Talk:William the Lion

message: The last RM held on this article was ruled as no move to William the Lion. Therefore, I revert the erroneous change. GoodDay (talk) 23:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It was moved in response to changes in the naming guidelines. It has been stable at William the Lion for nearly half a year. If you want to move it, open a WP:RM discussion. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The articles were so neat & trim, when Name # of country was in place. GoodDay (talk) 00:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

text: This is short-sighted behaviour by both of you and Pat. Established Wiki-practice is that after a month, certainly after three, a page's location becomes stable. Transgressing it for your own advantage not only is unlikely to do any good for the move you want, but will in the long run be non-beneficial as you see others violating it for POVs you don't like. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've already 'reverted' one editors move & I'm not gonna do it again. GoodDay (talk) 02:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

text: Yes, this is the custom on wikipedia and serves us well if you actually think about it. We don't check back to 2003 to place the burden of consensus on individual edits, if original stable version was always preferred to most recent stable version we'd have a nightmare of a time. But to correct you on one thing, the move was not unilateral, but was one of dozens made at one time in response to changes in the naming guidelines that preferenced well-known nicknames over obscure numerals (having RMs for each one was both unnecessary and unreasonable waste of community resources). I'm going to allow PatGallacher a chance to move it back, but will move it back myself if he doesn't do so. If a move is still desired, an WP:RM can be started. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You should let a non-involved administrator do that, as you've an interest in Scottish monarchial articles. The move back to William the Lion by you, could be interpreted as your 'personal preference'. GoodDay (talk) 13:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

text: Cognomens should've been limited to monarchs who came before their successors starting using 'regnal numbers'. For example Edward the Confessor, Alfred the Great in England. What happened as NCROY is that the anti-'Name # of country' crowd took over & thus the instabilities followed. GoodDay (talk) 13:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I still see the pro-name#ofcountry crowd in control at NCROY, even though the last RfC showed them to be in a minority. But that isn't the issue here - as I say, the guideline has always (at least, for longer than I can remember) allowed cognomens - do you have any arguments as to why we shouldn't use this one?--Kotniski (talk) 13:10, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The latest RM's seem to proove otherwise. As for why 'name # of country', if the monarch's got a regnal number - use it. When there's a I, we should have a II, III, IV etc. As for the 'of country'? many countries monarch shared the same name. GoodDay (talk) 13:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's hard to know what you mean. Has another country had a monarch (or anyone) called William the Lion? Do you believe we should have articles called William II of Scotland etc.? Why should we use a rarely used regnal number when there's a far more recognizable name we can use?--Kotniski (talk) 13:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Pruss/Germay had 2 monarchs named William & the United Kingdom has a William & likely another in the future. England had 3 named William (including Willia II of Scotland). GoodDay (talk) 13:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: And all this is relevant how?--Kotniski (talk) 13:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, this discussion should be taking place at NCROY. GoodDay (talk) 14:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

text: This is quite a bad case to be making a stand on. He is almost never known as "William I" because there is only poor realization that there even is a "William II", the latter being thought of as "William of Orange" and as a King of Britain (even though this is actually inaccurate). @GoodDay, yes, this is my preference, but proper procedure requires it to go back to the last stable name if you are actually contesting it. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's best to have a non-involved administrator handle it. GoodDay (talk) 15:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not an administrative matter ... and anyway you (a non-administrator) are the one that started trying to kick up a fuss here. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:32, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well then somebody who's not involved, can revert. GoodDay (talk) 15:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Indeed, though I will do it myself if they don't. A WP:RM is needed to move this page away from its recent stable name against current naming conventions. If you want to show your own good faith you should move it back yourself. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've already made 1 revert, which was to correct a non-supported page move. If you're gonna revert it, there's nothing I can do about, nor do I intend to revert you 'again'. GoodDay (talk) 15:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

text: Scotland had 2 monarchs named William, of which this fellow is the first. The Scottish monarchs before & after him, also go by name # of country.  GoodDay (talk) 16:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The use of Lion has its origins in the 14th century (maybe earlier) and is the way that he is referred to by anyone who knows anything of Scottish history.  The use of the name is synomynous to William the Conqueror who is not referred to as William I of England.  The article should be returned to William the Lion asap. -Bill Reid | (talk) 17:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. As for the conquerer, it should be William I of England, but I haven't protested it, 'cuz the RM was ruled correctly & that page wasn't moved hastily. GoodDay (talk) 17:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

text: This is not on, claiming there is consensus against this at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(royalty_and_nobility), when it's just the same ideologues pushing the same minority POV. The article is has been at William the Lion for 4 months. That is the last stable name. Trying to manipulate and transgress established wikipedia etiquette because you think you'll get an advantage in an WP:RM proposal is tendentious editing and bad faith. . Note that at Talk:James Chichester-Clark PatGallacher seems to have a different opinion about article stability. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: We're just going in circles here & there's not enough input. GoodDay (talk) 19:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

text: PS: Did DrK rule the RM as no consensus to move to William the Lion (February 2008)? Did anybody complain about the page not being moved between February 2008 & October 2010? Was the page ever moved in that time frame? GoodDay (talk) 19:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't we all quit bickering, and just have a simple move discussion to get this sorted. Either to William I of Scotland or William the Lion, whichever the page currently isn't at. Nightw 13:40, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Adjust the RM to today's reversion to the non-consensus title. Then re-start the RM. GoodDay (talk) 16:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Feb 2008 RM result 

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
*Support, per David I of Scotland, Malcolm IV of Scotland, Alexander II of Scotland etc. Cognomens aren't NPoV based, as they're usually given by the monarch's admirers or detractors. GoodDay (talk) 16:27, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: *Which is how relevant to what we title this article as? If anything, having an article called William I but no succeeding one called William II is going to confuse people any more (but if they want this analytical information they'll have to read the articles anyway - the only information the titles can impart is that of what the kings are usually called, which in the case of this William appears to be "the Lion").--Kotniski (talk) 07:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's something to consider, isn't it?  As you say, it could be an argument either for or against. Deb (talk) 12:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  William would be 'William V' because the numerals of the British monarchs are taken from the English ones only (though they say this will change in future, it wouldn't make a difference here), beginning 1066 (three English Williams, plus one UK one). If Prince William were to become a Scottish monarch, he'd technically be either William III or William IV. :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ya mean, if William were to reign over the UK as David, Malcolm, Robert, James etc. It would be as David III, Malcolm V, Robert IV, James VIII etc. GoodDay (talk) 14:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure that was not what Deacon meant. I'm also pretty sure I don't understand what you mean GoodDay. Finn Rindahl (talk) 15:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

text: As far as I'm aware nothing is certain. This article may be of interest to you. John Hendo (talk) 15:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

text: Thank goodness, his cognomen wasn't William the Nose picker, William the Farter or worst. GoodDay (talk) 20:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ridiculous remark. Time to grow up GoodDay. -Bill Reid | (talk) 21:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm 6ft tall, can't get any taller. PS: Don't be so dang serious. GoodDay (talk) 21:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

text: This is just a comment, not a criticism - but I am pretty sure everyone here is aware that he is "commonly known" as William the Lion.  The question is whether that is the best title for an encyclopaedia article.  And a good title for an encyclopaedia article is seldom the same as a good title for a book.  (I know; I write both.) Deb (talk) 12:54, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: So you're saying that you'd prefer the title Alexander III of Macedon simply because there were other Alexanders before him? Nightw 13:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

text:  Sure, historians may occasionally go for a different name to illustrate a specific point or even to appeal to a wider audience, but we've already established that Owen is not deviating from the norm here. So what exactly is so inappropriate about it? Or do you simply disagree with WP:Article title? Cavila (talk) 15:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That's right - I'd say "often" rather than "occasionally".  I'm saying that the fact that a book is called "William the Lion" doesn't make it the best title for an article.  The criteria for selecting a book title are completely different. This is a point I raised some years ago in a naming discussion, and I think it's worth reiterating here.  I didn't say that "William the Lion" is not a valid title for the article, just that the book title argument is potentially misleading.  Deb (talk) 18:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Although we do have one very dated source to back this up, I am cautious about the claim that he ever touched for the king's evil.  This practice was certainly not normal in Scotland, and even in France and England it is questionable whether it was practiced as early as this. PatGallacher (talk) 14:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  King's evil 

message: Either the birth date for William I or for Ada Fitz William are way off, or William fathered her around the age of 4. Unsure what the right answer is.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Republicson (talk • contribs) 15:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ada Fitz William 

message: Mentioned husbands of:
* "Isabel (1195–1253), married Roger Bigod, 4th Earl of Norfolk and Robert "of Fur Fan" De Ros, Sir Knight and had issue."; her page does not mention a second husband.
* "Isabella Mac William married Robert III de Brus then Robert Furfan de Ros, Magna Carta Suretor"; her page mentions both husbands.
It seems likely that the first one is wrong.
--Japarthur (talk) 12:46, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Husbands of Isabel and Isabella 

message: It seems like there is a lack of citation in the body of the article. There is not a citation in the life portion until seven paragraphs in the article.Jakegard (talk) 04:36, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of citation  

message: I have removed the mention; see Talk:Taylor Swift for more information. Lectonar (talk) 14:03, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taylor Swift as great great.xxx granddaughter