Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)/Archive 15

message: * (Talk:Ekaterina Dolgorukova — Ekaterina Dolgorukova → Catherine Dolgoruki – question about whether the surname is established tightly as Dolgoruki in English, and whether to use transliteration or English counterpart of the christian name. Innteresting to see what would be results... 217.140.193.123 22:00, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested moves

message: ;Monarchical
*Philip the Good
*Leopold William of Austria (exception #2 applied to monarchical rule #5)
::This has nothing to do with exception #2.  This has to do with the fact that our rules for how to name people like him were murky for a long time, and that not all of them have been changed to be in conformity with naming conventions. john k 18:01, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  *Exactly* why I wanted to create this list, to have some reference, not "proving" anything in itself --Francis Schonken 09:01, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Other examples ''of old'', not yet challenged by a [[WP:RM]]

message: :See also previous: Archive 6#non-Europeans
Hawaiian MoS people are arriving at rough consensus to enact something in following lines: "Articles of Monarchs of Hawaiian Kingdom have the monarch's Hawaiian reign name as the heading, and the ordinal if necessary for disambiguation. For example, Kamehameha IV, Liliuokalani. The possible christened name is not to be included into the heading, and not any other non-reign name. The titulary (Queen, King) is not used in the heading, nor any style or honorific. The territorial designation ("of Hawaii") is not to be used in the heading since there is no necessity to disambiguate on basis of country. The text of the article follow standards and guidelines for WP biographical articles." 217.140.193.123 13:28, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  non-Europeans 

message: Muslim civilization have a common phenomenon with Europeans: same given names common between countries. Thus territorial designation is handy tool for disambiguation. And, also their monarchs havev received (sometimes retrospectively) ordinals. They have their own titulary, though almost everything has European counterparts. Sultan is king. NOW, do we have an Arab revolt in our hands, if we straightforwardly state that European heading standards are direckly applicable to all Muslim royals and nobles?
(btw, there isn't a Muslim/Arab MoS project, is there?) Arrigo 00:19, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: An issue, I think, is that in Islamic areas, monarchs, until recently, have been generally identified by dynasty rather than territory.  We don't talk about Al-Adil of Egypt, but about the Ayyubid ruler Al-Adil.  And so forth.  I don't think it would be wise to try to force Muslim monarchs generally identified by dynasty into a format designed for rulers generally identified by territory.  But it would be fine, I think, for monarchs of modern countries.  Faisal I of Iraq, and what not. john k 18:04, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Muslim countries

message: Rule #2 states: Where there has only been one holder of a specific monarchical name in a state, the ordinal is used only when the ordinal was in official use. For example, Victoria of the United Kingdom, not Victoria I of the United Kingdom; Juan Carlos I of Spain, not Juan Carlos of Spain. 
:This rule does not apply to the naming of William I of England. According to the rule, a specific monarchical name regards names such as "Victoria", "Juan Carlos", and "William". IF only a single holder of a specific monarchical name existed in a state, then the second clause of the rule comes into play. The application of the second clause would apply to William I of England if William II of England and William III of England did not exist. Since there is more than a single holder of a specific monarchical name, the ordinal is used regardless of the periodic officiality of ordinal usage. For example, if there were a Victoria II of the United Kingdom, then Victoria of the United Kingdom would be legitimately removed to Victoria I of the United Kingdom. 
:The following convention is requested to be added as a clause to Rule #2:
::The usage of ordinals where there has been more than a single holder of a specific monarchical name is correct and appropriate.
:Adraeus 00:10, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
I don't see that this is necessary.  It is implicit in the rules as they currently stand, and is how they have always been interpreted to mean. john k 02:03, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Implicitness is never useful in policy. (See Patriot Act for details.) Rules, guidelines, and principles must be explicit to have any serious effect. By the way, if what you claimed were true, then we wouldn't be have this debate, would we? Adraeus 17:11, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
I oppose the Adraeus proposal, as unnecessary and not clarifying anything. Besides, the debate Adraeus obviously wanted to contribute to, is application of Exception 2, which is debated above. Arrigo 15:55, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Incorrect. The discussion to which I initiated is that of Rule #2. Exception #2, and therefore your proposal, is irrelevant. Adraeus 17:19, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Huh?  Francis's proposed moved of William I of England is not based on rule #2, which clearly only applies to monarchs who have been the only one of their name.  It is based on exception #2.  It is your proposal which is clearly irrelevant. john k 18:06, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Dear Deb, happy you join in on the discussion. Just wanted to remark that the present version of the "names & titles" naming policy indeed had reverted the thing: what should be main policy is in this guideline presented as "one of the exceptions"; What should be clarification and filling in the details of the main policy is in fact a complicated list of exceptions to the main policy. Of course, you can read the policy like you want, but that was how I read it, and how I see the problem with it. --Francis Schonken 21:53, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal to add convention to Monarchical Titles

message: It has been proposed that the above discussion, as far as it relates to the Electress Palatine in particular, be moved (in its entirety, and therfore including Arrigo's comments above) to Talk:Elisabeth of Bohemia or wherever she ends up.
====Support====
* support - Arrigo's argumentation seems exagerrated (especially the part of "deformation of meaning" by putting it on another page). Anyway, there never was an intention to make policy decisions on Elisabeth of Bohemia's talk page. But one can not base policy on an example that does not yet exist; for the example to exist, it has to be known first what the community wishes that page to be named, and that can better not be decided here, but better with the procedure already started on that talk page. The discussion of such non-existing example on this talk page is a discussion without object, and thus void, until the example exists, after which the relevant content (which of course can not include a decision on the NC policy) can be brought back here. If the decision of the name of Elizabeth of Bohemia's page were influenced by speculative talk of possible changes to the guideline on this NC talk page, that would be even worse, while that would not make it a clear decision on what EoB's page should be named, only speculation about guidelines (or it might be still worse, speculation about the intention of persons involved in the discussion). If it would be the case that the decision about the name of EoB's page is too obviously contaminated by such talk here, it would probably be unwise to bring it back here as a "valid" example, but I go from the assumption that will not be the case, that's why I hope the part of the talk as suggested by Septentrionalis will be moved ASAP to the EoB talk page, so that we can welcome it back soon as a valid example. --Francis Schonken 20:39, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Proper refactoring that preserves information is not vandalism. Please assume good faith and don't throw around charges of vandalism. If a discussion was moved and the move was done in a transparent fashion, there's nothing wrong with that. --MarkSweep✍ 01:24, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll

message: * support - Arrigo's argumentation seems exagerrated (especially the part of "deformation of meaning" by putting it on another page). Anyway, there never was an intention to make policy decisions on Elisabeth of Bohemia's talk page. But one can not base policy on an example that does not yet exist; for the example to exist, it has to be known first what the community wishes that page to be named, and that can better not be decided here, but better with the procedure already started on that talk page. The discussion of such non-existing example on this talk page is a discussion without object, and thus void, until the example exists, after which the relevant content (which of course can not include a decision on the NC policy) can be brought back here. If the decision of the name of Elizabeth of Bohemia's page were influenced by speculative talk of possible changes to the guideline on this NC talk page, that would be even worse, while that would not make it a clear decision on what EoB's page should be named, only speculation about guidelines (or it might be still worse, speculation about the intention of persons involved in the discussion). If it would be the case that the decision about the name of EoB's page is too obviously contaminated by such talk here, it would probably be unwise to bring it back here as a "valid" example, but I go from the assumption that will not be the case, that's why I hope the part of the talk as suggested by Septentrionalis will be moved ASAP to the EoB talk page, so that we can welcome it back soon as a valid example. --Francis Schonken 20:39, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: This is a variant of refactoring, which I do not mind as long as it is done even-handedly, which a straight move would be. Others do, so I put it up for discussion. Septentrionalis 12:37, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Proper refactoring that preserves information is not vandalism. Please assume good faith and don't throw around charges of vandalism. If a discussion was moved and the move was done in a transparent fashion, there's nothing wrong with that. --MarkSweep✍ 01:24, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: We have recently encountered a problem with the naming of Princess Alexandra, Countess of Frederiksborg. Someone who was not very knowledgeable moved the article from its correct location at Princess Alexandra, Countess of Frederiksborg to the very incorrect and not correct in one way, Countess Alexandra of Frederiksborg, whoever did this also created a mess of disambiguations. Please me and User:Prsgoddess187, would like to fix this and would also like to change the way many of the British Royals are titled. For more information visit my talk page or that of Princess Alexandra, Countess of Frederiksborg, With your help we can fix this problem. I would also like the help of an administrator to help lock Pss. Alexandra's page to avoid a messy edit war. Thanks so much. Mac Domhnaill 00:09, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not surprisingly, the questionable move, leaving a host of double and triple redirects, was done by Arrigo diff --Francis Schonken 00:25, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad to see I am not the only one with a problem with him.  Prsgoddess187 00:38, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  That user Arrigo is notorious for renaming any royal article he can get his hands on, removing titles wherever it is possible and then going off into tantrums when someone challenges those moves. I would support the creation of an RfC because this is silly... Gryffindor 20:43, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Princess Alexandra of Denmark 

message: One of Hilda Toledano's persistent "supporters" has recently requested a page move to Maria Pia de Saxe Coburg Braganza . Input of those interested would be appreciated at Talk:Hilda Toledano. - Nunh-huh 21:07, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hilda Toledano / Maria Pia, Saxe Coburg Gotha pretender 

message: #I implemented the "No Move" result of the vote, and removed the topic from WP:RM --Francis Schonken 09:59, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Follow-up (7 days after start of vote)

message: I suspected that existing standards were inadequate for disambiguating queens consort, I have hit on an example of this.  See Maria Anna of Bavaria and Maria Anna of Bavaria (1551-1608).  Strictly speaking the former was a Dauphiness (see Dauphin) and the latter an Empress, but this is not the crucial issue.  Just to compliate matters, there is a 3rd Maria Anna of Bavaria who came between them, she does not yet have an entry but could be encyclopedic.  The present system is a stop gap, I am not very happy with it.  We could use numbers, but what if we later find an earlier one?  I am inclined to use their later titles to disambiguate e.g. Maria Anna of Bavaria, Dauphiness of France, and Maria Anna of Bavaria, Empress of Austria.  Even that might still be ambiguous in a handful of cases.  Any comments?
We see similar ambiguity problems with Earl of Moray, compare the one from the 1501 creation and his successor.  We may as well let this one stand, but it could get complicated with some other titles. PatGallacher 15:24, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's true, the naming system can never be foolproof.  But it's pretty good.  However, neither of the examples you quoted above is a queen regnant. Deb 17:52, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, one was a dauphiness, one an archduchess; but while Pat Gallacher has misstated the problem (it's a problem with queens consort ; we handle the few queens regnant reasonably well) it is a real one; and this is a worse example than the ones we've already had. Her solution is worth discussing, rather than dismissing out of hand. My reservation about it is that it would lead to styles, like Victoria of the United Kingdom, German Empress, which are never used by anybody; then again, the same can be said of the present system. Septentrionalis 21:21, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

text: That's good, I thought I was missing something.  And of course I wasn't dismissing your suggestion.  It's just that there are zillions of examples (well, hundreds, anyway) within wikipedia where disambiguation is needed, and in my view it doesn't have much to do with the naming conventions. These are people's names, after all, and names aren't often unique. Deb 18:06, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Queens Consort

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