otherwise we wouldn't need all those other NC's either, would we, if everything were covered by a single principle?
 * The 4th exception at the bottom of the Naming conventions (names and titles) section places stringent conditions when wanting to deviate from the "[ ] of " rule. So, only changing the first paragraph of that section would hardly change a thing. Alternatively, the conditions on going back to a more common name could be loosened (again) in the description of that 4th exception. That 4th exception used to be looser for allowing to apply the "common name" principle to royals and the like too, it has been adjusted to ever more strictness over the last few years.
 * Needless to say I think it a contorted approach to first say that Royals are an over-all exception to the "common names" approach, and then bring the "common names" principle back in as an exception to the over-all exception. Among other objections it could be said that this exception-to-exception contraption seems designed to scare away newcomers, and leads to inconsistency more than once. I propose (as I have proposed before) to rewrite Naming conventions (names and titles) in a fashion that there needn't be an "over-all" exception to WP:NC(CN): applying "[ ] of " may be an exception to WP:NC(CN) where that guideline, Naming conventions (people), and Naming conventions (precision) (and other applicable NC's) don't lead to a straightforward, unambiguous result or contradict each other for the page name. --Francis Schonken 09:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I actually am not the one who proposed removing it, though I have been arguing for something to that effect. I'm still at the stage of trying to explore what approach would be most workable beyond "disambiguate everything".--Father Goose 23:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Everything can still usually be covered by an overarching principle, such as "use the common name for a thing" and "disambiguate only when necessary". The daughter NC guidelines often specify things like "what the common name tends to be for this type of subject" and "what form to use for the disambiguation".  NC(NT) is one of the few (perhaps the only?) that ignores the basic principles outright, which is why it's listed as doing such on NC(CN).  There's no reason why it should, though.  So yes, I agree with everything you're proposing here.--Father Goose 23:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Why not to proceed

 * Most kings and emperors are most commonly referred to by name and regnal number; so much is true. For almost all European monarchs, this is ambiguous; consider Henry II of England, Henry II of France and Henry II, Holy Roman Emperor. We must therefore disambiguate the vast majority.
 * The present system of disambiguation for them is both natural and convenient for that majority; it also falls easily into running text.
 * This establishes a de facto convention for royal articles. The question therefore is whether it should be extended to the handful of European monarchs who have such odd names or such high numbers that they don't need disambiguation. In short, since we must use some form of Henry VII of England, why use Henry VIII, simpliciter? It is primary usage, although in fact ambiguous with several of the Princes of Reuss; but it means that readers and editors alike will have to find out whether there is another Henry of that number before knowing where either article is. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Prove that "almost all European monarchs" need disambiguation. My research has suggested it is only true for a minority of such monarchs.--Father Goose 06:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * When PMA, Deb, &c, say "all European monarchs", there are a couple of assumptions: "Europe" often means "Western, Central, and Southern Europe", and "all" means "from the High Middle Ages or even later". For other times and areas, it is sometimes very difficult to see how this guideline meets the core naming convention. The short version says: "Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists." I know that there were no "Tsars of Russia" in 1300, no "Kings of Norway" in 900, no "Kings of Sweden" in 1100, no "Kings of Scotland" in 850, et cetera, but our readers might go away believing that there were, thanks to titles such as Kenneth I of Scotland, Harald I of Norway, Inge I of Sweden, or Ivan I of Russia. This is not to say that I disagree with the guideline as such, only with the scope to which it lays claim. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Quibble: Harald is generally recognized, as the article tell us, as "the first king of Norway" If you'd read it, your own beliefs would have been better-founded.   [[User:Gene Nygaard|Gene

Nygaard]] 16:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Me, I know that Wikipedia articles are only really useful for their references. Being as how the references to the typical piece of Scandinavian pseudohistory on Wikipedia are, being generous, not very good, I don't place much faith in the article content.
 * Regarding Harald, the Sawyers say: "The collapse of the Danish empire [c. 900] gave Harald Finehair, a prince or king who ruled in southern Norway, the chance to make himself overlord of a large part of Norway. [Remembered as founder but...] in fact his family retained the kingship for only two generations after his death in about 930." And the Danes came back. Harald had nothing to do with the later Norway. Nor did king-for-a-day Olaf Tryggvason. The founders would be Olaf, Magnus, and especially Harald. [After Sawyer & Sawyer, Medieval Scandinavia, pp. 49–58.]
 * Still, let's not pick on the Norwegians. It's not that long since my fellow countrymen abandoned an Irish-style list of "kings of Scotland" stretching back into the Bronze Age. Swedish pseudohistory on Wikipedia seems no better. "Sweden was the last of the Scandinavian kingdoms to be established...the first [ruler] known to have acted as king throughout the developing kingdom was Knut Eriksson...who gained recognition throughout Sweden by 1172". [Same, pp. 58–60]. What kind of Sweden is it that excludes Götaland or Svealand? This is not a case of redefining terms (Scotland, Norway, France, Germany, Poland...), but of simply not being the same thing at all.
 * Anyway, I don't know what Kenneth should be called. For the rest, Harald Fairhair, Inge Stenkilsson, and Ivan Kalita, are common enough, and inoffensive. Most importantly, the names make no implicit claims which may mislead our readers. Names don't matter? Tell that to the edit warriors changing the names of rocks between Japan and Korea, or those upset by the term British Isles (over 2000 years old that), or slow-motion edit warring over the name of the county of which Slash City is the chief place. Of course names matter. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Even assuming that you're right, this is an error of fact rather than a problem with the guideline, as PMAnderson already pointed out. WP:NC(NT) says to "[p]re-emptively disambiguate the names of monarchs of modern countries".  If the realm of Kenneth MacAlpin was not modern Scotland, then perhaps he should not be called Kenneth I of Scotland; on the other hand, deciding where to draw the line might be another invitation to conflict.  --BlueMoonlet 18:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Ivan should be Ivan I of Muscovy, and I will move him and his successors; the point is much the same as the numbering of the German Emperor Frederick as successor to the Prussian kings. But this is an error of fact, not a problem with the guideline.
 * Inge's article quotes a primary source as saying Steinkel had a son called Ingi, who became King of Sweden after Haakon. (as translated, but that's the judgment of the translator, a reliable secondary source). I don't see what Angus' problem is with calling Inge, or even Ongentheow, Kings of Sweden, as most people do. The kingship was a personal status, not a territorial rule, and none of them ruled Scania - but neither of these alters what English calls them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Certainly Charles, David, Edward, Frederick, George, Henry, James, Louis, William, Margaret, Mary and Elizabeth all require disambiguation in the lower orders. Christian is the only obvious one I can think of that doesn't.  Eastern Europe is a bit different, I grant you. Deb 11:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I forgot John, Stephen, Harold, Philip and Peter. Deb 17:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * And Ivan; see Ivan I. When we have the reigning russophone princes as well covered as the francophone ones, there would be many more ambiguities. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * What's ambiguous there? Ivan Kalita/Ivan Danilovich and Ivan Crnojević/Ivan the Black, no? There is relatively little ambiguity among Rus' princes if one follows the Name Patronym/Name Byname formula found in the modern works I looked at. Not none, for the Rus' were just as keen as the Westerns to reuse the same limited stock of names, but the number of people who need to be disambiguated based on their grandfather or some place is not excessive. No system is going to avoid all ambiguity. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ivan I is ambiguous, none the less. I agree that we should use nicknames when they are the normal English means of disambiguating, as they are with the Ptolemies: there is still a problem with rulers who are not normally known by nickname (like Ivan III of Russia, who is usually called Ivan III') or, still worse, have several nicknames, depending on POV. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * A very high standard should be set for the use of nicknames as article names, especially when the nickname was not used by the subject and/or sympathetic contemporaries (an issue for many royal nicknames, though I don't know about these two Ivans in particular). --BlueMoonlet 19:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Nobody called Alfred the Great great until he'd been dead for a very, very long time. Charlemagne wasn't called that in his lifetime, neither was Brian Boru. On the other hand, Edmund Ironside is called than in his obit, Louis the Fat was only called that in later life when he was fat (when he wasn't he was called something else, but I've never seen an approved English translation of his earlier name, Louis le Batailleur), and people were probably making jokes about Ethelred the Unready when he was still alive. Anyway, no standard at all exists for numbers, witness e.g. Vladimir I of Kiev and Yaroslav II of Russia, to pick just two. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I said a very high standard, not that nicknames shouldn't be used at all. In your first four examples, the nicknames used as article titles are practically unanimous in secondary sources as the subject's primary name.  Besides that, none of them were monarchs of modern states, so they don't fall under the guideline in the first place (same for Ethelred).  I'm afraid I don't understand your point about Vladimir and Yaroslav.  --BlueMoonlet 19:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This is intended to apply to states that no longer exist, like Prussia and Leon. The limitation to modern Europe is to avoid applying the guideline to (say) Thailand and Japan, which don't have the same ambiguity problem, or to the Hellenistic monarchies, which (mostly) have a standard set of nicknames. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * True. "Modern" is not the same as "extant".  But Angus' examples (other than Louis, who rightly is also the only one whose article title follows the guideline we're discussing) ruled states that all ceased to exist before 1100.  --BlueMoonlet 20:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I can call most "Irish" kings whatever I like, and I do, and nobody has uttered so much as a peep of protest, not even when I screw up. Nobody cared what I called rulers of Moldavia or Wallachia, and no-one was bothered by the prospect of Pictish kings being moved. Norway and Sweden and Scotland, on the other hand, are considered "modern states" for the purposes of this guideline. Heaven help us if I should move any of the Scottish king articles, even the four "Name Number of Scotland" articles that begin "OldIrishName mac OldIrishPatronym (anglicised Name Number) (died someyear) was king of the Picts". That's not pre-1100, that's pre-900. If you check Talk:Kenneth I of Scotland/Archive 1 you'll see a lengthy discussion about what it should be called. "Optimised for readers" is not something that we achieve by using names found only in sources which tell the reader much less, but by using a name which will help them to find out more if they wish to do so. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I almost want to agree with you that Kenneth I of Scotland is anachronistic; on the other hand, the fact that he is traditionally and very commonly numbered as the first of an unbroken line is hard to ignore. But in any case, deciding between Kenneth MacAlpin and Kenneth I does not seem relevant to Father Goose's proposal.  --BlueMoonlet 06:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Similarly, patronyms and family names are problematic in the general case for royalty/nobility, as they are often not commonly used. That's why Victoria of the United Kingdom, not Victoria Wettin.  I imagine the reason the current pre-emptive disambiguation guideline was put in place was largely to avoid constantly using brain cells on such ad hoc disambig methods.  --BlueMoonlet 19:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't mind there being a standard way to disambiguate royal names when there is ambiguity. What I oppose is disambiguating the whole lot because of a subset of offenders.
 * Separately, I have problems with the " of " style; it jumbles our invented disambiguating names together with "real" names, such as Theresa of Avila. Something like John of England sounds to me like a haberdashery; if the point of disambiguation is to give an article a title people will recognize and not confuse with other subjects, John (King of England) is far better.  This approach furthermore allows us to do things like John II (King of Jerusalem) and John II (Bishop of Jerusalem) instead of the more-ambiguous present situation, John II of Jerusalem (the king) and Bishop John II of Jerusalem.  WP:NC(NT) breaks ranks with existing, highly functional naming conventions to produce a worse result.
 * Don't pre-emptively disambiguate;
 * Use non-ambiguous disambiguation;
 * Use the most common name when one exists and is not ambiguous;
 * Put disambiguating terms in parentheses to signify that they are not part of the "real name".--Father Goose 22:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Changing John of England has been discussed, and received fairly wide support; it failed because no-one had a good suggestion on what to use instead. If that can be resolved, I would support that particular change, and moving other kings without numerals.
 * I strongly oppose' John II (King of Jerusalem); we should not use names which cannot occur in running prose unless we have to. The King is more notable than the Patriarch (who should probably be moved anyway, to Patriarch), and should have the simpler form).
 * The assertion that England is not part of the "real name" of Henry FitzEmpress surprises me; it would astound him (as would, I believe, the II) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Firstly, Teresa de Cepeda y Ahumada's claim on Avila is not much stronger than King John's claim on England. Secondly, the Kingdom of Jerusalem is not a modern state, and thus the guideline we are discussing arguably does not apply to that example; the kind of problem you are describing is much less common with modern states. (actually, 1291 wasn't all that long ago; PMA's answer was better).
 * Parentheses imply that the disambiguating qualifier is not part of the name, but titles are not so easily separable from the "real name". Thus Charles, Prince of Wales, not Prince Charles (Prince of Wales).  One could imagine a similar format for  monarchs (WP:NCNT currently applies this format only to non-reigning royals and nobles), such as John, King of England or Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom, though my sense is that this adds extra verbiage to no real benefit.  --BlueMoonlet 05:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Another section break
I am of the opinion that the current policy needs revising. It is: CommentWe should select names that readers will search for, and that editors will use in articles (or easily pipe). If there is a need to disambiguate then follow Wikipedia's own practice, and have Henry I (England) or King Henry I (England). I know PMAnderson above is against that as it doesn't work in running text, but how many times will you put Henry I of England in running text? They need to be piped anyway, so lets pipe what Wikipedia recommends; it works in every other subject. Proposal Bring this policy in line with Wikipedia's main naming and disambiguation guidelines. Gwinva 21:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Complicated -disambiguating whether there is need or not
 * Misleading -implying that monarchs ruled over countries that didn't exist at the time
 * Incorrect -giving someone a title that only exists on Wikipedia, such as Victoria of the United Kingdom
 * Confusing -who is John of Scotland? Sounds more like a saint than a king
 * Inconsistent -why are we allowed Edward the Confessor but not William the Conqueror when they reigned over a very similar kingdom and Edward Confessor actually named William his heir? Is it simply because Edward I of England is already taken, and thus our artifical disambiguation fails anyway?
 * Selective - eg. Queen Elizabeth is not merely queen of the United Kingdom. People within the commonwealth revere her as their Queen, also, and are not some 'minor title' that can be ignored.  So Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom is rather inflammatory. (to be consistent, it should be Elizabeth of the Commonwealth of Nations, which just shows you how daft it all is.  X of the United Kingdom is as meaningless as X of Buckingham Palace.)
 * Contrary to Wikipedia's general naming conventions.
 * We use Edward the Confessor because it's odd not to call him that; we use William I of England because he is called William I, even if not as often as William the Conqueror. Perhaps that line should be shifted; but that's where it's drawn.
 * One of the great advantages of the present guideline is that it settles the perpetual argument whether the title must include that Elizabeth II is Queen of Canada, Australia, and so on. So she is, and the article says so; but there is no reason to make the title that long.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I quote from the very first article to link to Henry I of England: this was apparently agreed in advance by Edgar, Alexander, David and their brother-in-law Henry I of England. This is typical; we link to Henry the first time we mention him, and that first mention needs to specify which Henry I we are talking about. Therefore we use it in running text once (and in fact the same article uses Henry of England lower down also), but that's the one we link. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The author could have used Henry I, King of England just as well, had he known or remembered that it existed. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The choice between Henry I of England and Henry I, King of England is unimportant to me; I prefer the shorter title, but not strongly. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The point is that Henry I of England is perfectly good usage that is sometimes seen in prose. --BlueMoonlet 00:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Since Gwinva's stated goal is to make WP:NCNT more consistent with other WP naming policies, let's take a look at WP:NCP. Firstly, any construction along the lines of King Henry I or Queen Victoria is immediately ruled out, as WP:NCP forbids unnecessary qualifiers, specifically giving the example of "King".  Secondly, we very quickly run into the question of what a monarch's "real name" is.  WP:NCP recommends against using only a person's first name when other names are known and used.  Victoria or Elizabeth II seem rather too bare to me; they do indeed have many other names:  Elizabeth Windsor, Elizabeth R., Elizabeth II, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom..., and more.  The current policy provides a consistent scheme (preventing rather than creating confusion, in my opinion) for choosing one of the many possible names, that more often than not gives a name that is at least usable in prose.  --BlueMoonlet 01:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It also recommends: try to avoid this type of disambiguation [parentheses] where possible (use disambiguation techniques listed above if these apply more "naturally"). Either Henry I of England or Henry I, King of England apply naturally; the first is likely to be smoother prose. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

All good points, but selective, and some are contrary to the WP:NC rules of thumb that "Generally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists" In addition, WP:NCP does not forbid using qualifiers such as 'king'. It says: "don't add qualifiers (such as "King", "Saint", "Dr.", "(person)", "(ship)"), except when this is the simplest and most NPOV way to deal with disambiguation (which would apply in the case of Queen Victoria, for example); moreover, a couple of lines above that it states that the article names should be the name that is most generally recognisable. I'd go along with Henry I, King of England, since it is unambiguous (unlike Henry I of England) and ties in with this policy's suggestions for other titles, such as Charles, Prince of Wales and Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington). But this discussion kicked off over problems with Victoria of the United Kingdom which is not an intuitive name, thus fails WP:NC.  Everyone knows her as Queen Victoria, just as everyone knows of Saint Paul rather than Paul of Tarsus (note how there are exceptions to the saints rules which work well). Many other names are intuitive, such as William the Conqueror (who was at the same time both more and less than 'King of England'). It's no great problem to discuss the more controversial ones on a case-by-case basis, such as John Baliol; if the mind revolts at treating him like any Joe Bloggs, then John, King of Scotland at least helps people figure it out, rather than the bizarre John of Scotland. And I must bring up the rather inflammatory James I of England. WHAT??? Is Wikipedia trying to incite another Anglo-Scottish war? He was James VI of Scotland long before he ever took the English throne. James VI and I, at the very least, please. Gwinva 22:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * He has been at some variant of James I of England and VI of Scotland (I don't remember which one exactly). At that point, we nearly had an Anglo-Irish war, because Ireland wasn't included. It is for this reason we chose to go with the shortest (and most commonly used) choice of realm; both are encouraged by WP:NC  Similarly, Henry IV of France, not of France and Navarre. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The exception to the "no qualifiers" rule is not for the purpose of using the most recognizable name (that would largely negate the rule), but for "the simplest and most NPOV way to deal with disambiguation." Victoria has a number of proper names that are not ambiguous (the one currently used is a contraction of her full proper form of address:  Victoria, by the grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland Queen, Defender of the Faith).  Furthermore, "Queen Victoria" is ambiguous (doesn't satisfy the criterion for the exception), and will be much more so when (if) a monarch of that name occupies the throne of a major European monarchy.  Finally, the recent poll resulted in no consensus that Victoria merits an exception to the rule.
 * Names of the form John, King of Scotland are a reasonable second choice for me (Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom?), though I object to the use of nicknames for all but the most obvious cases on slippery-slope grounds. --BlueMoonlet 01:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * John, King of Scots, surely. john k 05:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * We will undoubtedly descend into (further) confusion if we try to achieve consensus on what is the most commonly used/easily recognisable name for many of these monarchs. Better to retain a standard, even though it may not satisfy everyone. Deb (talk) 11:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I strongly, strongly support the Holy Roman Empire format. David I, King of the Scots and the like would be great for the post-11th century monarchs (no "the" is a modern Scotticism which jars me personally). It resolves loads of problems. E.g. Matilda of Scotland ... was she queen of Scotland? Nope, she was associated with it. Henry of Scotland ... not king either. But with redirects and all, I think wikipedia is ready to grow out of the idea that names need to be standardised for the sake of it. William the Conqueror is better known as that, not William I of England or William I, King of the English, likewise William Rufus. But it's case by case. Henry Beauclerc is perhaps better known as Henry I, and "of England", "King of England", or "King of the English" is there for dab reasons. Admittedly, there are some tricky cases. Richard Cœur de Lion for instance, is he better known as Richard I, Richard the Lionheart or Richard the Lionhearted?  Maybe all this extra debate might be thought of as pointless, but I don't see any need for redundant names like Malcolm III of Scotland or Duncan I of Scotland when Malcolm III and Duncan I will do.Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 15:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The reason is that it helps readers to find them at their first attempt when there is a standard they can follow. Our search engine is not good enough for any other approach. Deb (talk) 23:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, that'd be a reason to use popular versions of names, not stick to a contrived system only wiki-editors on WP:Naming conventions know about, a system which has brought us absurd names like Drest X of the Picts and Kenneth I of Scotland. There are redirects in any case. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 03:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Just a note guys, reverted Sander's moves of the pre-HRE emperors; I also moved two to completely avoid, as seemed consensus on a variety of discussions, use of "Holy Roman Emperor" for pre-Holy Roman Empire emperors. Essence of changes can be seen here. These guys may or may not be standardized in time, these were made independent of any such thinking. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 00:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Noted. I find Lothair I, Frankish Emperor a little odd; he was, after all, Emperor of the Romans, just like his father and grandfather. Holy RE is an anachronism, but it is also one for Henry the Fowler. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure. Two bads don't make a good of course, as I'm sure you'll agree. If you wish to give him another name or revert my move ... go for it. I don't wish anything else, hence why I posted notice here!. Regards, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deacon of Pndapetzim (talk • contribs) 00:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Ivan I of Russia
I did move this, as promised, only to be flatly reverted, and chewed out. I have now filed a RM; if anyone cares to comment, see the article talk page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Somewhat related, naming of a Romanian pretender
There is a discussion of the naming of Paul Lambrino. Please see the talk page. Charles 14:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Dukes of Brunswick and Lunenburg genealogy and naming effort
I've listed every single Duke of Brunswick-Lunenburg that I could find and Wikipedia article links that I could find here: B-L project.

Since there are some issues with how these dukes are named, I would appreciate if editors here could take a peek at it and apply headers over various descendants with their line/territorial designation... For instance, Brunswick-Bevern, Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, Brunswick-Lunenburg, Brunswick-Grubenhagen, Brunswick-Calenberg, Celle, etc. Hanover is already blocked off and everyone below it until the break bears that designation. This is for purposes of organization, possibly issues with naming can be resolved as well (eg, who is Duke NN of B-L, who is NN, Duke of B-L among other designations). The link names are obviously the ones of concern for renaming if necessary. Also of concern are some of the ordinals, as they differ among various sources. Since also there are some issues with how duchesses are named, clarifying the names of their fathers would help as well.

I *believe* that the genealogy is complete (I've only listed males), but if there are errors or individuals missing then please let me know. Charles 20:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Categorizing Habsburgs
Within the Habsburg category, there are some subcategories (Hohenberg and Austria-Este). In the interest of neat categorization, how should the Tuscan Habsburgs be categorized? I'm not certain that "House of Austria-Este" is a good term for the Modenese line, but "Austria-Tuscany" seems to have some usage, or even at least "Habsburg Princes of Tuscany". Charles 17:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Sophie of Sweden
Should this Grand Duchess of Baden, daughter of a King of Sweden, be Princess Sophie of Sweden? I'm not sure; but this is probably a question of what our conventions should say. as much as of what they do say. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The nom's only argument seems to be that a title (name} of {place} is appropriate only for kings and queens, emperors and empresses; therefore a Grand Duchess of a sovereign Grand Duchy isn't worthy of the form. Does anyone else support this line of reasoning? Septentrionalis PMAnderson
 * This is loaded commentary. Please take a look at Talk:Alice of the United Kingdom for my personal opinion outside of the naming conventions and how they have been applied before trying to speak for me, especially when appending a leading question. Charles 23:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * "Is there a second (parliamentary)?" is not a leading question. Is there? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I feel that you were trying to elicit a response of "no", and perhaps a "he has no idea what he's doing" while we are talking about it, given the manner in which you chose to write your comment, along with the assumption that I believe X of Y is only appropriate for kings, queens, emperors and empresses and therefore a grand duchess of a sovereign grand duchy (we're obviously not talking about a grand princess of Russia here) isn't "worthy" of it. Charles 00:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * When have I ever suggested that Charles doesn't know what he's doing? I simply don't know of anyone else who supports this line of reasoning; but I'm willing to be informed. I'm taking a wikibreak now. Join me? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I am withdrawing from this discussion for the evening. Charles 00:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposal on consorts
I propose changing the section heading "Past royal consorts" to "Past consorts of kings and emperors". I also propose adding the following sentence at the bottom of the section: "Consorts of princes below the rank of king are treated according to the convention in section 4 of 'Other royals' above".

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on this proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  ''. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons.


 * Support I don't see why Princess X of Z who marries a grand duke should be treated differently from her single sister Princess Y of Z. I think that it is preferable to have their articles under similarly formed titles Princess Firstname of Country (instead of Firstname of Country). Noel S McFerran 01:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Support Not because grand dukes are any less sovereign than kings and emperors, but because it seems to be natural division to make between kings, emperors (and their consorts) and grand dukes, dukes, princes, etc (and their consorts). Kings and emperors are Majesties (royal and imperial) and grand dukes, dukes, princes, etc are Highnesses (Royal Highness, Highness, etc). It makes sense to limit X of Y to the royal and imperial group, simplify/clarify the naming conventions on the matter and avoid the muddy boundaries between grand dukes, dukes, etc. Charles 01:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose, even if not a robust oppose. I don't think we should use this artificial and opaque convention that X of Y = royalty.
 * Noel: because she's a Grand Duchess; that's what our sources will call her.
 * Charles: Do remember that the extension of Majesty to kings is a Renaissance innovation; it is neither immemorial nor a law of nature.
 * And what is heaven's name are we to do with Catherine of Vadstena or Hildegard of Bingen, the daughter of a nobleman who goes into the church and becomes notable? It's usage to call them X of Y; are we to stop doing so? (We've already moved Catherine of Vadstena away from Catherine of Sweden to accommodate the "maiden name rule".) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The convention about consorts (whatever it is) is not absolute; there are always exceptions (and should be). The most general convention is "use the most common form of the name used in English".  That certainly applies with Hildegard of Bingen. Noel S McFerran 03:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I never claimed X of Y automatically denotes royalty. I said within the guidelines for royalty (I am not concerned with anything outside of the scope of WP:NC(NT) in this discussion) that X of Y should be used for emperors, empresses, kings and queens and that Title X of Y should be used for other consorts. It is already noted that other types of people fall under the form X of Y, but we are eliminating the question of who for royalty. The naming conventions also note differences for royals before about the 17th century (when "standards" in styling came about). Charles 03:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Would this mandate Princess Elisabeth of Hungary, then?!? And if not, on what grounds? (I set aside date; there must be a more recent parallel, even if I can't think of her at the moment.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No, because, if I am not mistaken, there are naming conventions for saints and I do not believe that the title of "princess" was established at that time for daughters of kings. Also, there is a note in Other Royals, 4, regarding the use of princess. Charles 03:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose for the moment, because I don't understand what purpose the change is supposed to serve. It seems to me that this is what we are already doing. Deb 12:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Some people interpret the phrase "past royal consorts" to mean the wives of any prince (sovereign or non-sovereign; and if sovereign, of any rank whatsover).  Other people think "past royal consorts" merely means the wives of kings and emperors.  The change would clarify this. Noel S McFerran 16:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Support per Charles. Fewer English-speakers will recognize daughters of historical granddukes, dukes & princes compared to daughters of emperors and kings, so the titular prefix is useful. Also, most of these are, in fact, known pre-maritally by Title Name of Country, when they are known in English at all. As for imperial and royal consorts, given the desirability of distinguishing them from female rulers (which use of title doesn't achieve) I don't see a better proposal for a convention than the one in use at NC(NT), granting the exceptions for those known better under other pre-marital titles. Lethiere 14:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Why propose and poll? You are merely clarifying current policy – be bold. If people don't like it, they will need to challenge the policies. DBD 16:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The current convention is based upon consensus. Discussions on other pages lead me to think that it might be advisable to change the current convention.  At the top of the convention page it says: "When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on this page's talk page."  I am in doubt that a consensus exists to change (although I personally favour the change); therefore, we're discussing. Noel S McFerran 16:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This should be concluded at some point given that some editors are still confused when it comes to citing WP:NC(NT). Charles 00:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes; there is no conesnsus to change the present silence on Grand Duchesses. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't see why it should become stale. For instance, I clarified the use of X of Y in response to "Princess Elisabeth of Hungary". This can still go somewhere. Charles 04:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm with Septentrionalis that I don't like the idea that "X of Y" somehow means "Monarch". Beyond that, I'm entirely uncertain my opinion of this proposal.  I think I'd prefer to have Grand Duchesses and the like sticking with the convention for kings and emperors, if we have to choose. john k 05:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a misconception as the proposal isn't to limit the meaning of "X of Y" to monarchs for across Wikipedia, meaning it won't imply that Hildegard of Bingen was a sovereign. It is to clarify the naming conventions and name grand duchess and lower with titles before their names to end the the grey areas seemingly encountered during RMs, etc. The problem with "grand duchesses and the like" is what is the like and why at grand duchesses? Charles 05:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know the proposal doesn't do that, but I'm not sure I like the current convention for queens all that much, is all I was saying. I'm not expressing approval or disapproval of the proposal as a whole - I'm not really sure what to do with it. john k 05:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Aside from displeasure or uncertainty of how queens are named or should be named, as it stands do you think there is an arguable reason to distinguish queens and empresses from grand duchesses, duchesses, princesses, countesses, etc for the purposes of clarifying the naming conventions as they stand? Charles 03:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure. I find it all to be interrelated, and I think I'd prefer ambiguity as to the conventions, for the moment. john k 04:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

So far...
Three for, two against, a fence sitter or two. Is anyone swayed to include this or not? Of course, my preference is to go ahead and edit the naming conventions to group grand duchesses with duchesses, princesses, countesses, etc. For those who are opposed, can you agree more are for it or not? Or should we talk more? Charles 04:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Saxe-Weimar, Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach, Saxe-Weimar and Eisenach
Across Wikipedia for princes and princesses of Grand Ducal Saxony (S-W-E and other forms were only informal) the territorial designations are not consistent. Aside from examples such as Augusta of Saxe-Weimar (who may be best known as that, I am not sure), whati s the best territorial designation to use? Charles 23:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Best known as the Empress Augusta, perhaps? (Not that this helps with your territorial problem, I'm afraid.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Best known premaritally as ... perhaps. Off-topic, but now that I've clarified. Charles 06:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard "Saxe-Weimar and Eisenach", only "Saxe-Coburg and Gotha." From the Napoleonic period, at least, Saxe-Weimar and Saxe-Eisenach were formally united into a single duchy/grand duchy, unlike Saxe-Coburg and Saxe-GOtha, which was always a quasi-personal union. So my vote is for Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach. john k 05:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * That is probably the best form to use after the union of Saxe-Weimar and Saxe-Eisenach. Charles 05:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Russian grand duchesses naming convention
I have some examples of how grand duchesses married into the family could be named:


 * 1. Princess Cecilia of Baden (Olga Feodorovna)
 * 2. Cecilia of Baden (Olga Feodorovna)
 * 3. Grand Duchess Olga Feodorovna (Cecilia of Baden)
 * 4. Olga Feodorovna (Cecilia of Baden)

My preference is #1, as it falls most in line with the current naming conventions. My second choice would be #2, because it's short, which isn't m first choice because there's the argument of consort names. However, grand duchesses are complex enough that they should be an exception to the general naming conventions and have their own subsection. Grand Duchesses by birth, in my opinion, should be under a form like Grand Duchess Maria Nikolaevna of Russia. I believe that empresses are under the form Russianname Patronymic (Birthname of Territory), which is fine, but between Alix of Hesse and her immediate predecessor, Dagmar of Denmark, we have two forms of the same patronymic. Patronymics should be regularized. Charles 03:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * In my opinion the most important thing is that Wikipedia not change scholarship. We have all seen concerted efforts on certain pages to name things in a way different from the majority view in published scholarship as a means of "correcting" things or "regularizing" things.  Often this is done by editors with an ethnic objective.
 * If there is a standard form of the name used in scholarship, we should use that. Google Books shows 36 hits for "cecilia of baden" ; the present name (Olga Feodorovna of Baden) doesn't show up in Google Books even once.
 * Having said that, I find the "maiden name convention" to be very frequently artificial (e.g. listing "Crown Princess Margaret of Sweden" as "Princess Margaret of Connaught"); this is like listing "Nancy Reagan" as "Anne Frances Robbins".
 * Whatever we do, we have to make it clear that when there is a standard form in scholarship, use it. Only follow the convention guideline if there isn't a standard form already in use.
 * In this particular case, I actually quite like Charles' first choice "Princess Cecilia of Baden (Olga Feodorovna)". I guess that adding "of Russia" would make it too long? Noel S McFerran 04:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think that there would be quite a problem with adding "of Russia", but it might be a little unwieldly. In the case of grand duchesses though, I think the title of grand duchess and the Russian name implies "of Russia". If it does need to be fully clarified though and put in the title, it could very well be. But yes, it does make it a little too long, I believe. I don't believe that WP:NC(NT) trumps WP:NC(CN). Charles 05:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know that google books is a useful search for this. I prefer to use the married name, as I think that is generally more familiar for most of these women.  (i.e., I think scholarship tends to use the married name more) I would prefer Option 3, I think, but any of the options would be better than nothing. john k 02:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As a university librarian, I know of no better indicator of English-language usage than Google Books. I agree with Mr Kenney that for most married women it is more appropriate to use their married name - since this is what is generally used in scholarship.  But what evidence can he provide in this particular case that "Grand Duchess Olga Feodorovna" is used more frequently in English-language scholarship than "Princess Cecilia of Baden"? Noel S McFerran 04:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * In the particular case, I would imagine that there is very little evidence one way or the other, since the woman is probably hardly written of, and when she is, it is often going to be in genealogies, which always use maiden names. It strikes me that, broadly speaking, either form is fine, in that both forms are used in certain contexts, and most of these women are rarely discussed, and that we should try to find a form which works best for the best known grand duchesses, not the least known, and apply that consistently for all.  I'm not sure which grand duchesses are prominent enough to have frequent mention - Grand Duchess Miechen, and Alix's sister Elizabeth are the only particularly prominent grand duchesses by marriage I can think of, and both kept the same given name before and after marriage.  I think the wives of the Nikolayevichi also kept their same names.  So it does become problematic to find decent examples. john k 05:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Where are we on this? Anyone prefer an option? Charles 04:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * One aside to start off with, should the wife of Grand Duke Michael Nicolaevich of Russia not be Cecily? I've read it as Cecily, Cecilie and Cecilia, but it's English Wikipedia and Cecily is English version of the name (like Nicholas to Nikolaus or Nikolaj or Nikolai, so should it not be the is the anglicized version Cladeal832 (talk) 23:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If going to be for the ones that married into the title Grand Duchess Blank Blankvna (Blank of Blank), then how having it all the way through, like Empress Elizabeth Alexeievna (Louise of Baden)? Cladeal832 (talk) 00:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Cecilia is generally accepted as an English name. There is more of a distinction between names like Adelaide and Adelheid, but names like Mary/Maria/Marie (traditionally English, Latin/Germanic and French, I believe), for example, are generally all accepted in English. Also, with empresses, I think it is best to omit the titles. Some would call them empress, others tsarina or tsaritsa. Charles 00:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, this discussion is more active: . Charles 00:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * But anglicizing already going back to the Nicholas/Nikolai example or William, Prince of Orange instead of Willem, and it's pretty hard to find a more English name then Cecily? Cecily only appears in English (ie Cecily Neville), so it's accepted as the English version of the name. Cladeal832 (talk) 00:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * But we use Louis and not Lewis. A name doesn't have to appear *only* in English to be the preferred anglicisation. Charles 00:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * One thing though, out of Cecilia, Cecilie or Cecily, it ought not to be Cecilia. She was German by birth, and Cecilie is the accepted version (ie Cecilie of Mecklenburg-Schwerin) Cladeal832 (talk) 00:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Really I haven't read much about Cecily of Baden, but what did had Cecily. Maybe there are some books about of immediate family that would help here. As to the overall name convention, which one is it, makes sense for consistency through out all of them and also maybe something written up about how come it was chosen and how a lot of times both are acceptable, ie Luise or Louise, Constantinovna or Konstantinovna, Hesse or Hesse-Darmstadt. Cladeal832 (talk) 23:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Zieten
Input would be appreciated at Talk:Hans Ernst Karl, Graf von Zieten regarding the best title for the article. Names considered so far have been "Hans Ernst Karl, Graf von Zieten" and "Hans Ernst Karl von Zieten". Olessi 23:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I have suggested that we discuss it here and post a summary on the Talk:Hans Ernst Karl, Graf von Zieten page as this could effect other German nobility pages. --Philip Baird Shearer 00:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

 Copied from the von Zieten talk page:

From the history of the page:
 * 22:18, 15 November 2007 Olessi m (moved Hans Ernst Karl, Graf von Zieten to Hans Ernst Karl von Zieten over redirect: status as a count can be mentioned in the article instead of including an awkward comma in a German name)
 * 15 November 2007 Philip Baird Shearer m (moved Hans Ernst Karl von Zieten to Hans Ernst Karl, Graf von Zieten over redirect: Reverted move See Naming conventions (names and titles)

This was the first article I have come across using a German title and an English-style comma. The standard naming for non-ruling members of the German nobility has been Foo von Foo or "Foo Title von Foo". I could understand including a comma if the article was titled "Hans Ernst Karl, Count of Zieten", but this individual was not a monarch. Olessi 23:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I think this is best taken care of over there. There is no standard for German nobles alone as they fall under this naming convention if the titles are prominent enough to be included in the name in English. Charles 00:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Ramon Berenguer IV, Count of Provence
There seemed to be something of an argument going on over the naming of Ramon Berenguer IV, Count of Provence. I have moved the article back to where I think it started out. Can I ask for comments at Talk:Ramon Berenguer IV, Count of Provence. Should a requested move discussion be started? Is there such an obvious case for a move that no discussion is needed? Where to? Thanks, Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Naming conventions foreign royals
Where can I find the Naming conventions about the names used in the English Wikipedia of European monarchs and other royals>

Is it Willem-Alexander, Prince of Orange or Will iam -Alexander, Prince of Orange? And when he will be King, how will he be named at this wikipedia? Willem IV of the Netherlands or Will iam IV of the Netherlands? Demophon (talk) 22:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Depends on usage really, especially for current royals they say. There is no other naming convention for royalty other than the one here, which doesn't specify which form of name to use. As for the future, we aren't a crystal ball so who knows, although I'd prefer William. Charles 01:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Names discussion
Those who watch this page may also be interested in this discussion about early British and Irish royal names. Mike Christie (talk) 15:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This has now produced a move request to from Kenneth I of Scotland to Kenneth MacAlpin. This does not come under our present guidance; so we want to consider which to change. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "Pre-emptively disambiguate the names of monarchs of modern countries ...". The article says he "... was king of the Picts ...". Why is the guideline going to need changed? Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If only to clarify why Robert I of France is being treated differently from the ancestor of all the kings of Scotland; it could, after all, be argued that West Francia isn't a modern country either. I have no real objection to the change; but doesn't Angus want to record his arguments here, so he doesn't have to make them again? That's the point of guideline pages. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe "modern country" was intended to draw a line  between modern and ancient (i.e., at the fall of the Roman Empire). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The guideline appears to suggest that it should only be used when necessary in such cases, not by default (Exceptions, 3, last sentence). Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, what is the it that should only be used when necessary? I don't follow. (Exception 3 was somebody's bright idea; it's not what we actually do, even for the Goths; we really should take it out.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Disambiguation. Hugh Capet of France is, according to the guideline but not common sense, correct. Theodoric the Great of the Ostrogoths is not correct as Theodoric the Great is unambiguous. If you simply remove the exception, some dimwit will be along shortly to rename things, so I trust you meant "remove the last sentence" rather than "remove the whole exception". As for modern, I disagree as to its meaning, and modern history disagrees too. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree about what the guidelines say: Hugh Capet comes under exception 4, and therefore doesn't need of France; but the fact that we disagree on what they say and agree on what should be done suggests the guideline could use a rewrite.
 * As for exception 3, what is there for the dimwit to rearrange? None of the Gothic kings are titled with of the Goths/Ostrogoths/Visigoths now (unless an example has managed to escape ). It's a good idea, and may help solve the Scottish North British (->) problem, but it isn't what WP actually does.
 * On the same lines, there was a successful move of one of the Merovingians recently, removing "of France" or possibly "of the French" altogether. (I can't find it; I think Srnec filed the move request.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I will try a draft, moving the exceptions first (as conditions when our slight exception to WP:COMMONNAME applies). This order has been suggested before and may be clearer. Feel free to adapt or revert as needed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Still rather a disaster though. Practice says there are loads of exceptions, but the guideline can't do any better that Charlemagne, &c. Then there's the comment '... nor would Pericles be "of Athens" nor Algirdas "of Lithuania" — their names already indicate where they were from'. No idea what that's supposed to mean. I had a look at a few of the categories, and I think you might as well strike out the bit on Muslim rulers and just leave the common naming rules for that. Still no explanation of why it should be Gorm the Old or Eric the Victorious or Hywel Dda either. It seems to me that guidelines need to address current practice to be at all useful, and this doesn't. Regarding the Merovingian page move, did you mean Carloman I? I think you'd need to redefine success for that to qualify. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Gorm the Old comes under "would look weird to do anything else", as far as I'm concerned. The sentence on Pericles was in the original before I moved stuff; it may be redundant with "since the fall of the Roman Empire". I'll have a crack at it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think I was thinking of Carloman; the page was moved, and no other Merovingian is "of place", which is practice, even if not consensus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Hirohito
An RFC on content related to this convention has been opened, comments are welcome.  MBisanz  talk 01:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

John of Scotland
This guideline is most stretched when we have a monarch (as here, or John of England) who is not usually numbered. I am perfectly willing to change this, provided we can come up with a form which can be generally used, and which disambiguates them. Suggestions?Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * King John
 * Fails to disambiguate them (and we want it for the play) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * John Balliol and John Lackland.
 * May work for these two (although the first is ambiguous, and the second is not overwhelming usage). But it won't do for every monarch of this type, including Her Late Majesty. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

John Lackland seems to be much less common than Richard the Lionheart and William the Conqueror, and rather less so than William Rufus, so that won't do. John Balliol might do with a dab hatnote, but why should King John be treated differently from King Robert? John's "Name (N), (Title)" proposal would treat these no differently from any other rulers. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed, John, King of Scots seems like a considerably better title. My personal preference would be for monarch names to a) disambiguate only when necessary, so that we can have Louis XIV, or whatever, and b) to use the comma method for disambiguation, but I can see that there are disadvantages to this method as well. john k (talk) 05:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree with disambiguate only when necessary. Not heard one sensible argument against it so far. Also, I think here John Balliol like that is clearly primary usage, and that is almost always how he is referred to. I'll say again - and it's just my own taste - I'd infinitely prefer John, King of the Scots to John, King of Scots. Are the Scots so great that they are the only European people to not have an article? Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 05:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * On the model of Mary, Queen of Scots, I'd say yes. If we're going to change it, we should change it so that she's in the right place, I think.  The traditional English form is "King/Queen of Scots" not "of the Scots."  john k (talk) 05:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a Scots language thing though, per the folk rhyme. rex Scotorum is equally "King of the Scots" as "King of Scots", and everywhere else in English it'd be odd not to use the article. And its jarring when you apply it to pre-Late Medieval monarchs. I wouldn't be in favour of King of Scots form then. Perhaps King of Scotland would be better after all. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 05:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If we're going to change it, we should be able to have Mary, Queen of Scots (or, I guess, Mary I, Queen of Scots, if necessary). This will be the great promise of the change which we can use to lure in the masses. john k (talk) 06:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * We should use Mary, Queen of Scots as an established idiom. I don't see that calling her father James V, King of Scots is anywhere near as usual in English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I understand. Anyways, reading this page over, I've got the impression there is some big reason for avoiding the de-wiki Jonny (Country) format or similar Jonny (Title of Realm) format [when dab is needed!!!], but I can't find what it is. If that's the case, I suggest we go forward firstly with the dab only when necessary format (Louis XIV, Malcolm III, etc), then feel out common names (i.e. William the Conqueror, William Rufus, Frederick Barbarossa, William the Lion, etc). I just hope though we can abandon the quest for "most all-encompassing paradigm" grail; square pegs for square holes! Follow the principles of historical accuracy and (in that order) primary usage, and monarchs with their guidelines can be dealt afterwards on a case by case - monarch by monarch or monarchy by monarchy - basis; the remainder of the paradigm can come after we've discovered the best reality already. That may make guidelines longer, but welcome to the real world! The fact that we've got redirects just makes a complete nonsense of the rest anyway. Even if there are a signicant number of poor souls familiar enough with wiki to expect and type in "of country" every time, they'll get redirected anyway, so'll still find their page. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 06:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no "principle of historical accuracy". We should use enshrined errors until the pedants manage to change the English language; it is not our place to enforce Original Research on medieval usage.
 * There is no reason to change the existing, predictable, system where (as with James V of Scotland) it is not broken. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think I must have missed the bit where we made a decision to change the convention... Deb (talk) 12:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yep, last year. 2-1 vote rejecting current "X N of Y" convention in favour of "Z N, King of Y" convention: see Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_%28names_and_titles%29. The current state has nothing behind it other than early flag planting. And that flag plant was rejected more than a year ago. After all that time just re-enforcing that decision, we need to be less about the chatting and more about the action. Unless that is you want to go on telling people to follow conventions that the community doesn't support. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 13:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I strongly oppose disambiguate only when necessary, for two reasons:
 * We're still writing articles on the reigning princes of Central Europe. We are likely to find that disambiguation is necessary where we don't expect it to be. Doing a lot of page moves only to undo some of them is pointless.
 * I don't want to have to find out, as reader or editor, whether Henry VII is ambiguous (it is), before I know where Henry VII of England is to be found.
 * By the way, disambiguate only when necessary offers no solution to John of Scotland; John is ambiguous. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I strongly prefer Henry VII of England over Henry VII (England) and prefer it over Henry VII, King of England because: Our naming conventions support both of these. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It's shorter/easier to type.
 * It fits more readily into running text.
 * For example the link from the first incoming article has text In 1514, the town saw the marriage of Louis XII of France to Mary Tudor the daughter of Henry VII of England. Omitting of England would be obscure; including King would be stilted and redundant.
 * Unfortunately Mary Tudor of France is not idiom at all, so she must be dabbed in a way that is redundant here; but Mary Tudor, Queen of France is the second best choice. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * In terms of running text, redirects will continue to exist, and there's no reason you can't use Henry VII of England still, if that fits better. In terms of pre-emptive disambiguation, I think you are privileging editors over readers here.  Readers, in general, have no idea about wikipedia naming conventions, and don't really care.  Most of them will probably type in "Henry VII," regardless.  It is editors like us who might be inconvenienced.  But even so, you can always still type in "Henry VII of England" and get to the same place, if that's the issue. In terms of obscure rulers, I think primary usage ought to start to apply at some point.  For instance, Henry VIII currently redirects to Henry VIII of England.  There are other rulers called Henry VIII - Emperor Heinrich IV was duke Heinrich VIII of Bavaria, for one thing, and there are several minor German princelings who are also Heinrich VIII, and who might acquire articles at some point.  But these usages seem sufficiently minor that we can stick with "Henry VIII" redirecting to, or being, the article on the King of England.  This would, I think, generally apply.  There might end up being disputes, of course, but those could be dealt with individually. john k (talk) 16:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Readers who type in Henry VII will get to a dab page between the English king and the Emperor; that's what should happen - and I trust it will still happen after any change. Therefore our choice here shouldn't matter to readers (except for the handful who dislike arriving at pages through redirects, who will prefer the present system). We are entitled to consider our own convenience as editors when readers are indifferent. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * But I don't think it particularly inconveniences editors, seeing as the existing article titles will still exist as redirects, and I think there's other reasons to prefer modification. Personally I find the "Henry II of England" form ugly and vaguely wrong, for instance.  But this is all coming down to personal preferences, and the like, which I imagine we won't get past.  And the fact that we have yet to come up with what the alternative to the current situation is doesn't help. john k (talk) 17:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

We should leave the article titles the way they are. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. GoodDay (talk) 17:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the point is that it is broken. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 17:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not broken IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 17:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks guys, this is a substantive line of conversation. john k (talk) 19:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm clapping here btw ... you can't tell just from looking at your screen, but I assure you I am (well not when I'm typing, so "I clapped there" would be better). @ GoodDay ... it's broken to the power of infinity ... so there. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 19:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_%28names_and_titles%29
Above, the community voted 2-1 in favour of replacing this:


 * 1) Pre-emptively disambiguate the names of monarchs of modern countries in the format "{Monarch's first name and ordinal} of {Country}". Examples: Edward I of England; Alfonso XII of Spain; Henry I of France.

with this:


 * 1) Pre-emptively disambiguate the names of monarchs of modern countries in the format "{Monarch's first name and ordinal}, {Title} of {Country}". Examples: Franz Joseph I, Emperor of Austria; Alfonso XII, King of Spain; Maximilian I, Elector of Bavaria; Jean, Grand Duke of Luxembourg.

So are we gonna sit around for another 18 months talking for no reason, or are we gonna change it now? I'd replace the guidelines myself right now, but the problem of course is that this is out of line even it's own examples. Of course, you move those pages you'll get someone reverting with the circular "what about the guidelines" objection. So I'm looking for advice here. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 13:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * We're going to sit around for another 18 months, unless you can persuade those of us who disagree. Addressing our concerns would be a start. 66% is not WP:CONSENSUS. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I haven't saw one decent argument against this. Of course, that's just MHO, but other than flag-planting, where is the authority for these rejected guidelines coming from? Surely they either have to change according to the vote/discussion above, or they have to be removed. No-one can now go through wikipedia quoting these guidelines when they have been rejected. That makes a mockery of the procedure. Surely? Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 16:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You "haven't saw" one decent argument against the change? Try immediately above this section. Not understanding the arguments against it means only that you have not understood the problem, which is partly a matter of English idiom. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's not get side tracked by my opinions of the arguments. Other than flag-planting, where is the authority for these rejected guidelines coming from? Surely they either have to change according to the vote/discussion above, or they have to be removed. No-one can now go through wikipedia quoting these guidelines when they have been rejected. That makes a mockery of the procedure. Surely? Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 16:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's not engage in begging the question, either. These guidelines are not rejected; they are what Wikipedia actually does: James V of Scotland is where that article actually is. Going to the enormous labor of renaming our monarchial articles (in whole or in large part) requires consensus to do so. Beginning the process and dropping it half-way, which is what would probably happen, would be worse than the system we have now, which is at least consistent. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No, no, you're expecting these to be accepted as authoritative. But they're not! They're a minority opinion. So while not many may be inclined to go out of their way to change these names, you can't use an effectively rejected guideline as a basis not to. Anyone who does that is reducing the guideline system to something resembling a joke. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 16:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't fool ourselves as to the consistency of our current system. Polish monarchs, for instance, are entirely outside it.  Instead we have Augustus II the Strong and John III Sobieski, which are arguably, I think, better titles. john k (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If you tried answering my reservations, instead of dismissing them and relying on an obsolete poll, you might persuade me and others, and have consensus.


 * In the meantime, this is what we do; and we should continue to do it to retain the virtue of consistency. I would support changes around the edges also; indeed I began this discussion with one. I oppose Jacobin schemes of the One True Way to do things, which we must immediately implement because they're logical, no matter how much trouble they cause. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia, which allows a displayed title to be borne by only one article, makes an ideal solution to these issues problematic. Normal encyclopedic practice is generally to just give the monarch's name in titles.  Henry II would be the title of several articles - one on the Holy Roman Emperor, one on the English King, one on the French king, one on the Spanish King, one on the king of Navarre, one on the King of Cyprus and Jerusalem, and probably some more on various German dukes.  But wikipedia doesn't really allow this, so we're left in an unfortunate quandary. john k (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * (resp to PMAnderson -edit conflict) Well, I know what your reservations are. You don't like piping, and you don't wanna type the extra ", King" when you're writing about monarchs. We have redirects, so it's not a problem and I don't see ", King" as that burdensome if avoiding piping and redirects is your thing. I don't really see how that can be addressed otherwise, 'tis a matter of taste. The arguments for the "X, King of Y" are far more substantial. So this talk page is just gonna be a useless talking shop that accomplishes nothing more than consumption of everyone's time if every time an actual survey is held it's ignored and then rejected as "obsolete" just because it's not to the liking of a minority who dislike its findings.
 * One way I was thinking to get around the useless stagnation (if that's what we get again) - other than going into change drive - is to create a bunch of sub-guidelines for every monarchy, created afresh, so that these guidelines only end up covering the rulers of Andorra. That'd make sense. Great damage has been done to wiki and continues to be done by setting and enforcing inappropriate guidelines upon high, instead of actually following wiki policy and building from the bottom up, building from principles of accuracy and usage. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 17:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * In 1514, the town saw the marriage of Louis XII, King of France to Mary Tudor the daughter of Henry VII, King of England. is bad writing. Including ", King" in our titles will encourage it. That is a Bad Thing. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Anderson, using someone's title is not bad writing, I see it all the time in quite fine writing (not that you can't use redirects anyway?). And I'm curious about something. Why is extra typing so bothersome when it comes to an extra ", King", but suddenly desirable regarding redundancies". "of France" is nine keys extra for Louis XIV of France than Louis XIV, but ", King" is only six keys. Seems a little inconsistent. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 17:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "In 1514, the town saw the marriage of Louis XII, King of France, to Mary Tudor, the daughter of King Henry VII of England," would be a perfectly good sentence, and, I think, better than "of Louis XII of France to Mary Tudor, the daughter of Henry VII of England." And bad writing in wikipedia hardly needs encouragement from name forms - there will be plenty of it regardless. john k (talk) 17:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) John, we shall have to disagree on the grammatical sentence; I find it pompous, because redundant.
 * Why lead editors into error? There will be bad grammar even if we don't encourage it; but there will be less.
 * Deacon, Henry VIII of England is a rare case; a small cost for having Henry VII of England (and his predecessors) in a predictable location. Such cases will only occur with monarchs so prominent as to be primary usage against minor Henry VIIIs, such as Bavarian dukes and princes of Reuss, and sufficiently high numbered that there is no other great king of the same name and number. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, so you don't like redundancies. We have agreement then! Hurrah! Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 17:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please note that the text Louis XII of France is not redundant, although Louis XII is in fact as unambiguous as Louis XIV, because it conveys information to the reader, who may not know that. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The reason this hasn't been implemented yet is that those who voted in favour of it could not agree on what they were voting for. Not everyone favoured "X, King of Y". Deb (talk) 17:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Now I'll leave a nice little space here, so that D of P can make his usual comment disagreeing with me. Deb (talk) 17:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What, am I not supposed to express my opinion here? Anyways, twice the number voted for it as against it. The reason it wasn't implemented is no-one took it into their hands to implement it. Someone's gotta do it, cause no higher being is going to intervene! Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 17:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm against X, King/Queen of Y style, it's too cumbersome. Leave things the way they are. GoodDay (talk) 17:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If it's too cumbersome for kings, why is it prescribed for Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor, Magnus, Duke of Saxony, Frederick II, Elector Palatine, etc, etc? There are - or should be if the guideline counts for anything in practice - a great many more articles using the "cumbersome" format than are using the vague and misleading one. 17:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Had I been around Wikipedia a bit more in the past few days, the quoted 2 against 1 would be 2 against 2. I think there is nothing wrong with the format Name Ordinal of Country for Kings and Emperors and Name Ordinal, Title of Country for those below the rank of king. I do not support the dropping of territorial designations for names where the forename and ordinal may be unique for the sake of just shortening titles. If there are overwhelmingly common names that aren't simply dropping territorial designations, I support those (for instance, imagine Louis XIV of France is overwhelmingly known as Louis the Great, more than any other, I support that and not just a title of Louis XIV). In many cases, the above mentioned Polish monarchs fit under that convention (it should not exist separately as a form of ownership for the Polish language) because they are known under family names, etc. I would also like to say Frederick the Great and Catherine the Great, but I truly do not know if those names are used the most for them (I'd imagine so). Charles 18:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Unless you have another 5 accounts, that wouldn't be the case. You voted on it anyways; you're one of the 5 who voted for the current situation. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 18:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Make that 4, as I would've opted for status quo, had I'd know this topic was previously brought up. GoodDay (talk) 18:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I would have voted for a change; the current system is unintuitive usage for anyone but Wikipedia monarchy editors and leads to confusion. John of Scotland sounds like a saint. Victoria of the United Kingdom doesn't exist outside of Wikipedia.  We have Charles, Prince of Wales, so why will he (perhaps one day) become Charles III of England and drop the title? Heriditary titles take the place of surnames.   Plus,  Wikipedia's own naming policies state that "Generally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." {my emphasis).  The fact that this subject is constantly coming up at Village Pump, monarchs talk pages, and several discussions here over the past year shows that there are problems with the current policy. Working from the gound up is a good idea, and perhaps better than imposing another policy thrashed out in theory.  You could even have a "no policy" state for 6 months, and see where the pages settle naturally.  (that the current policy exists, and thus should be followed, is all that has prevented a number of proposed moves that I have seen. Gwinva (talk) 19:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see . I agree that that should be fixed, if we can figure out how; but changing the overall system is throwing the baby out with the bathwater; indeed, since it will not fix the problem, it's throwing out the baby and leaving the bathwater. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, Charles will cease to be Prince of Wales (and his other titles), when he succeeds. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You mean Charles III of the United Kingdom (assuming he'll use Charles as his regnal name). GoodDay (talk) 19:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Duh! I'm an idiot. Still, United Kingdom is selective too.  Charles III of the Commonwealth?... :) Gwinva (talk) 20:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * He will only be Head of the Commonwealth, to accommodate India and other republics. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Polish example
I would like to inquire what would the discussed changes to to Polish monarchs? Some are in need of standarization, but I certainly don't want to see (for example) Władysław II the Exile turned back into Ladislaus II of Poland. A discussion over a year ago reached a consensus with the formula Name Numeral Nickname (and if there are any 'of country' purists out there, consider that the 'of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth is a bit too long, and 'of Poland' incorrect for few centuries).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * King of Poland remained the title, surely, so "of Poland" would be acceptable, even if the country was the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. But, personally, I actually like the Polish names as they stand now, and think it would be good to move other articles in a similar direction.  john k (talk) 20:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I also forgot to note that nicknames are useful as disambigs - as above Ladislaus link shows, there were quite a few kings that had the same name and numeral (and this is true for Casimirs, Wladislaws and few others, too). As it currently stands, most Polish monarchs have nicknames, but there are a few that stand out (due to some old discussions) as 'nicknameless', even through they have well estabilished nicknames (ex. Casimir II of Poland is well known as Casimir II the Just or Bolesław II of Poland who is known as Bolesław II the Bold).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * King of Poland remained the title, yes, but one could argue that Grand Duke of Lithuania was equivalent to it. The discussion of how federated identity of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth - known to its inhabitants as Rzeczpospolita - impact the title is somewhat fascinating, but for practical purposes it is safer to avoid any 'of place' from the title. Simply - if we don't include it, we cannot be wrong :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The title of "King" is higher than that of "Grand Duke". Charles 21:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree, but I know there are Lithuanian scholars (and editors) who would disagree.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, you have to distinguish native Lithuanian or Ruthenian use of the cognate term from the bogus but eventually accepted Latin "translation". Didysis Kunigaikštis and Velikiy knjaz, which actually mean more like "High King", were the supreme titles available and conveyed much more authority than most western regnal titles. It's just absolute fantasy drawn from the highest sphere of naivety to think the rulers of Russia and pagan Lithuania refrained from taking a higher title from the post-13th cent. formalization of titles in the Latin West just because the Pope and Emperor said their permission was needed. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 07:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * By the time they were Kings of Poland, though, I think we're in the period where the Latin translation was accepted. Certainly post-1569 "King of Poland" was considered to be the main title. Although, obviously, Grand Duke of Lithuania is a rather different thing than Grand Duke of Tuscany. john k (talk) 14:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That's fine, we don't pander to their emotions though. I live in Canada and I would be opposed to an article titled Elizabeth II of Canada (even though she is queen of Canada) or an article listing most or all of her titles, which are mostly all kingdoms. At least with Poland and Lithuania, there's a clear distinction that King is a higher ranking title than Grand Duke. Charles 22:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Funnily, my opinion now is that the Polish monarchs were the only ones going in the right direction, aside from the UE concerns (actually, I don't mind them being in Polish, as long as they're not extended to guys who weren't actually Polish ... no names need mentioned here ;) ). Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 20:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * We have agreed some time ago that we try to use English as much as possible, hence the nicknames are translated (Bold instead of Śmiały). The first names are sometimes controversial, but I believe we have again reached consensus on that issue some time ago: if a name has an obvious English version, we use it (Casimir not Kazimierz, John not Jan), but if not - we stick to the Polish one (hence Bolesław, not Boleslaus/Boleslav) or Władysław, not Wladislaus/Wladislav/Ladislaus/Ladislav). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the Polish situation, as it stands presently, seems in quite a good shape in compromising between original forms and anglicizations. BTW, nicknames arguably provide a model for, say, French monarchs.  Philip II Augustus, Philip III the Bold, Philip IV the Fair, and Philip V the Tall, all work fairly well. It's not a universal solution, though - even here, Philip I and Philip VI lack particularly well known nicknames. john k (talk) 20:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yip! There's a good start to sorting this out, with the French monarchs at least. Sadly, won't work for Scotland. There's William the Lion, Donald Bán, Malcolm Canmore (historically controversial now) and perhaps Donald Dásachtach, but that's about it. But if it works for French and Polish monarchs, that's really pleasing. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 20:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * But it doesn't work for all of them. Just starting in 987, I see problems with Henry I, Philip I, Louis IX (his only nickname is "St. Louis", and there are Louis IX's of Bavaria and Hesse-Darmstadt), John I, Philip VI (although he's arguably a primary topic for Philip VI - our only other person listed there is an alternate, rarely used, ordination of Philip III of Spain as supposed ruler of the Netherlands), and pretty much all the monarchs from Louis XII onwards (although the Louis's, at least, are unambiguous). john k (talk) 20:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * For lack of a very strong nickname, I would default to Name Ordinal of Country and I would never use Name Ordinal. Charles 21:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, there are always gonna be exceptions. Don't know about others, but I'd prefer using nicknames where they're available irrespective of exceptions. Some pages need dabbed, some don't, that's wiki. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 20:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed. If a monarch has no nickname, we need to disambugate him. If number is enough, that's fine, but there are cases like Zbigniew of Poland - which I guess could be Zbigniew (duke) or Zbigniew (1073—1114) but for such cases I would support 'of country' version.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec) Hey, that's brilliant (and best of all, it has been shown to work). I like the rule about English names where a common Anglicisation exists too: why do we have Óengus I of the Picts instead of Angus?  Just as we have (on English Wikipedia) Cologne, not Köln.  And nicknames are good, because that is how most monarchs are distinguished in most people's minds: Most people don't know which ordinal Richard the Lionheart is. And Edward the Confessor doesn't have one. Gwinva (talk) 20:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * With the disclaimer that I am primarily interested in Polish monarchs... yes, you are right. Lionheart should be Lionheart, not the First of England, and Ivan IV the Terrible was known as such, not as the Fourth of Russia.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Angus isn't really used that often. Using Angus for Óengus is more like active anglicization ... per Bolesław and Boleslaus. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 20:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, there've been a lot more English-speakers named "Angus" than "Boleslaus," I think. john k (talk) 20:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There are a lot more English speakers named Hugh than Aed, doesn't mean the anglicized form is used for the king in question. That's just got more to do with Scotland being English speaking through slow acculturation, and more Scottish Gaels immigrating to the English speaking world than Poles, with the relative popularity of the name in each culture. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 21:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, that makes sense. john k (talk) 21:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

We use Edward the Confessor. The problem with nicknames is that most kings who have them have several; we don't want to have separate articles about John Lackland and John Softsword. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I know we use Edward the Confessor. I think that is good.  It is the name most commonly used to refer to that monarch.  Nicknames won't work for everyone, but that's the point; choose the most commonly used name for each, and have a default option, as per Poland.  It shouldn't be complicated, it should be intuitive.  Gwinva (talk) 21:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, for King John we're unlikely to see that happen... —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Kenney (talk • contribs)

So what is the most commonly used unambiguous intuitive name for the two Kings John, and how do you get editors to use the same one? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) How about John, John, bad King John from the poem? Or The John who gets all the bad press in the Robin Hood stories?  :)  But, I think this is a good candidate for John, King of England. No ambiguity there, and fairly intuitive.   And his Scottish compatriot is recognisable to everyone as John Baliol. Gwinva (talk) 21:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Nah, John of England will do (as there's only been one King John in England). GoodDay (talk) 21:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Er - John Balliol is a dab page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that's a fairly clear case of a primary usage, though. john k (talk) 22:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Then we'll have to find somewhere to move his father, now at John de Balliol; but that can probably be done; or John Balliol, King of Scotland. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It used to be at John, 5th Baron Balliol] before the move-happy Proteus moved it and then reverted the revert of his move without ever leaving any reasons. [[John, 5th Baron Balliol is not an acceptable name though, but this the King is certainly primary usage. It's difficult to find a name for the daddy though because his family were not particularly substantial until King Alexander II married John to the daughter of the Lord of Galloway, and even after that he never obtained a major title.Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 07:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Presumably because the 5th is dubious; Baron is also likely to be misleading, since whatever's being counted is not a Lordship of Parliament. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * For all those reasons I'd say. John de Balliol (baron) could work, as baron is not given misleading formal implications (following what Bartlett, England under the Norman and Angevin Kings, says about social stratification in England in the period); John de Balliol (father) is less attractive; perhaps John de Balliol, lord of Barnard Castle is a possibility too, but presumably his son held that castle too, and someone at some stage is going to create articles on the previous de Balliols. I don;t have access atm to a reliable source describing Balliols ancestors; but the crummy peerage websites give his ancestry from:
 * [ using this
 * *Guy de Balliol, who these sites claim got granted the estates his family later had under William Rufus; that may or may not be true ... many of those guys get made up in the late middle ages
 * *Bernard de Balliol, this guy existed for sure, occurs in 12th cent. English sources as one of the leading northern barons who fight David I during the Anarchy. It looks as if the connection between the two is just likely but unproven guesswork
 * *Eustace de Balliol, eldest son etc cousin
 * *Hugh de Balliol, eldest son etc
 * *John I de Balliol, eldest son etc, married Dearbhfoghaill, princess of Galloway.
 * *John II de Balliol, king
 * So John I de Balliol could work. But certainly he can't remain at John de Balliol, as his son is primary usage on that name. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 09:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * OK. The father Balliol is now at John I de Balliol, per the other Balliols (articles on whom I completed); John Balliol, de Balliol and the like now link directly to the king. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 14:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * We don't normally use Roman numerals for British peers, but it will do as a holding action. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * He's not a "peer" (ignoring the fact that he's not British), and that style occurs plenty of times on wiki. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 17:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * (left) Please find an example in the British Isles. All that I have seen are Central European princes with a colorable claim to be sovereign. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem: Robert de Bruses of ODNB. Early Scottish earls are normally referred to using Roman numerals, and Roman numerals are almost the rule for important families possessing no substantial title ... such as these Balliols. And just picking up a random book in front of me, I've got Hugh I de Lacy and Hugh II de Lacy, a bunch of English earls referred to that way, etc. Not sure what you're talking about really. Have I missed something? Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 18:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know it is done elsewhere; it may even be common practice for the Berkeleys and the Pastons. But Wikipedia does not do it, and it would be better not to innovate with the elder John Balliol, where it will be mistaken for a claim of royalty. John Balliol the elder? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has nothing against doing it; it's not like coverage of those types of people is that broad! And it's really the only thing you can do with those types of people, guys like Robert III de Brus, Guy II de Balliol, John III Comyn, etc, etc. When I start doing articles on more minor landlords in 12th and 13th cent. Scotland, it's certainly the way I'll do it. It's just nonsense really to do it any other way. It's not like death dates are available or anything, not that they'd be preferable. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 19:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've frequently seen Roman numerals used to distinguish between people of the smae name in texts, and see no problem in using it as Deacon of P suggests; but if that becomes standard, then I would suggest that we use king of for royalty, to distinguish them. Gwinva (talk) 02:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Or at least of {Country}. I do not think that James II of Scotland can be confused with a minor landowner, but James II Fiery-Face might be. But the differences between having King and excluding it are minor matters of convenience.
 * I thank Deacon for coming up with examples. If I happen to see a term for the elder Balliol that avoids confusion, I will suggest it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I have just performed a rather unscientific and scattergun survey of the books on my shelves, including academic studies, general histories and popular overviews, and now beg to present my results regarding British monarchs. Almost without exception the nickname is used at first mention, either in the text or in parentheses, and occasionally (ranging to frequently, depending on work) afterwards. (Eg. "When Richard I (Lionheart) returned to England he..."; "William the Lion was surprised by this development."; ".. when he was succeeded by Ethelred II the Unready."; "William Rufus was responsible for...".)  Nicknames (when available) are always presented in genealogies and diagrams. It seems most authors (popular or academic) recognise that the nicknames are the main disambiguation method in most readers minds. Surnames are also popular when you have a lot of the same name wandering around in a short text, (eg Henry Plantagenet). Bruce is frequently used in place of Robert I, and poor old King John of Scots is almost always called John Balliol, Balliol, or (for a change) Baliol. Indexing, which is generally determined by the indexer rather than the author, reflects this usage, and favours surnames (like Bruce, Robert), probably because they expect most people looking for someone look it up that way. Any help, or does that muddy that waters? Gwinva (talk) 00:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

French example
Opened discussion of French kings at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Kings of France). Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 08:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistencies for French princesses
I hate to bring a minor issue to the fore in the midst of major discussion, but going through our articles on medieval and early modern French princesses, I notice that they're completely f-ed up as far as titles go. You've got "of France," "of Valois," "de Valois". Disambiguation is sometimes in the form "(born year)," sometimes "(year-year)", sometimes ", Married Title," sometimes ", Dowager Title." Different forms are used - sometimes French, sometimes anglicized, in at least one case hispanicized - with no apparent rhyme or reason. Just skim through and you can find any amount of ridiculousness. john k (talk) 20:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, there's certainly inconsistancies in those articles. GoodDay (talk) 20:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Examples:
 * Constance of France
 * Marie of France, Countess of Champagne
 * Marie de France is (and I think clearly ought to be) the poet...Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Alix of France, Countess of Blois
 * Marguerite of France (born 1158) (wonderfully, the article text says she was born in November 1157)
 * Queen of England and Hungary? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Alys, Countess of the Vexin
 * Jeanne III, Countess of Burgundy
 * And the article leads with the English form: Joan of France. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Margaret I, Countess of Burgundy (why one of these sisters should be at her French name, and the other at an anglicized form, I know not)
 * Isabella of France
 * Isabella of Valois
 * Joan of France (1391-1433)
 * Michelle of Valois
 * Catherine of Valois
 * Anne of France
 * Joan of France, Duchess of Berry
 * Picture caption Saint Joan of Valois, apparently following the Catholic Encyclopedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Catherine de Valois (1428-1446)
 * Yolande of Valois
 * Joanna of Valois
 * Magdalena of Valois
 * Claude of France
 * Renée of France
 * Marguerite de Navarre
 * Charlotte de Valois
 * Elisabeth of Valois
 * Claude of Valois
 * Marguerite de Valois
 * Uses de, unlike her sisters. Their mother is the semi-Italian Catherine de' Medici. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Joan of Valois (1556) (note that I nominated this and the following article for deletion, on grounds of lack of notability).
 * Victoria of Valois
 * Madeleine of Valois
 * Margaret of France, Duchess of Berry
 * Jeanne de Valois, Queen of Navarre
 * Marie Valois (yes! "Marie Valois"!)
 * The article has her siblings and her children as of Valois and of Bar
 * Note that Marie de Valois is an article on an illegitimate daughter of Charles VII. john k (talk) 20:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Joan of Valois (1294-1352)
 * Catherine II of Valois, Princess of Achaea
 * Joan of Valois (1304-1363)
 * Marguerite of France (born 1282) (note that she, wife to King Edward I, does not have her name anglicized, but her niece, wife to Edward II, is anglicized to Isabella of France!)
 * Agnes of France, Duchess of Burgundy
 * Isabel of France
 * Agnes of France (Byzantine empress)
 * Cecile of France
 * Adela of France, Countess of Flanders.

I've not gotten to the Bourbons yet, but I assume they're in as bad a state.

What a mess! john k (talk) 20:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, let's try systematizing, using of and Piotrus' rule: Use the obvious English form of the name where there is one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You think? I see "Marguerite" for Henry IV's first wife a lot more than "Margaret." Also, what is the "obvious English form" of "Jeanne"? It can be Jane, Joan, Joanna... I'd prefer sticking with French forms, unless there's an English connection. And what do we do about "of France" vs. "of Valois" and "of Bourbon"? A lot of the Valois seem to more commonly be called "of Valois," but this doesn't seem to hold as much with the Bourbons - we here of Catherine of Valois, but not Henrietta Maria of Bourbon, to take two examples well known to the English.  And how ought we disambiguate ladies with the same name? john k (talk) 20:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * IMO Joan, per the example above. Joanna is a Latinism. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * By married title, which will also give a good name for Margaret of York, Duchess of Burgundy (whom I have never seen Marguerite in English). Compare also Margaret of Navarre. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * English princesses and French princesses who marry Englishmen should get their names anglicized, I think. I'm less certain for French princesses who stay in France.  I think the tradition of anglicizing the names of anyone but monarchs is dying out.  R.J. Knecht's textbook on Renaissance France, for instance, only anglicizing the names of the monarchs - everyone else uses the French form. Also note that some of these ladies never married - they were nuns or died in childhood.  How to disambiguate them? john k (talk) 20:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You have put the two articles about the daughters of Henry II who died in childhood up for deletion; a section redirect to their father's article might be better. One of those is probably sensible. If there is a nun, dab (nun), (abbess), (saint) as appropriate? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Normalizing to English spelling would make the necessary dab pages and headers a lot easier... Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * For French princesses I would simply use Name of France or Name of House (for earlier princesses and Orléans princesses). I would also imagine that "Princess" can be added on where appropriate (the later Orléans, etc), since the rank of princess, and not the title, was generally used for the daughters of the king. Charles 21:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * What are we going to do with some of the odd marital titles? Are we going to scrap these where there is not overwhelming or particularly strong usage? Also of note, I believe that every encyclopedia observes some sort of internal style guide. While we record scholarly usage, we shouldn't read it as a black and white matter, so for iffy cases we should make a fix in line with amended conventions and if it's a problem later on, it can just be moved again. Charles 21:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If we don't use married names for disambiguation, how do we disambiguate? There are two entries which ought to be Margaret of Navarre, and four Joans/Jeannes of the House of Valois in that list alone. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I would give the main title to the most important or well known woman and disambiguate the rest with dates or parenthetical titles. Charles 22:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Who is the most important "Joan of France?" john k (talk) 23:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I honestly don't know. Is this a question you already know the answer to (e.g., are there several who are more or less equal in notability)? Charles 23:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, my sense is that there are several of more or less equal notability, but I'm not really certain. I was just trying to pick an example to suggest that for a lot of these names, it's going to be hard to determine. john k (talk) 01:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps if we had a list grouping all princesses with the same names together we could figure out the appropriate disambiguations and namings. Charles 23:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I have seen no evidence provided here that any of these princesses are not named appropriately. There are three reasonably well-known French artist brothers, Marcel Duchamp, Raymond Duchamp-Villon, and Jacques Villon. I cannot imagine anyone suggesting that we should be consistent and give all three brothers the same surname; that's just not the way they are called. In the same way, some French princesses are usually called in English scholarship "of France", while others may be called "of Valois" (or whatever). I am NOT suggesting that none of these articles need to be renamed. But certainly there should be no attempt to rename people contrary to the record of scholarly publishing. Noel S McFerran (talk) 01:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? It's a mishmash that arose out of people creating articles at random with arbitrary titles.  Do you really think that the bewildering variety of types of disambiguation used here, the seemingly random movement from use of "of France" to "of Valois," the haphazardness with which we sometimes get "of Valois" and sometimes "de Valois" has anything to do with "the record of scholarly publishing?"  I agree that we shouldn't try to enforce a conformity that contradicts established conventions.  But it is pretty obvious that what is going on here has absolutely nothing to do with "the record of scholarly publishing," and everything to do with how wikipedia articles are created largely at random and in an unsystematic way.  Furthermore, medieval French princesses are not twentieth century artists.  With the princesses, the "record of scholarly publishing" is pretty obviously going to be inconsistent - different authors will use different names.  Furthermore, a great deal of the problem has to do with disambiguation, which will often make "the record of scholarly publishing" entirely useless. Are you really opposed to trying to bring some order to this mess on these grounds?  john k (talk) 01:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please re-read what I wrote: "I have seen no evidence provided here that any of these princesses are not named appropriately." Lack of consistency is not evidence of inappropriate naming - it may just as well (and I think more likely) be a result of the scholarly record. I also wrote, "I am NOT suggesting that none of these articles need to be renamed." I have no doubt that certain of these articles should be renamed.  But there should be no attempt to impose a standard of "consistency" contrary to scholarly use. Noel S McFerran (talk) 11:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it is you, in fact, who are assuming a consistency not in evidence - specifically, that there is any kind of consistency in what name scholars use for these individuals. Different scholars will call them different things - I'd guess that older scholarship will almost always anglicize, while more recent scholarship is considerably less likely to, but I'm pretty certain that you're not going to find any consistency even on that question.  Beyond the anglicization issue, with regard to, e.g. "of France" vs. "of Valois" vs. "de Valois," I bet you'll find that a lot of sources don't use any of these.  And as to disambiguation, that gets us to a position almost entirely divorced from the "record of scholarly publishing."  Which is to say - I think any uniform standard which we might reasonably impose would have sufficient usage in the scholarly literature for each individual to be acceptable, so I think the benefits of some sort of standardization would outweigh the drawbacks.  john k (talk) 13:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * My experience suggests that, if we are lucky, most of these reflect the usage of some single source which the original author had on hand; if we are not, they result from multiple, intersecting, crusades about the Right Encyclopedic Style, each on its own hobbyhorse. I may be too cynical; is there evidence that Marguerite de Valois, for example, is usually treated differently than her sisters (preferably from sources which mention all of them)? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm going to suggest that web genealogy sources have played a large role here, in addition to actual historical works. john k (talk) 19:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

How about we use of for all French royalty, with the appropriate designations, whether they are house designations or "of France". That gets de/of out of the way. After that, as I mentioned before, lets divide the princesses into groups of forenames and then by birth designations (house/France) to see which ones need disambiguation. We can make a subpage to discuss it if necessary. Charles 19:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposals to change Monarchal naming conventions
Consideral debate has occured across Wikipedia regarding the naming conventions for monarchs, since they do not conform to Wikipedia's general naming conventions, provide controversy regarding territorial designations and ordinals, and are frequently counter-intuitive, naming articles contrary to monarchs' generally-known cognomens. Debate can be seen on this page, but also: Talk:Victoria of the United Kingdom, Village Pump archive and various others (please add if you know any). Considerations of the following proposals is now invited. Gwinva (talk) 21:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Note: I have advertised this discussion at Village Pump; Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions‎ and WikiProjects Middle Ages ,European History, History, and Royalty so that we may be sure that any consensus reached here is indicative of consensus amongst affected/concerned editors. Gwinva (talk) 02:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposal by Septentrionalis
There seems to be general agreement that we should do something about the John of Scotland problem, and that the present bar against nicknames may be too high. On the other hand, I don't want multiple articles on the same king with different nicknames.

I therefore propose:
 * If the decidedly most common name in English for a monarch  includes a nickname or surname, we should use it, without including Country, unless the result is itself ambiguous.  (I.e., yes, William the Conqueror, Richard the Lionhearted).
 * Nicknames should be translated unless there is clear English usage not to. (Charles the Bold, not fr:Charles le Téméraire)
 * Query: with or without number?
 * If the decidedly most common name is a forename without numeral, use {Name}, {Title} of {Country}. as John, King of England
 * If the decidedly most common name is a forename with numeral, use {Name} {Number} of {Country}. as Henry IV of England
 * If there is no decidedly most common name, use {Name} {Number} of {Country}. Henry IV of France?
 * Use only one country for Kings who reigned over several countries. James I of England, Henry IV of France. Titles should be simple. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Supported by:
 * 1) Karanacs (talk) 22:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC) I came here from the Village Pump, so I have know nothing about the previous discussions on this matter. I read a lot of biographies and historical fiction of European monarchs, and the suggestion above would be how I would search for more information on these monarchs.
 * 2) Gwinva (talk) 23:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC) I would be happy for this to be policy, and agree with most of it, especially regarding English versions.  And that "Titles should be simple".  But, I would make it simpler by combining points 2-4 into one rule, as I've done at.
 * 3) Support as proposer. Much of this is a restatement of present guidance; the only changes I see are John, King of England and the weakening of overwhelmingly to decidely. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) User:Deacon of Pndapetzim: improvement. I notice a couple of the oppose votes below show no evidence of grasping the problems so many of us have spent so much time outlining. Disappointing to say the least. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 14:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) A journey of ten thousand li begins with a single step. Wikipedia page naming is an indexing problem, nothing more, nothing less. No self-respecting indexer would list Henry II's youngest son as "John of England". Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Opposed by:
 * 1) Present system of Name, Numeral of Nation works fine. --Jayron32. talk . contribs  22:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) *Get rid of the John, King of England example and I'd be very close to supporting it. Charles 02:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) I think the current wording is a reasonable compromise on this issue "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." --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Current system is fine, Regnal name of country. GoodDay (talk) 16:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) I oppose simply because the purpose of the title is to help people find the article, and no one is going to waste time typing in John, King of England (for example), when theycan just type in John of England. Deb (talk) 21:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) My first choice is the status quo. My second choice is to replace Henry VII of England with Henry VII, King of England but make no other changes.  This is my third choice, strongly preferred over Gwinva's.  I'm sorry, but I just can't get worked up over John of England being a problem.  This is such a heterogeneous topic that there is no aesthetically perfect system, and every alternative to the status quo makes something else worse, IMO.  I also strongly oppose softening the standard for nicknames from "overwhelming" to "decided".  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 02:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) I think the current system is fine and ordinas are easier to remember than nicknames. Dimadick (talk) 14:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments:


 * Get rid of the John, King of England example and I'd be very close to supporting it. Charles 02:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you explain what virtue you see in John of England? Or is this simply that you would like some other example of the same rule? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * (I'm not a fan of exceptions to a general rule which aren't rather exceptional. John of England falls under the convention for other kings. Charles 16:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I should really say, to have certain kings titled differently on the basis that they lack an ordinal looks like a band-aid fix for a broken convention. Charles 16:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I haven't seen anyone other than you object to nicknames; the tricky thing is with with less firmly established nicknames such as Lackland. And the following has been rejected:
 * If the decidedly most common name is a forename with numeral, use {Name} {Number} of {Country}.'' as Henry IV of England
 * Still, there is some progress made in the above. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 17:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Pardon me; it has not been rejected. You have objected in toto; others have objected  when the name with numeral is unambiguous. Henry IV is ambiguous, and we cannot use it for the three or four kings and the Emperor for all of whom it is the most common name. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * A two to one vote against looks like rejection to me. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 18:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, we know. Please read WP:CONSENSUS and the discussions about supermajority on its talk page. 66% is not enough. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You directed me to that before, but I haven't found anything in that claiming 33 % support is consensus the second time either. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 18:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Then I suggest you propose a change declaring 66% consensus, and see what happens. In the meantime, please try keeping our policies until you have consensus to change them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think 33% would get any closer to "consensus" either. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 18:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * [after edit conflict] Aside from this issue, Septentrionalis's proposal seems pretty good. Perhaps we should have a new vote on whether it should be Henry IV of England or Henry IV, King of England. An alternative worth noting would be to use native forms to avoid ambiguity. Henry IV, Henri IV, Heinrich IV, Enrique IV. Of course, even that's not completely unambiguous - there are multiple Heinrich IV's, for instance, but I think "primary use" might come into play. I imagine a lot of people will dislike this, though, and there are good reasons to prefer to anglicize. john k (talk) 18:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see the point in another vote; why would the findings be taken more seriously this time than last? Just more interesting information that'll get ignored. Regarding native forms. Good idea. That'll solve the problem with the Scottish Constantines. ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 18:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed it would. I think such a thing would only work if we resolved to use native forms for all monarchs, and I don't think there's much chance of that gaining general acceptance.  (And obviously, there's bound to be problems.  Should this guy, for instance, be Wŀadysŀaw III or Ulászló I?  I believe the Hungarian throne took precedence over the Polish, but that hardly seems good enough, especially as he reigned longer in Poland.  Anyway, that'd open a whole lot of cans of worms it might be best to avoid. john k (talk) 19:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * James I was King of Scotland for a longer time than he was King of England and Ireland. If he is best known by his Hungarian title and that title is his most important, he should be titled "of Hungary" regardless of what any objectors on the basis of bias and personal opinion think. If it is determined that he ought to be known firstly as King of Hungary, I would send a general note to administrators of a move in progress and ask them to keep an eye on it. We wouldn't move Henry III of France to Henry (ordinal) of Poland. Charles 21:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * England was distinctly a more important kingdom than Scotland, whereas Hungary and Poland's relative importance is much more open to dispute. In terms of official precedence prior to the Congress of Vienna, it goes Empire-France-Spain-Aragon-Portugal-England-Sicily-Scotland-Hungary-Cyprus (and later Sardinia, since the House of Savoy claimed the Cypriot title)-Bohemia-Poland-Denmark.  Presumably Sweden would come after Denmark, and Prussia after that.  Russia's placement was always uncertain. But since we're not going to actually go to a "all native names" format, this is fairly moot. john k (talk) 06:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm begging on my knees - plese don't move John of England, John of Scotland, William I of England, Richard I of England etc to John, King of England, John Bailol, William the Conquerer, Richard the Lionheart etc. GoodDay (talk) 18:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What are your reasons? They may convince me and others. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm concerned, there is a good case to move only John of Scotland, John of England, and their immediate parallels, which would be a much smaller shift. Will you get up off your knees for that one? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I can accept John of Scotland being moved to John de Balliol (as I've seen that name more often), but keep John of England as is. GoodDay (talk) 18:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Why? It sounds like a monk, like Matthew of Paris, to many people. What reason should we give them? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Because that's how the Post-Norman Conquest English monarchs are titled - Name of England (1066-1707). GoodDay (talk) 18:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That's kind of begging the question, isn't it? john k (talk) 19:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not gonna stop those changes am I (to the English monarchs)? Why change so many articles simply to satify John de Balliol. GoodDay (talk) 20:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It is difficult to persuade others when you make no effort to make meaningful arguments, and instead rely on question-begging, as you've done several times here ("the current way is good because it's the way we do things"). PMA's argument, with which most of us seem to agree, is that John of England is bad because one does not intuitively realize that a king is being referred to.  If you address the point, you might convince people that you're right.  At any rate, it isn't just about John Balliol. john k (talk) 20:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * OK then, I see no problem with moving to John, King of England; Richard I, King of England; William I, King of England etc. Afterall, that's how Encycolpedias do it Name, King of country. GoodDay (talk) 20:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with it wholly. For monarchs, I support NN Cognomen if primary usage and then NN (Ordinal) of X all other kings and emperors and NN (Ordinal), Title of X for all of others below the rank of king. I do not support any form of just NN (Ordinal). The titles "German Emperor" and "Holy Roman Emperor" would be exemptions, using the form NN (Ordinal), Holy Roman Emperor and NN (Ordinal), German Emperor because the former using "of the Holy Roman Empire" is far too long and the latter was not "of Germany". Charles 21:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that changes should be made, and those proposals are a step in the right direction, although I suppose we can all take issue at something (as I do with James I of England; I understand the wish to have only one country, but since he was as Scottish king who inderited the English throne, it seems a bit dismissive to choose his English title over his Scottish one; I would say he was a candidate for the "commonly used name" exclusion and be called James VI & I. But that's by the by.). I have two more significant thoughts: 1. the above suggestions are good but perhpas complicated for a manual of style.  2.  There is debate about consensus, and what percentage needs to be reached, so I suggest we advertise this debate more widely.  To that end, I am reformatting this proposal, adding my own below (which I think might be simpler, but feel free to shout it down) and will advertise this debate at Village pump etc. If clear wikipedia-wide (ish) consensus is not reached then we are likely to enter a period of edit-warring. Gwinva (talk) 21:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * ps. I've added support and oppose sections above, so everyone please do add your names so we can more clearly see the support or otherwise.  Gwinva (talk) 22:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * We've been through James VI and I before. Our experience is that there is no stable stopping place between James I of England and James VI of Scotland and I of England and Ireland. The last, besides being ungainly, will still be attacked by English and Irish nationalists as being in the wrong order. It is impossible to overestimate the pettiness of Wikipedia naming debates. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What is impossible about James VI and I? I think cases like this would be a fairly strong reason for abandoning pre-emptive disambiguation. john k (talk) 06:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorta getting my head around this - Howabout John of England to John (King of England); William I of England to William I (King of England) etc. GoodDay (talk) 22:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * John (King of England) and John, King of England are largely equivalent; for example, both John (King of England) and John, King of England will display as John. But I think John, King of England looks better on top of an article, and fits better into text. I also think, but John Kenney disagrees, that William I of England looks as well as William I, King of England, and is shorter. Therefore I would prefer, but do not insist on, limiting this to cases like John, where English does not use a numeral. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I suppose Elizabeth II, Queen of the United Kingdom would be too long an article title. GoodDay (talk) 23:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There's only one "Elizabeth II". My preference would be to have a naming convention that would put her at Elizabeth II. john k (talk) 06:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've decided to support 'status quo'. As for the of Valois articles? They should be moved to of France. GoodDay (talk) 16:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposal by Gwinva
We should use the most common form of the name used in English
 * this is the name most commonly used in a wider context, not exclusively academic circles.
 * this should exist in the most common form for that name; consistancy between pages is not determined by style, but by the fact they adhere to the "most common form" rule:
 * (possible suggestions, for debate, might include: William the Conqueror, Napoleon Bonaparte, Mary, Queen of Scots, Queen Victoria, Henry VIII, but please note the principle rather than the specifics at this point) examples clarified by Gwinva (talk) 20:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * if more than one monarch has that common name, then the most well known gets the form, and the other are disambiguated.

'If there is no intuitive or commonly used name, then the monarch takes the form Name ordinal, title of country'' (eg. John, King of England; James II, King of Scotland.


 * If there is debate regarding which nickname or common name is appropriate, then debate occurs on that subjects talk page, to determine a consensus for that specific case.
 * The MOST COMMON name might be the ordinal, in which case it should use the "N, K of" format eg Edward III, King of England
 * Rationale:
 * This brings the guideline in line with Wikipedia's main naming conventions, to use the common name
 * It prevents needless disambiguation
 * It makes Wikipedia more accessible and intuitive for the average reader, who is more likely to know common names than ordinals
 * It reduces controversy regarding territorial designations (eg, a case might be made forJames VI and I)
 * There are only two rules: common name or simple designation, and thus easy to follow
 * There are always difficult exceptions and controversial subjects, and it is easier to discuss these case by case on those pages than in a genralised, theoreticla forum.


 * Supported by:
 * 1) User:Deacon of Pndapetzim: very much getting to the best and least clumsy system. I notice a couple of the oppose votes below show no evidence of grasping the problems so many of us have spent so much time outlining. Disappointing to say the least. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 14:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Using the common name accords with general Wikpedia practise. This is best for the readership and, by minimising instruction creep, is also best for the editors.  Colonel Warden (talk) 20:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Opposed by:
 * 1) GoodDay (talk) 21:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC) : There's noting wrong with Name of country OR Name, monarch of country with few exceptions.
 * 2) Present system of Name, Numeral of Nation works fine. --Jayron32. talk . contribs  22:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) This offers unlimited opportunity for national warfare.
 * 4) *What is the primary meaning of Henry IV?
 * 5) *Or for that matter, of Robert I?
 * 6) *The most common name of James VI and I is James I, which is hopelessly ambiguous; what do we use instead?
 * 7) **At that point we need a convention anyway, but lose predictability.
 * 8) *It is convenient to have all monarchs of the same country in the same format. This proposed convention makes this impossible.
 * 9) *I know who Edward I of England is, and I know the order of Edward I, II, and III; I'm not sure which Edward is Longshanks, and I don't believe I'm alone. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose for the reasons PMAnderson gives. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) I like some aspects of this proposal, but I oppose for now. Among other things, I don't think Queen Victoria is an acceptable title, and I'd prefer "Napoleon I" to "Napoleon Bonaparte."  More broadly, though, we really need to think about primary topic issues, and how this is to be determined.  We don't want to open the door to nationalist fighting, so the language needs to be tight. john k (talk) 14:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose. Sorry, to me this is the worst of both worlds. We will always have disputes about what is the most common name. Deb (talk) 21:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 13) Strong Oppose per PMA and Deb. Throws all orderliness out the window.  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 02:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose per PMA and Deb. Dimadick (talk) 14:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Revision notes

 * I placed examples within the proposal to be helpful rather than prescriptive; I expected debate on the principles rather than the specifics (which would be debated on sub pages); I certainly do not wish to pre-empt the debate regarding most commonly used names. Please note the expansions I have made to my text to outline the examples are purely possible interpretations, and not set in stone.  I do not want this proposal to stand or fall on examples which occurred to me.  I apologise for my lack of clarity earlier.  Gwinva (talk) 20:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments on the proposal by Gwinva

 * I know who Edward I of England is, and I know the order of Edward I, II, and III; I'm not sure which Edward is Longshanks, and I don't believe I'm alone. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right: the ordinals are confusing, I got carried away by mention of Henry VIII, whom I saw as a stand-out exception, but is confusing, so I've struck it out, and added a clarifier. It's impossible to say who Robert I is. And I don't mean nickname should always take precedence over ordinal, but only if it takes precedence in the general mind.  Gwinva (talk) 23:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There are a handful of exceptions: Henry VIII, Louis XIV, Edward VII, where the chief justification for the present system is consistency, which I value more than some people; but the major load of this convention is what to do with the Robert I's. I think, if I were Jimbo, I would do Robert the Bruce, Robert I of France, Robert I of Normandy, leaving Robert the Devil for the opera. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I see that the names have drifted. Robert I of Normandy redirects to Rollo, and Robert the Devil is a separate article; the historic Robert the Devil is Robert II; Robert Curthose (son of the Conqueror) is Robert III. Does this seem strange to other people? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey folks, bring your comments to the 'comment' section (below), please. GoodDay (talk) 23:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I did it by moving the comment section header up above these comments :-) --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Moving artictles to William the Conquerer, John Lackland or Louis the fat for example, is going too far folks. GoodDay (talk) 22:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * How so, exactly? Charles 02:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Because (dare I say it again), post-Norman Conquest English monarchs are usually listed by numeral & not by nicknames. Leave the nicknames for the pre-Norman Conquest monarchs. This is the best argument I got. GoodDay (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Is this true of William the Conqueror, William Rufus, and Richard the Lionhearted? I agree on everybody else... Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I would agree with Septentrionalis here, too, I think.  Gwinva (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think most folks coming to Wikipedia are confused when they see William I of England when they typed in "William the Conqueror" in the search box. Or Richard I of England for "Richard the Lionhearted". Since no one searches for Rufus...we'll leave him out of it. (Full disclosure, I studied Rufus in college, I'm allowed to make jokes about his obscurity). Much the same for Robert the Bruce, Curthose, and Canmore. Or Philip the Fair, Philip the Good, etc. I know we have redirects, but some names are just so common and well used that they should be the title of the article. Heck, if the English language can't manage to spell consistently, why should we expect the names given to monarchs to be consistent? I'm in favor of anything that is reasonably consistent, but allows for the occasional exception like William le Bastard, Philip the Fair, and Robert the Bruce. Ealdgyth | Talk 06:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that most English speaking people know that "Ricard the Lionheart" (Google about "67,400 for Richard the Lionhearted", "about 207,000 for Richard the Lionheart") was also Richard I of England. If they are confused to see the name Richard I of England, then the article is doing a useful job. I agree with GoodDay on this issue besides do we really want to open up William of Orange again as in the English speaking world that is the most common name for one specific king ((William III of England)? Further many of the names of Kings like William I of England have been through requested moves to names like "William the Conqueror" where under the current advice of "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" was used to decide the issue. If we do not use "overwhelmingly known" then we are going to have endless debates over names like Edward Longshanks. Also just in case anyone has itchy move fingers when a page has been through a WP:RM there should be another request made before the page is moved, citing a change in the guidelines if we decide on such a change. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I have heard of John Lackland; when he is brought up I know what context are we talking about. When you talk of John of England I drew blanks... and I am sure this is true for most people. Not accidentally this is also very true for Polish monarchs - it is for some reason much easier to remember that Casimir I of Poland was a positive ruler, responsible for many reforms and changes, when you know he was called Casimir I the Restorer. Let's change ivory towers of proper naming into useful guidelines, shall we? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 14:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Is not a less familiar editor who seeks John Lackland and finds John of England learning something? Or seeking William the Conquerer and finds William I of England? Those nicknames are placed in the opening lines of the article, we don't need to move articles. Wikipedia is here to teach. GoodDay (talk) 16:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Er, how do I put this? She's learning to call him John of England, which nobody else calls him. But you've trodden my sore spot; I dislike the position that we should confuse the reader in order to compel her to learn something. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The most educational construction, as far as I am concerned, would be John Lackland of England. With it the reader can learn the common nickname and country at the same time, and read either about the monarch or the kings at the same time. Alternatively, an article about England of that period could be linked (for Polish monarchs and other personas I prefer to link a relevant Poland-variant-country from here).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * In all the encyclopedias (I can recall), Magna Carta is described as having been signed by John of England or King John of England never King John Lackland of England or John Lackland of England. GoodDay (talk) 17:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposal by Piotrus regarding names of Polish monarchs
Currently there are two types of naming used: either 'of country' version or 'nickname' version. I believe that nicknames are much more correct. Hence the names should use the format [first name, English version if common] [numeral if used by most sources] [nickname if exists, of country if not and necessary for disambiguation]. Do note that this change would affect only 6 kings who still use 'of country' variant; all others use the second 'nickname' variant. For reference, the full list of Polish monarchs can be found at List of Polish monarchs or Category:Polish monarchs; the affected monarchs would be: Thee is really no reason why two (out of five) Bolesławs, three (out of four) Casimirs and the third (out of four) Władysław should be stripped of their nicknames and given 'of country' add-on. It has been proven in various other discussions that for most other monarchs nicknames are more popular (so the argument that all should be stripped of their nicknames and given 'of country' will never fly); hence I think we should simply standardize the rest to for consistency and utility (currently the above de-nicknamed six stand as a strange and unjustifiable exception when compared to the rest). And for the record, no, whatever we decide here would not be a carte blanche do deal with controversial Jogaila/Władysław II Jagiello, nor would it affect any foreign monarch like (so Henry III of France is safe where he is, as far as I am concerned - in Polish context he is referred to as Henry of Valois, but this is what redirects are for). Comments?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 15:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Bolesław I of Poland would be moved to Bolesław I the Brave
 * Casimir I of Poland would be moved to Casimir I the Restorer
 * Bolesław II of Poland would be moved to Bolesław II the Bold (or the Generous, pending discussion of which nickname is more popular on talk of the article)
 * Casimir II of Poland would be moved to Casimir I the Restorer
 * Casimir I of Poland would be moved to Casimir II the Just
 * Władysław III of Poland would be moved to Władysław III of Varna

I like this, although I assume you mean "Casimir II the Just"? My sense is "Boleslaw the Bold" is more common than "the Generous." john k (talk) 16:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed. I tend to agree with Bold, but there is an unreferenced assertion to the contrary, so for now I am waiting for anybody to back it up. Interestingly, Polish wiki uses Generous, not Bold in their version. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * We all love alliterations after all. Are we really gonna have two Casimir the Restorers? Did this guy go so far as to restore himself to life? Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 16:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't care deeply about this. But I would prefer to deal with these case by case, on the same principles as other kings; it may be simpler to establish a subpage to do so. It is a question, in each case, whether English has adopted the Polish system. I may be prejudiced against nicknames by Anglo-French experience, where Edward Longshanks and Louis the Prudent are affected Victorian revivals; but it may be that English writers and readers have the same prejudices. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There are some nicknames that are commonly used for Anglo-French monarchs - Edward the Confessor and other pre-conquest monarchs, obviously, and the post-conquest monarchs you've mentioned before, in England. In France, where would we be without Charles the Bald, Louis the Stammerer, Charles the Simple, Louis the Sluggard, Hugh Capet, Philip Augustus, and Philip the Fair?  John the Good and Charles the Wise are more questionable.  Henry the Great and Louis the Just should be strongly avoided. john k (talk) 18:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Does the English literature use these nicknames decidedly more often than not? (Can that be the case when two nicknames are in competition?) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I run some numbers on that almost two years ago.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What search engine was this? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * At that time neither scholar nor print where running, so it was just a plain old Google. Feel free to update it with modern more refined searches. But in any case, I expect the nickname version to be significantly popular. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

My opinion Let's work on a general convention for monarchs first followed by a moratorium of putting that convention into effect where we can discuss various subgroups. Too much is going on at once. Charles 16:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know much about the Polish monarchs. GoodDay (talk) 17:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a great deal going on at once. john k (talk) 18:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there currently 3 or 4 proposal being tabled - traffic is heavy. GoodDay (talk) 19:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose: The Wikipedia consensus is that all monarchs are universally named in a set format. Why should Polish monarchs be treated differently? In addition, one of them might have been called "The Brave" by his own lot, but he may be known as "The Savage" by those his armies trampled over. So I think we'll just leave things as they are. Regards, David Lauder (talk) 19:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No, there is no consensus to follow the set format, hence the discussions and straw polls throughout this page, and numerous monarch talk pages. And hence these proposals to draw up more appropriate guidelines.  To use the guideline to support the guideline is absurd.  Gwinva (talk) 20:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It is crucial that we keep abreast of the fact that this is the English-language Wikipedia, designed for use and consultation by the English-speaking world. Except for the academically minded most foreign monarchs (with a few exceptions) would be known by their Christian name and country only, possibly occasionally by the numerals (Louix XIV), and virtually never by the nicknames given them in their own countries. I can only refer you to my second-last sentence in my comment above. Regards, David Lauder (talk) 21:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to oppose, as I see no reason for Polish monarchs to be an exception. The problem with making nicknames the rule is that you then are forced to find one for a monarch who was not generally known by any predominant nickname during his life. But I don't know enough about Polish monarchs to say for sure how these principles apply to that situation. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 02:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposal by BlueMoonlet
The predicaments of poor Mr. Balliol and Mr. Lackland seem to be driving much of the discussion here, but other issues like changing the nickname policy have been piggy-backing onto it. I'd like to propose one part of Septentrionalis' (PMA's) proposal as a stand-alone. Here is proposed new wording for item #2 of WP:NCNT:


 * 2. Where there has only been one holder of a specific monarchical name in a state, the ordinal is used only when the ordinal was in official use; for example, Juan Carlos I of Spain. When the ordinal was not in official use, use the format "{Monarch's first name}, {Title} of {Country}"; for example, John, King of England.  The use of ordinals where there has been more than a single holder... [and so on with no change]

The rationale is that the ordinal connotes royalty in a way that the name alone does not, so the addition of "King/Queen" is needed in the latter case only. Particular consequences of this would be John, King of England, John, King of Scotland, and Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom.

I am actually neutral on this at the moment, as I think Victoria of the United Kingdom is a perfectly legitimate name, taken from her official style "Victoria, by the grace of God, of the United Kingdom..." But I may be convinced to support, or to deal with Victoria as a special case distinguished from the two Johns. In any case, I think this is worth considering on its own. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 15:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Currently neutral, as stated above. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 15:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Supported by:
 * 1) It is acceptable, using Name, King/Queen of X, when it's necessary. Where there's currently no future monarchs of similar name (example: John II & Victoria II of the United Kingdom).
 * 2) Support If necessary, we can agree to disagree on Her Late Majesty. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Opposed by:
 * 1) Oppose It is not the kind of exception I think is necessary or needed. The Victoria comment also puts some holes in this bucket. Charles 17:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose for similar reasons. Deb (talk) 18:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * I just can't decide - I can live with John Balliol of Scotland, but Victoria of the United Kingdom and John of England must remain. GoodDay (talk) 15:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This proposal would not result in John Balliol of Scotland, as that would be nicknames/cognomens. Rather, it would result in John, King of Scotland.  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 15:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Or John Balliol, if overwhelmingly common, which it may be. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, in agreement; where's there's no numeral (due to no future monarch of same name)?, I'm in. GoodDay (talk) 15:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Nicknames
There are surveys being conducted on William the Conqueror, William Rufus, Constantine the Great, Richard the Lionheart, and Frederick the Great. I meant to open these yesterday, but didn't get around to it. I was going to do two more, but PMAnderson has expressed his displeasure at this. My view is the discussion here will as ever go nowhere unless practical tests are raised, but if these strong cases fail the actual practical test, then we might as well give up the nickname part of the discussion as a waste of time. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 18:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * See the bottoms of their talk pages; or WP:RM, which links to the talk pages through links labelled Discuss. I would be more enthusiastic for taking these as test votes if he had acknowledged that this was a change of guidance; but I support the two Williams. (Richard, on second thought, seems doubtful; there are at least three different versions of the nickname, and any of the three will displease somebody.)


 * Which two? I have no objection to seven instead of five; but watching the list of moves grow as I watched was alarming. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I like Deacon's idea, let individual articles decide their own titles, less confusing that way. GoodDay (talk) 19:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Individual articles should decide their own titles; but they should do in the light of this page, which exists only for that purpose. It should be consulted, or it should be deleted; and if it is cited, it should be cited completely. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * William the Lion and Ivan the Terrible. I don't understand why you're getting all irate about this PMAnderson. You need to chill, these are all good faith attempts to move this dialogue forward. So I'd appreciate it if you stopped leaving me bad faith messages. And I appreciate WP:AAGF, but you're making it tough. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 19:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not irate, but I do feel that you should have quoted the paragraph in full; it was written to be considered together. Mentioning that there is a proposal to change it would be quite reasonable. I support Ivan the Terrible, although many do not (on the ground that it's inherently POV); I'm not sure about William the Lion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * In my view I quoted the relevant part of the text, there's no reason to accuse me of being disingenuous. RE: the other two, I think five is enough, esp. as I won't be here for a while after tomorrow. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 19:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I would support William the Lion. Gwinva (talk) 19:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I went and nominated William the Lion; having looked at the rules, I can't nominate Ivan the Terrible because this isn't a move really support. But six is an unlucky number for me, so I've put up Philip Augustus too. Seven I think is more than enough. And if all fail, then I think we should all reconsider whether continuing this discussion is really worth it. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 19:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I prefer 'numerals' over 'nicknames' (I shudder to think of William III of England), but at least we're moving forward on the issue. GoodDay (talk) 19:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * One issue that I feel has been ignored in this debate is the issue of succession. Since we are talking about guidelines for figures with titles, I think it makes sense to be consistent within a line of succession. It is not that important that the kings of Poland, Scotland, England, and France use the same format, but that all the kings of England use one format, all the kings of Scotland use one format, etc. The only exceptions should occur when the format for that succession fails to turn up a recognisable name. The kings of England post-Conquest are all established with ordinals and they should be used. Only John fails to fit this, so a compromise for him is acceptable. Let it be decided case-by-case. The kings of France are like those of England, but they evolved out of a West Frankish royal succession and an empire before that, so carrying their enumeration back to Charles I is confusing, thus Charles I (whoever that is) is title either Charlemagne or Charles the Bald depending on who you think Chuck I was. Nicknames should only be encountered where they are the accepted standard for a given line of succession or where there is no acceptable form fitting the standard. William the Lion fits the bill because Wm I is obscure and unacceptable (nobody knows who Wm II is). "of Scotland" is inaccurate for 9th-century kings, so Kenneth MacAlpin can be preferred. But William I and William II (of England) are well-established, acceptable forms, so their well-known nicknames don't trump. To have a line of monarchs, one succeeding the other, variously titled by nickname and ordinal without any apparent rhyme or reason save "what is best known", will probably cause some readers to wonder why "Edward I of England" (i.e. Longshanks), but "William Rufus" (i.e. William II)? Thus the monarch style guide ought to be broken down for the various monarchic successions, since each will be different in what is acceptable and what is not. In the end, though, only names which are patently unacceptable should be overruled contra the standardisation and not just names which are "less common". Srnec (talk) 06:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * But what about the succession for, say, Portugal? Henry of Portugal is succeeded by Philip II of Spain.  And note that in Poland, Sigismund II Augustus is succeeded by Henry III of France.  Personal unions make this a very difficult standard to keep up with any degree of consistency. Should Wladyslaw III of Poland follow Polish conventions, or Hungarian ones? john k (talk) 15:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Frankly, that doesn't seem like much of a problem, since in almost every such instance the choice of which succession to favour is obvious (as with Portugal and Poland). For the more difficult cases, we would diverge from both standards when neither is "acceptable". What else do you call Philip II of Spain? Srnec (talk) 19:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well said! Deb (talk) 19:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If readers wonder why "William Rufus" when there's Edward I, they will be equally confused when reading history books, since the majority of them use William Rufus. Wikipedia is supposed to reflect the information out there, and should not try to impose a logical order on a world that is not logical.  In other words, why are we trying to introduce a system that ignores the names most people will have heard (at school, on TV, at historic sites, in lay histories, tea-towel genealogy charts etc) simply because it's "consistent"?  Consistency matters if people are following from one king (queen) to another in a logical study.  In reality, most people will jump onto Wikipedia to look up one person, and cast a vague eye over the rest.  If they come across people they've never heard of, they'll get more confused, but are not going to sit there going from article to article piecing it all together.  (Eg.  "William II?  Who's he?  I remember a Rufus and the Conqueror, but where does this guy fit in?"). Gwinva (talk) 19:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What about Vladislaus II of Bohemia and Hungary? At any rate, yes, there is nothing else to call Philip II of Spain.  Which is the point - there's no way to be completely consistent, even within lines of succession. john k (talk) 20:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note that since "Vladislaus II of Bohemia and Hungary" is not recognisable or typical, it is perfectly in keeping with my suggestion to rename him some other way. But what is wrong with William I of England? James I of Aragon? Louis XIV of France? Malcolm III of Scotland? All these figures are not usually called by those names ("name ordinal of country"), but none of those forms is unrecognisable, rather each is readily recognisable to most who would recognise the figure anyway. And "James I of Aragon" is practically unheard of in historical writing, so as not to offend the Catalans. But it is not ambiguous, confusing, bizarre, or unrecognisable. It will always be true that the a given figure will not usually be called by the title of his article, but that is unavoidable. "Henry" is the most usual name for almost any historical figure named Henry, since after a first reference, it is unnecessary to thereafter mention ordinals, nicknames, countries, titles, etc. Srnec (talk) 20:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Not to offend the Catalans? What are you talking about?  Beyond that, I would prefer James I, King of Aragon and Louis XIV to James I of Aragon and Louis XIV of France, because I don't like "Name ordinal of country".  john k (talk) 20:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Nickname test cases
See

not all of which were listed above.
 * Philip II of France -> Philip Augustus
 * William I of Scotland -> William the Lion
 * Constantine I -> Constantine the Great
 * William II of England -> William Rufus
 * William I of England -> William the Conqueror
 * Richard I of England -> Richard the Lionheart
 * Frederick II of Prussia -> Frederick the Great

These have each been raised individually at WP:RM, apparently as test cases (and the requestor then went on Wikibreak).

It's not clear to me how best to treat these test cases. Normally, we assess cases according to WP:NC of course, but as the whole point of these appears to be to challenge and/or clarify one of its subconventions, it appears to me that perhaps these particular moves should be assessed from first principles, as some (but not all) contributors are doing. Andrewa (talk) 16:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Results of the test cases - all no move. GoodDay (talk) 22:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Query 'bout Google
I have a question. What is the relationship between page name and the google search engine? Does the page name make a difference? As google is prolly the most common way of reaching many of these pages, this is important. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 21:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we're basically fine so long as there's redirects, but I don't really know. john k (talk) 22:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Post-Norman Conquest monarchs
I'm concerned about the 'survey' trends on some of the English monarch articles. In all the English monarch lists I've seen covering (1066-1707) & also the British monarch lists (1707- present), they've not gone by 'nicknames' but rather by 'numerals'. I've never seen those lists as being William the Conquerer, William Rufus, Henry Beauf (whatever), Stephen of Blois, Henry Plantagenet, Richard the Lionheart, John Lackland etc; I've alwasy seen them as William I, William II, Henry I, Stephen, Henry II, Richard I, John etc. Please consider this folks. GoodDay (talk) 15:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Henry Beauf? That inspires confidence.  This discussion, in any case, does not implicate the lists, but the article titles. john k (talk) 16:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, 'Henry Beauclerc' (I should've checked the article). But it would seem only correct to match article titles with the lists. GoodDay (talk) 16:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but at the very least for William the Conqueror I have to ask if you lived under a rock or something like that. We aren't list makers and we are not bound to make series of articles consistent for the sake of making a list look "pretty". At the very least of all of these monarchs, I strongly support a move to William the Conqueror, regardless of miffed voters at the article carrying a one thousand year long grudge (literally) and preferring the term "bastard". William I of England will become a redirect (those show up in Google). Charles 16:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't live under a rock (as I'm claustefobic), and if you've got a William II, William III and William IV there's got to be a William I. Leave the 'nicknames' on the pre-Conquest monarchs. GoodDay (talk) 16:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There is a William I but we are not obligated or bound to call him that. Charles 16:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It's easier though to go with 'William I', it's easier with I,II,III,IV. PS- I'm concerned about the French monarchs too, numerals should come before nicknames - Yes, I confess, I'm a numeralist. GoodDay (talk) 16:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * He can still be linked to as William I if he's moved. Charles 16:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It's still not exactly same, though. Sniff Sniff, having looked over the surveys in progress, my 'numerals fight' appears lost. Anybody have a hanky? GoodDay (talk) 17:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Absolutely barmy. This is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, with some standards. Deb (talk) 17:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You are so right. We have NPOV, there's a standard, and a non-negotiable one at that. Don't see how BLP is relevant here, but V and NOR should be. Or did you mean the "throw NPOV and V and NOR away in pursuit of a lowest common denominator" non-standard that is this guideline? Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * And on these, we should consider Shilkanni's point: The high burden for use of nickname was in great part to pre-empt national and other warfare over what nickname to use. Here, there are the options of "the Bastard" and "the Conqueror". Either of them would support one POV. The standard format without nicknames avoids such battles, which usually is better for maintaining NPOV.


 * This is quite true; William the Bastard is a Radical statement; William the Conqueror is Tory. This does not require us to invent a form when a nickname has become a meaningless token; Edward the Confessor does not (in the twenty-first century) acclaim his Christian virtues. But we should be very cautious about polemical nicknames. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure either Bastard or Conqueror is really polemical. Both are descriptive and true. He was illegitimate, i.e. a bastard (his parents unmarried at his birth), and he conquered England. Sure, different folks may emphasise one over the other, but both are descriptive at root. Srnec (talk) 00:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This is why verifiability and neutrality are different standards. It is possible to be 100% accurate and 100% biased with the same text. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * A bias for accuracy? Stating the facts is a bias now? I deplore the modern tendency to turn every describtive word into a normative/evaluative judgement. Hitler was a conqueror and Jesus Christ a bastard. Clearly those words do not quite mean "good" and "bad". Srnec (talk) 06:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Stating only the facts on one side of the issue would be a biased presentation, even if all the facts that were included were quite correct. I do not suggest that anyone has done this; but it would be very bad if they did. Calling him William the Conqueror has a milder version of the same flaws; it is, in practice, a legitimizing move, on the grounds that title by conquest is valid. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean about bias now. Touché. But isn't "William I of England" a more legitimising move? He was a conqueror, no doubts about that. Srnec (talk) 03:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If you can think of something that is more neutral, without being completely novel (or, like plain William, ambiguous), I would be happy to consider it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the reason that the French know him as "le Conquerant" is not so much because of him "conquering" England (which they would naturally see as a "good thing") but because the title "William II of Normandy" is equally important to them, thus there could be confusion in using a numeral, whereas English speakers think of him primarily as King of England. Deb (talk) 12:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Bates and Walker and Douglas had no problems writing in English about William the Conqueror, because a conqueror is what he was. Turning him into just another English (!?!) king is quite ridiculous. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Turning him into King of England, which is what he claimed to be, is another matter, however. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * And he also claimed to be, and was, Duke of Normandy. There's no need to ignore that. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Titles should be as simple as possible without being too general. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * And presumably without being misleading. "William I ... was Duke of Normandy from the death of his father Robert II, Duke of Normandy ..."? No, that wouldn't do at all, William I of Normandy is someone else. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course French speakers also think of him primarily as king of England. And I don't see how "Edward the Confessor" is "meaningless token" but "William the Conqueror" is some kind of partisan appellation.  john k (talk) 15:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The reason is that William the Conqueror is also commonly known as William I, while pre-Norman English monarchs do not commonly have ordinals. It's not so much that it's a meaningless token, as that there is really nothing else to call him.  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * True enough, although this is distinctly not what Septentrionalis said above. That is also not even the policy at the moment, which says not that we should use cognomens only when we have no other names, but that we should use them when their absence would be surprising. john k (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with what Blue Moonlet says, however: I'm sure somebody has found some other name for Edward the Confessor; but because it is a strong consensus name, it is not, in practice, partisan. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I still think the pro-nickname moves will open up a which nickname to use disputes in the future, thus more headaches. GoodDay (talk) 14:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly so. I think the above case of Philip II of France -> Philip Augustus illustrates this point particularly.  We will be constantly having arguments of this type if we allow the guideline on nicknames to weaken.  The current guideline calls for "consensus so strong that it would be surprising to omit the epithet."  Anything less is a slippery slope to anarchy, IMO.  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Isn't it arguable that it is surprising to omit "William the Conqueror"? Certainly Philip Augustus is virtually always called that, only very rarely "Philip II".  The current guideline leaves a lot of room for debate as it stands. john k (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It is arguable, and I supported the change; although I am still cautious about changing our standard.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * But those terms aren't omitted, they're in their respective articles opening lines. GoodDay (talk) 20:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I think you'll find all the French kings have nicknames (often more than one) which are commonly used in France but wouldn't make much sense to an English speaker. Deb (talk) 22:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't make sense? I think most lists and so forth will list most of them.  The later ones, though, generally don't have accepted nicknames - The last Valois kings certainly don't.  It would obviously be silly to have an article called Charles the Wise, and I don't think anyone's proposing that.  john k (talk) 01:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * But how would one decide, for example, that Philip the Fair was more "accepted" than Louis the Beloved? Deb (talk) 12:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * One might decide whether it was a plausible name the same way one would decide any other point: by verifying it. Philip the Fair clearly is a plausible English name - as evidence we can point to the titles of Strayer's Reign of Philip the Fair, Denton's Philip the Fair and the ecclesiastical assemblies of 1294-1295, Wood's Philip the Fair and Boniface VIII, Brown's Customary aids and royal finance in Capetian France : the marriage aid of Philip the Fair, Gillerman's Enguerrand de Marigny and the Church of Notre-Dame at Ecouis : art and patronage in the reign of Philip the Fair - while Louis the Well-Beloved is clearly not as nothing relevant was published under that title. Deciding whether it was the best name would, however, be much less simple. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, although I'll say that stuff like this is a good reason to preserve the ordinals, even when using nicknames. Obviously Louis XI is way more common than Louis the Prudent, say. john k (talk) 22:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me take this opportunity to agree with Angus, who is quite right; that's why I haven't commented before. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think book titles are a good guide - they are selected specifically to stand out from other book titles, rather than to conform with standards of nomenclature. Deb (talk) 15:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Certainly that's a reasonable point to make, but so long as Wikipedia doesn't conform to common professional indexing methods in this field there's always going to be room for doubt about the purpose of page names and thus what is, or is not, relevant to any discussion. John Kenney's proposal is (a) consistent with other naming systems on Wikipedia and (b) in line with the most common means of indexing persons in print. The current system is neither, but, like they say, you knew that already. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What would you consider common indexing methods? Looking up a standard catalogue is certainly a worthwhile approach; and it will usually produce unambiguous results. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the RHS have a subject index for their bibliography. Here, then search, full search, fill in the first part of "Person as subject" and click on the index button: "Louis XIV, king of France, 1638-1715", "William I, king of Scots, 1142?-1214" and "William I, king, 1027x8-1087" (what does anglocentric mean?). The LoC catalogue has a person-as-subject index and so does the BL. For both the LoC and BL, Philip the Fair is "Philip IV, King of France, 1268-1314" and Louis the Well-Beloved is "Louis XV, King of France, 1710-1774". Clear, no? Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Would mean changing WP:NAME a lot. This does not make linking "easy and second nature"; and readers may find it a bit disconcerting too. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Since the dates are unnecessary in most cases, they can be omitted. The remainder would make kings the same as lesser (and, remembering German Emperors and Holy Roman Emperors, greater too) rulers. And this is evidence that JK's proposal of last year was good practice. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And book titles are usually recognizable, which is usually what we are discussing. They do guide if used with common sense. Some book titles are chosen to be striking, but I trust nobody wants to move Mary I of Scotland to Monstrous Regiment of Women. The absence of Louis the Well-Beloved, even as irony, is certainly indicative. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm stickin' to the numerals (surprise, surprise). GoodDay (talk) 21:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Analysis
The various ongoing move requests suggest no consensus whatever for a general loosening towards use of nicknames. Where to next? john k (talk) 20:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've no knowledge of the Polish monarchs, but I've often seen their names as name-numeral-name, just like some of the Swedish monarchs (thought I'm dissappointed in the Gustav II Adoph article). It seems quite clear, the countrie don't have a universal usage for naming their monarchs. GoodDay (talk) 21:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Calling them what their country called them would be intuitive. That splits the difference -- we keep Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden but don't get things like James the Shit of England. - Revolving Bugbear  20:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * But that's the problem. See the discussion on Talk:Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden. Gustavus Adolphus is what we English-speakers call him; Swedes call him Gustav Adolf den store. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Guidelines ommission ?
As seen from naming practices and discussion above, the current naming convention for kings and queens is {name} of {country}, not {name}, {title} of {country} n'est-ce pas? If so, there doesn't appear to be anything that states this in the guidelines although there is "5. European monarchs whose rank was below that of King (e.g., Grand Dukes, Electors, Dukes, Princes), should be at the location "{Monarch's first name and ordinal}, {Title} of {Country}"." Could someone please add something specific about kings and queens not carrying the title if this is indeed the case? I'm not trying to initiate a discussion on changing conventions, just get a clarification entered. Thanks. —  AjaxSmack   01:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I've clarified it to reflect how the guidelines actually are implemented. Let me know what you think. Charles 02:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Not most Emperors. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for catching that, I imagine it would have come up again. Charles 03:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * We do seem to cover the Latin Emperors of Constantinople, and the Emperors of Trebizond. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Emperors of the French, of Russia, of Austria, of Brazil, of Ethiopia and of Mexico, too (the latter even for Iturbide until just now, but I've moved him back to Agustín de Iturbide). john k (talk) 06:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Princes/Princesses/Kings/Queens of Cilicia(n Armenia)
A new nomenclature for Cilician monarchs is being considered at User:Srnec/Kings of Cilicia. Srnec (talk) 05:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I now notice that these all included King of or Queen of even with numerals. I didn't notice before; which shows how unimportant this silliness is. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Problem with certain formats
Prince(ss) NN, Title of Place: it doesn't work for everyone. I'm coming across a number of royals who are rarely, if ever, referred to by the extra titles they have. For instance, Princess Margarita, Countess of Colorno should be located at Princess Margarita of Bourbon-Parma. Prince Carl Philip, Duke of Värmland should be located at Prince Carl Philip of Sweden. At the very least *if* these additional titles must be used, we should at least include "of Bourbon-Parma" or "of Sweden" and so on. I think that this part of the naming convention should be modified to state that if someone is widely known by a substantive title and they also carry princely rank then they should use the form Prince(ss) NN, Title of Place. If not, it should be Prince(ss) NN of Place, Title of Place or just Prince(ss) NN of Place. Also, we have the issue of some princesses who married dukes in the British Royal Family being titled under their marital titles. Since when are the UK royals an exception to the general convention we have? Charles 03:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Swedish royals named Gustav Adolf
Does anybody know if Gustav Adolf is the correct name? I thought it was either Gustav Adolph or Gustaf Adolf; any thoughts? GoodDay (talk) 16:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The Swedish Wikipedia uses sv:Gustaf VI Adolf. Curious. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The convention in Swedish has been to normalize these to "Gustav Adolf" despite how they wrote themselves (Gustav VI Adolf of Sweden signed "Gustaf Adolf", I wouldn't be surprised if Gustav IV Adolf of Sweden signed the French "Gustave Adolphe", and Gustav II Adolf of Sweden signed "Gustavus Adolphus" in Latin, and is still known as such in many countries). This convention is what most Swedish encyclopedias use, but it has been weakening with every year lately. And how much stock we should put in it on the English Wikipedia is an entirely different matter. -- Jao (talk) 09:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Come to think of it, Gustav III and Gustav IV are fairly common in English = "that's what I recall seeing"; English speakers don't have the same pride in linking to Gustavus Adolphus. Checking this out with standard sources could be useful; especially since the articles bear clear signs of lack of English fluency. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's sure confusing. Swedish encyclopedias nowadays tend to normalize the spellings of historical kings and queens but not the ones during the latest 100 years. Therefore they write Gustav II Adolf and Karl XII but Gustaf VI Adolf and Carl XVI Gustaf. But Gustav II Adolf himself wrote Gustafus Adolphus and Karl XII wrote Carolus. Narking (talk) 15:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed action
There has been a lot of discussion, and much discontent, but no action. I still like ; but I do not think it should apply to Victoria unconditionally (there are too many other factors, chiefly that she is (for now) unambiguous among monarchs as a whole).

I therefore propose to change to;
 * 2. Where there has only been one holder of a specific monarchical name in a state, the ordinal is used only when the ordinal was in official use; for example, Juan Carlos I of Spain. There is ongoing discussion of what to do when the ordinal is not in common use: "{Monarch's first name}, {Title} of {Country}" or "{Monarch's first name} of {Country}"; that is, John, King of England or John of England. We may want to treat different cases differently; Victoria of the United Kingdom is particularly controversial.
 * and continue as before.

I'm going back and forth on this, since I've been editing Samuil of Bulgaria, where Samuel, Tsar of Bulgaria seems clumsy. (I've submitted a move request on the name; Samuel appears to be usage.) So let's make a move request on John of England, as an explicit test case, and see what happens. Objections? Septentrionalis PMAnderson
 * We should also add John of Scotland as a test case. GoodDay (talk) 22:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I would prefer not to. The case for John Balliol or some related form is quite strong, and it's not a generalizable solution. We saw what happened when Deacon ran seven, and he's still holding a grudge. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. GoodDay (talk) 22:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't support treating kings and emperors differently just because they didn't have an ordinal. Charles 22:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Please say so at the test case; if it fails dramatically we ought to revert to the present wording. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Then how is anyone to understand from the title (that's the index here) that, for example, Aldfrith of Northumbria is a king but Egbert of Northumbria isn't? Or that Ulrika Eleonora of Sweden is a ruler and Bridget of Sweden isn't? Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * They can read the article, for starters. Charles 23:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Rather defeats the purpose of indexing, no? Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅. See Talk:John of England. Let's see what happens. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This doesn't seem to be producing a tidal wave for change, or against change. Would those who care please !vote? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Closed no consensus, and I can't argue. Now what? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You can get the guideline changed. That way no more kittens need die. Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor, Frederick II, Duke of Austria, Frederick II of Prussia, Frederick II of Denmark, Frederick II, Elector of Brandenburg, Frederick II, Elector of Saxony, Frederick II, Landgrave of Hesse-Cassel, Frederick II, Duke of Swabia, Frederick II, Duke of Mantua, Frederick II, Duke of Lorraine, Frederick II, Duke of Upper Lorraine, Frederick II, Grand Duke of Baden, Frederick II, Elector Palatine, Frederick II, Duke of Anhalt: can you spot two odd men out? Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You're confusing me with Jimbo; and if I were Jimbo, I'd level the other way. I see nothing wrong with Frederick II of Austria, of Brandenburg, and so forth. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid it's gonna remain John of England. GoodDay (talk) 18:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ack, Sorry I missed the vote. What do you think of Maximilian I of Bavaria, PMA?  The article is about the king, but his predecessor Maximilian I, Elector of Bavaria would be equally entitled to the position if we abandoned the current rule.  If we did everybody at "Name Ordinal of Territory" we'd run into a lot of problems like that.  Another problem would be when do we consider someone a territorial ruler?  Was Charles, Duke of Orléans a territorial ruler or not?  Presumably Philippe II, Duke of Orléans is not one, but it strikes me as awkward to draw the line.  john k (talk) 19:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting problems.
 * The solution to the Wittelsbachs is probably "differentiate when necessary" so use the title for one of them; I would use it for the elector. (At the moment the King is Maximillian I Joseph, but that doesn't solve the general problem.)
 * Charles, Duke of Orléans is the poet; I'd call him Charles of Orleans, like all the poetry books I know. If I were Jimbo, I'd pick a line to divide medieval from Renaissance dukes. Louis XI? Francis I? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Including the title for everyone, though, is a much more one size fits all solution. Not that we should necessarily look for one size fits all solutions, but in this case I don't think there's any strong disadvantage, besides "Long article titles." john k (talk) 20:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I fully agree;  this was a passing comment, about my ideal solution; I am not seriously unhappy with the existing compromise. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Titles like John Lackland or John Softsword are out of the question (at least for the John of England article). -- GoodDay (talk) 20:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Names, places and titles: Ukrainianization of an arbitrary part of medieval Rus'
I've been surveying some of the Rus articles, and I'm quite shocked about the extent Ukrainian English-spelling reform has made distanced wikipedia from usual English practice. Who on earth is Danylo of Halych I wondered? Oops ... it's the Daniel of Galicia /Daniel (or almost as oft Daniil) Romanovich who I otherwise knew about. Actually, contrary to the practice of most historians writing in English about the medieval Eastern Slavs, the names of many of the rulers of Galicia-Volhynia and any other principality that just happens to fall within modern Ukraine are Ukrainianized. Then we've got the names of the provinces: Halych-Volhynia? This is Galicia-Volhynia. Well represented by textual replication and Ukrainian websites appearing to be well-used in English, but 300-odd citations on Google books versus 5 for Halych-Volhynia tells the real story (and then there's the hilarious Halych-Volodymyr for Galicia-Vladimir). Or what about Novgorod-Seversk, located at the obscure Novhorod-Siverskyi. Here google books is even more embarrasing, 599 hits for the English v. 8 for the Ukrainianization. The principality everyone whose done medieval Rus' history knows as Chernigov is continually called Chernihiv, then we'll got general Rus rulers being Ukrainianized throughout the encyclopedia, as for instance Vladimir the Great being called Volodymyr the Great. Shall we formulate a guideline to endorse these practices ... or does anyone agree with me this has to be fixed and reversed? Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 03:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This is part of the same tendency as the proposal to rename Kiev, now risen from the dead again, see Talk:Kiev; or, for a different nationality, Samuil of Bulgaria. Part of this is the urge: "it's ours, we want to mark it"; part is sheer ignorance: they know the standard transliteration of Ukrainian, they have not consulted the English literature; part of it is ignorance of our naming conventions: "It's the official Ukrainian name; Wikipedia has to use it". These overlap. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The argument I see on Deacon's talk page, "Galych" is offensive to Ukrainians (because it transliterates the Russian spelling), is the same argument that underlies, say, the Macedonian mess (anything but FYROM is offensive to True Greeks). We need to deal with it generally, probably at WP:NC, and then apply to specifics. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've alway been a English language proponent on English Wikipedia ever since I was a little Wikipedian. We should stick with the English versions. GoodDay (talk) 18:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course, that's what's behind it ... I don't think too many people will have problems working that out. The message on my talk page epitomizes it (I responded to it here). But, do we have the will to fix it? I mean, I don't embrace WP:UE like you do, but the name Halych-Volhynia (either to Galicia-Volhynia or Galicia-Volyn) and esp. Danylo of Halych embarrass even me. I think moving these articles would be clear enforcement of WP:NAME as well as WP:UE. But per wiki Mos guidlines on Rus' rulers, what name name should "Danylo" be at: "Daniel of Galich", "Daniel of Galicia", "Daniel of Halych", Daniil "of sames" ... ? Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 18:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Daniel looks great (I also prefer Galicia). Also, we may want to take a peek at the Montenegrin royalty articles for non-English names (though that's another topic). GoodDay (talk) 18:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I surveyed google books on this guy at Talk:Danylo of Halych. Unsurprisingly that form is the least popular in English. Sigh! I've moved the article to Daniel of Galicia retaining the current format, only enforcing English usage. We'll see what happens. I don't really think that old name is anything near what the community would support. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 19:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Russian royal names
Would anybody agree with moving the Czars named Feodor to Theodore (I'll even begrudgingly accept Fyodor)? GoodDay (talk) 20:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I could go for "Fyodor", but not "Theodore". It would be like calling "Louis XIV" "Lewis XIV". Deb (talk) 21:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This comparison is not exactly fitting. The name Louis is the most common anglicizations of forms such as Ludwig, Luis, Ludovico, Luigi, etc, rather than "Lewis". Charles 20:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * But Lewis used to be the most common anglicization; read Macaulay, or even Stevenson. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The point is that it isn't anymore. Charles 23:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And Theodore is not the most common form of Fyodor either. See the Scholar google search for Theodore Dostoyevsky. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, that's not really fair. For non-monarchs, we see "Pyotr," "Pavel," and "Nikolai," but that hasn't changed the tsar name articles.  On the other hand, GoodDay's preference would lead us inevitably to John the Terrible. john k (talk) 19:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It would not be fair if it were only a difference of frequency, like Peter Tchaikovsky - although that still is more common than the inconsistent 22Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky we have chosen to use - but there are no hits for "Theodore Dostoyevsky" at all. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not a claim that I have made. Charles 23:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

That's fair. GoodDay (talk) 21:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Why do you prefer "Fyodor" to "Feodor"? john k (talk) 19:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Doesn't WP:RUS prefer that: Фёдор == Fyodor? True, there's an out for "the spelling predominantly used in [relevant] publications should be used", but this is not the usual dusty old encyclopedia test. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That seems sensible. I have no particular opposition to "Fyodor," though. john k (talk) 19:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That seems sensible. I have no particular opposition to "Fyodor," though. john k (talk) 19:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Responding to Joh Kenney: I prefer Fyodor because I've seen that version more often then Feodor (Wikipedia the exception of course). It's really just a personal request. GoodDay (talk) 20:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Dukes of Pomerania
Could someone help me take a look at Category:Dukes of Pomerania? Some are titled with modern Polish designations, such as Świętopełk and Mściwój, which have not been used in English. Diacritic-less versions have been used in English publications listed in Google Books, while German names like Mestwin have also historically been used. Some are "of Pomerania", while others are "of Gdańsk", etc. Olessi (talk) 23:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If it were my choice? diacritics would be banned from 'English Wikipedia'. GoodDay (talk) 23:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Give or take the anachronistic diacritics, Boguslaw and Swietopelk and Msciwoj seem common enough in English. Then again, the best known Pomeranian Duke - Erik of Pomerania - seems to be called Bugislav. The early dukes would (or do) look strange with Germanised names: the name on "Mestwin II"'s seal is definitely not Mestwin. If you're looking to catch them all, apart from Mestwin II, none of the House of Sobiesław are included in the category. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Angus is correct. Of Pomerania and of Gdańsk is usually correct; the 'of what' changed often from generation to generation due to ongoing fragmentation of Poland.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Russian grand duchesses (thorough)
Hi everyone, I have finally compiled a very thorough listing of every grand duchess of Russia that I could find on Wikipedia and divided them into grand duchesses by marriage and by birth with suggested names. For convenience, I am posting the page below:  Click to view page

The page itself can be viewed here on its own. What does everyone think? Comments, suggestions? Charles 02:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I am thinking a Barnstar. --Irpen 02:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * NIcely done indeed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Why move Charlotte Christine of Brunswick-Lüneburg? You don't know what her Russian name was, and she was not Tsarevna. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It was a suggestion if her Russian name was known. She was married to the Tsarevich. What do you think of the rest? Charles 19:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll leave that to John, but I see no obvious problem. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, Looks solid to me. Good work. john k (talk) 19:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Has this proposal been brought up in any way at any of the Russian history or related projects? If not it may be a good idea to avoid the chance of the darkened cigar-filled smokey-room effect. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 19:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Survey
According to today's version of the Russian grand duchesses chart I produced, I propose a move of all of the grand duchesses where the name match is "no". They are:

Grand duchesses by marriage


 * Support Conforms to proposed naming conventions for these grand duchesses (very unlikely come up again!). Charles 22:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Support all. But have you listed this on the individual talk pages?  If not, you ought to. john k (talk) 22:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Excellent effort. Will support if Milica of Montenegro becomes the more widely-used-in-English "Militza", and if Tsesarevna is substituted for "Tsarevna" in Natalia Alexeievna of Russia. She was the wife of the heir apparent, whereas Tsarevna was reserved for daughters, and Tsesarevna was for the future Empress-consort.FactStraight (talk) 09:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments. I based "Tsarevna" on the use of "Tsarevitch" for the heir apparent in English although I know Tsesarevich is the real term. You can also see here: Tsesarevich. Charles 19:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Limited Support Thanks to Charles for his work. There are still going to be battles on the individual pages. I think that the Russophiles might have some concerns (just as the Poles have had on other pages).  I am only giving "limited" support because I think that it is unnecessary to give two names to married ladies.  I know that there is a wiki-convention to name a lady by her "maiden" name  - even in a number of cases where that goes against usage.  I would prefer that the articles for most of these grand duchesses by marriage were just named "Grand Duchess Name Patronymic of Russia" (without any reference to their "maiden" names).  Of the 14 grand duchesses by marriage only two currently have articles titled that way.  It is cumbersome and I don't believe that the practice should spread further. Noel S McFerran (talk) 12:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments
All grand duchesses by birth have been moved. Possibly unknown cases are: Any comments on these two and grand duchesses by marriage? Charles 19:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Anna Leopoldovna (regent), possible title: Anna Leopoldovna, Regent of Russia
 * Sophia Alekseyevna (regent), possible title: Sophia Alexeievna of Russia

Rus'ian ruler guidelines?
There are none atm. I can see from the ones that exist that there has been a "mewing" attempt at imposition of the rules as applied to other European regions. I'm trying atm using the unreliable lists on ru.wiki and the FMG website (complemented where I can with text books) to get lists up for lots of these principalities, you'll see the list growing on Category:Princes in Rus'. I don't think the "X of Y" formula is gonna work because most of these guys rule at different points different principalities many of which aren't distinguishable in importance or association, and I notice on from ru.wiki that many "Of X" names get used because they originate in X or the dynasty that rules X rather than actually ruling X. Any ideas. I'm for use of patronymic, as almost everyone who writes about these guys in English seem to be, but dabbing after that? Any ideas? Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 20:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Life peers
In either case, please comment at Talk:Jock Campbell, soon. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Should life peers normally be known by their full titles, even if they are better known by their bare name?
 * Is Jock Campbell better known by his name, or as Jock Campbell, Baron Campbell of Eskan? (I have no idea.)

Dr, Mr, Mrs, Sir
It would be helpful to have more guidance on more everyday titles. I think everyone will agree that these should not normally be included in article names. But are there ever instances when it is better to include them? I have in mind: Mhockey (talk) 20:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Individuals who are almost always referred to by their full title (most likely to be Dr or Sir) - so that search terms are likely to include the title
 * As a means of disambiguation from individuals with the same name but different titles.
 * We hardly ever do. We use Arthur Conan Doyle, although Sir is probably more often included than not.


 * One problem is that Sir very often does not actually disambiguate. We long used Sir James Douglas, per usage, for James Douglas, Lord of Douglas, and I'm not sure why it was moved; but it is true that most of the rest of the list at James Douglas were knights, and are probably somewhere called Sir James. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Women's surnames and the peerage
After a discussion today with, I believe it's appropriate for women's titles to be thus:


 * Firstname Marriedsurname, Title of Place

and not:


 * Firstname Birthsurname, Title of Place

as this could cause some confusion. Is there an actual policy for this? If not, I think it should be specified. Any thoughts? PeterSymonds | talk  21:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * In principle, I agree. I believe it's been discussed, and not that long ago, if you look through the archive. Deb (talk) 21:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah yeah, got it: ? So in principle, then (and excluding special circumstances), the pre-marital surname is generally avoided? PeterSymonds | talk  21:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

In the article Francis Leigh, 1st Earl of Chichester‎, I tried to link his daughter Elizabeth by changing her redlinked maiden name to her married name but it gives me the wrong person. I have noticed this same problem in other articles. The disparity of Wikipedia versus other databases and resources becomes very clear in these identity problems. It seems, that the maiden name, of peerage at least, needs to be included in the lead title for identity. Daytrivia (talk) 13:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand the problem, but your solution of using the maiden name would result in an "impossible" title, since Elizabeth only gained the title by changing her name. You would have to find another way of disambiguation, eg. birth and death dates.  You could use the maiden name on its own (ie. without the title), but that would probably not meet with general approval.  See also my attempt to disambiguate the Mary Herberts. Deb (talk) 11:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your perspective, your suggestions and examples of what you have done. It is very encouraging to have some reference points to turn to. As I have discussed with Peter I have no objection to using the proper and legal naming scheme and I certainly want to make every effort to be supportive with wiki consistency. Further, I suppose I will just have to get use to the disparity of nonwiki research versus wiki. Please feel free to see some examples of my problem that I have posted at Talk:Elizabeth Campbell, 1st Baroness Hamilton of Hameldon. Again thank you and I am going to try to leave this be. Daytrivia (talk) 03:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)