Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)/Archive 11

message: For long I've been somewhat uncomfortable with the current standard for articles on royal figures.  Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, for instance, is awkward.  I'd propose instead a format like that used in the German Wikipedia, of Elizabeth II (United Kingdom).  This would make it easier to do things like Byzantine and Holy Roman Emperors (Henry V (Holy Roman Empire) seems better than the current Henry V, Holy Roman Emperor, which is, of course, in direct contrast to the style for other rulers.  Further, since almost all these articles require a Elizabeth II in any case, it wouldn't really lead to any greater awkwardness in writing of articles.  So, I tentatively suggest this.  Thoughts? john
:I don't see the point. What you are talking about is making what would be a minor change that would involve redoing pages and links of hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of pages, and probably thousands of links for all royal pages for all royalty worldwide. (Baudouin of Belgium, for example, not the most prominent of world royals, whose talk page has not been used, has 42 links! George V of the UK has around 250! So that is 300 links to be checked, many of them changed, for just 2 monarchs!!! ) Getting to this point on this structure took months of work, caused major rows on the wiki-list and proved a nightmare. 
:From past evidence, re-opening the royal naming would re-open rows on larger issues, such as the demands from some fanatics in the debate to call her Elizabeth II of England, or Elizabeth Windsor, or Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia . . . . Calling modern monarchs by the form <name> of <state> is the best solution, because it allows for greater accuracy IMHO. Using the state as a disambigulation form is frankly ugly. I simply don't see the point of re-opening the issue, especially as I still remember the enormous hassle and workload involved in the last change. Now there are ten times as many articles on royal issues as there were then. And remember also, many pages when things were being renamed the last time were redirected once. Double redirects regularly break down, so you aren't simply talking about renaming the pages, a feat in itself, but then changing what at this stage would be thousands of redirects, and redirects to redirects and vast number of links, all for a frankly minor and to my mind ugly change. I think we would be crazy to go down that route again. :-) FearÉIREANN 21:37, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed Alternative Rule for Royal Titles

message: :10. People in the Hispanic world often have a double surname. The first one is received from the father, the second from the mother. However, in practice only the paternal name is used, and one should thus add them to Wikipedia under this name. In the first mentioning of the name in the article, use the full name.
Why's that? Take for example Gabriel García Márquez -- why should he be put in the Wikipedia as Gabriel García or Gabriel Márquez? I think it would be better to say here the more common form should be used with Hispanic names. -- till we *) 00:37, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: "In practice only the paternal name is used" — that's not bad as a rule of thumb, but by no stretch of the imagination is it a universal rule, particularly when dad's surname is a common one (García, López, etc.). García Márquez is a good example; so is Vargas Llosa (and wikipedians should certainly appreciate this built-in system of  disambiguation). NB: On occasions, what you might think is a paternal-plus-maternal combination is actually a compound paternal surname. José López Portillo is a case in point here: it'd be absolutely wrong to refer to him as José López. User:till we *) is right that the more common form should be used.  –Hajor 15:33, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Famous people living in a Spanish speaking environment seldom are publicly known just by one of these simple names : Pepe Pérez, Antonio López, Juan Martínez, José Luis López... They're often known by a composed given name, or by two surnames (like Gabriel García Márquez), or by both surnames (father and mother's). An exceptional case is Spanish prime minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero who often uses just his mother surname (Zapatero) or even the nickname ZP (from Zapatero Presidente), since José Luis Rodríguez is too a common name in Spain. When Hispanics are famous in the States or other country where Spanish is not the first language, these tricks are not always used. This is why I found in English Wikipedia that José Luis Rodríguez entry was occupied by an article on singer and telenovela actor José Luis Rodríguez Gonzalo, El Puma. I redirected it to José Luis Rodríguez El Puma which is not simple at all. Any better idea?--Erri4a 23:48, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: (Above by User:Erri4a; please sign posts!) I would put "El Puma" at José Luis Rodríguez Gonzalo, with a note at Puma that "El Puma" often refers to him.  El Puma maybe should redirect to José Luis Rodríguez Gonzalo... but I'm not wholly comfortable with that.  For authors, the U.S. Library of Congress Catalog is a good resource to determine the citation form of a person's name.  I don't know of a good on-line source for other people except the Google test, which doesn't work well for ambiguous or common names. —Tkinias 23:07, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry. El Puma is José Luis Rodríguez González, but I didn't type it well.--Erri4a 23:39, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the link. The Library of Congress is useful to find authors and give us some ideas. Anyway, it doesn't solve the problem of how to name our articles. Lib of Congress tell us that there are several José Luis Rodríguez. It uses a number (birth year?) to distinguish some of them. It's an idea, but we should look for a better one.--Erri4a 23:48, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hispanic names 

message: Let's see if I got this thing. I have adopted the policy, which I understand to be consistent with these standards, of naming royalty by their most senior title, even if they eventually relinquished it or were deprived of it, and although they might be more commonly known under a different name (from where there should of course be a redirect). Hence Prince Carl, Duke of Ostrogothia, not Prince Carl Bernadotte; Prince Sigvard, Duke of Uplandia, not Count Sigvard Bernadotte af Wisborg. This once they are dead. Living persons however should probably be listed by their most common names? Certainly it must be so in the case of Prince Carl Philip, Duke of Wermelandia, as naming that article Carl Philip, Crown Prince of Sweden would use a title that he only had for a few months while infant, and (worse, of course) risk confusion for the inattentive reader as to him actually being the present Crown Prince. Agree or disagree? --Jao 01:59, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Any policy would have to allow for very special cases, and Sweden adopting a fully cognate succession must be that unique exceptions.  Otherwise, I believe the highest title should be used, but when writing an article every effort should be made to use Edward VIII of the United Kingdom|The Duke of Windsor rather than Duke of Windsor and unneccessarily redirect garryq 01:08, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lost royal titles 

message: And yet another question from me. What article title should go for Russian Grand Dukes and Grand Duchesses? Here there are actually three issues: inclusion/exlusion of patronymic; transcription; and word order. I have used Anna Petrowna, Grand Duchess of Russia and Maria Pawlowna, Grand Duchess of Russia (in the articles of their husbands, Charles Frederick of Holstein-Gottorp and Prince Wilhelm, Duke of Sudermannia respectively). Feel free to change if there is a better way to do this. -- Jao 20:46, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The formulation you use implies a unique title, I think.  I'd prefer Grand Duchess Anna Petrovna of Russia (also, I think the "v" would be better...using the "w" is an archaic Germanism, isn't it?) john 20:06, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Your line seems sound, so I'm changing into it. -- Jao 12:55, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russian royalty 

message: StanZegel initates a discussion:
There has been a dialogue at Template talk:German title Freiherr
that we should invite more comment on, here.
The problem is that many English-speakers do not recognize some words in a Germanic name as being a title and not a middle name. (They would think, if they ever thought about it at all, that once there was a little kid named Charlemagne running around, whose mother sometimes yelled "Charlemagne, stop playing and come in for your lunch!" out the castle window.) To a more modern example: consider Georg Ritter von Schönerer. He was born Georg Heinrich Schönerer before his father was knighted, and he inherited the Ritter von during his life. Some readers may assume that his middle name is "Ritter" and so I have been thinking about ways to help the reader avoid such mistakes when reading about anyone who has such a title embedded in his name.
One thought has been to provide a standardized caution. I have created a series of templates, e.g.  that places this text in those articles the invoke that template:
Nunh-huh suggested putting a link on the name, so Georg Ritter von Schönerer would show up in the topic sentence. I like that idea too, but it has two problems I have run into when trying it out: (1) You can't (shouldn't?) put a link in the article title, and (2) when there is a referral from another article to the person ([[[Georg Ritter von Schönerer]]) only the link to Ritter is shown as such and the rest of the would-be link is displayed as raw Wikicode. (If we do not put the link in the actual call, and use pipes do display the name with the Ritter portion linked, then the von Schönerer comes unlinked. That's probably a blessing-in-disguise, because doing those pipes would be so complicated.)
I'd like to put a proposal on the table.
There are already many articles e.g. Friedrich Karl Ferdinand, Freiherr von Muffling that have a comma before the title word. Many others do not. I think the comma hints that there is something special about the remaining words of the name. I'd like to propose that we make that form a standard.  (This is contrary to the Wikipedia standard on Cardinal in clerical names, but at least Cardinal is a term used by English-speakers, whereas Ritter, Freiherr, Graf, Fürst usw are not.)
Reactions?
--StanZegel 01:58, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really like this template, it seems kind of intrusive - I mean, if you didn't know "Ritter von..." was a title, now you know after reading one article, and you don't need to see it every time, right? The comma is a good idea, we do this for some counts and dukes, for example (like Name, Count of Whatever, although it's not like universally). Adam Bishop 07:04, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using a comma before embedded titles? 

message: However logical the policy on royal nomenclature may seem, a policy which results in the Queen Mother being called Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon is absurd, and therefore wrong. This ceased to be her name in 1923 and is recognised by no-one except historians. It's all very well to call James I's wife Anne of Denmark, when she was actually called Queen Anne, because she's no longer a well-known public figure. But the QM is, and she should be called by the name the current generation knows her as. So I have moved her to Elizabeth the Queen Mother to see what happens. Adam 11:07, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Adam - May I suggest you read all the previous discussion on this topic before taking such a drastic step.  There has already been considerable and lengthy debate over the title of this article. Deb 14:59, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: No doubt they do - when were they published?  Seriously though, that isn't the point, and you should always try to have all the information at your disposal before you "move a popular page"; furthermore, you should at least attempt to amend all the links.  In your comment above, you suggest two "correct" titles for the poor woman.  The one you moved the article to was different again, and at least another half-dozen variations have been proposed, all of which are supposedly "correct".  It's not as simple as you are implying. That's one reason why we went for an option that will remain valid whatever happens.  Deb 15:26, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: You are full of subjectivity, Adam.  What does "quite rightly" mean in this context?  Deb 15:56, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: I'm afraid there is no substance to address, Adam.  All you have said, above, is that you don't agree with the arguments that previously held sway.  You haven't given any reason why.  Your comments are unworthy of a historian. Deb 20:02, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: The QM

message: Why do we drop the "Princess" title for British Queen consorts (eg Alexandra of Denmark instead of Princess Alexandra of Denmark), while keeping them for other monarchies (eg Princess Victoria Eugenie of Battenberg and not Victoria Eugenie of Battenberg)? Why remove them at all?--Jiang 09:25, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The policy is to always remove them, so the Spanish article seems to be misplaced. And I think the reason for removing it is that historical queen consorts are (at least in most countries) most often referred to in that way. I'm not sure it's the best way, though. Vis-à-vis putting them at their queen names, I think there was also the argument that they were less likely to need disambiguation this way. I don't actually see that it is so. An example of the opposite: I have no idea where to place the first spouse of Sigismund III of Poland-Lithuania if she is to have an article – Anna of Austria is already taken. Ah, well.. While Queen Anna of Sweden or Queen Anna of Poland-Lithuania would be quite unique. So that argument would work both ways..
Anna of Austria is a redirect.  I think it should be disambiguation - there have been other notable Annas of Austria, as, for instance, Philip II's last wife. john 15:42, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

text: I agree. Deb 17:11, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  British queen consorts vs. other European consorts 

message: I would like to change No. 6 of Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_%28names_and_titles%29#Monarchical_Titles. For monarchs who have formally abdicated and are still alive, or who are usually referred to using non-royal titles (e.g. Simeon Saxe-Coburg Gotha), we should go by whatever they're currently known as and revert to the royal title only after they die. We have queen consorts under sovereign titles (Sofia of Spain) instead of maiden names. Why not put people where they're commonly known as? --Jiang 08:20, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Sofia isn't a good example, as that article is clearly wrongly titled.  I think your suggestion, though on the surface it might seem reasonable, requires a lot of thought. Deb 17:08, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: See no. 8 of Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_%28names_and_titles%29#Other_Royals. If that's wrong, then let's change it. --Jiang 21:19, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: I can't think of any cases other than Simeon. I don't see the logic behind the objection. --Jiang 21:19, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: Yes, I'm interested to hear how that case is different from the general case of living former monarchs.--Jiang 10:48, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Former monarchs still alive 

message: Conversation moved from User talk:John Kenney and User talk:Muriel Gottrop:
Hi John! Assuming you are a sysop (not sure), can you delete Charles, Duke of Orléans for me? Its just a redirect and i want to move a page there. Thanks, Muriel G 16:03, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear John, i'm afraid i have to disagree with you on this Firstname (Surname), frenchnobletitle de Title, because i rather have the English version, because this is a English Language encyclopaedia. The Duchesse du Berry and the Comte de Anjou s place are in the French wikipedia, as well as the Herzog von Sachsen und der Graf von Pfalz in the German one. When I'm back in Europe, i'll have a look in the Naming Conventions. Muriel G 13:37, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: Dear John, first i am glad you agree with me on the german titles!! Second, I understand your point: you want to follow the more traditional conventions, like the sources you cited (and i suspect that Duke of Orleans and Count of Artois give you the creeps, because you are not used to it). But put yourself into an (meaning not a scholar in History like you, or an interested amateur like me) ordinary user's position, while searching the internet, especially if they dont know French. The use of French titles is confusing (and in my own POV, ugly, but thats beside the matter) and might lead to unsuccessful searches. Anyway, either with the French convention or the English one, we do need a convention. Do you know the opinions of other users? Do you think this deserves a poll? Cheers, Muriel G 14:54, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: As to the general issue, I think my point was that use of the French titles is standard in English, and that the Wikipedia should follow standard English practice (used by other encyclopedias), rather than babying its readers and assuming they'll be confused by the standard way that French noble titles are referred to.  I mean, one might just as easily argue that English-speakers will be confused by the use of French or German given names, and that we should translate these into English.  Clearly, though, we should have redirects, and we should try to take care to explain the French titles somewhere.  I would agree that perhaps earlier titles that are actually associated with rule of a particular region, rather than just being noble titles, should perhaps be treated differently.  But I really don't see how using the convention that is generally used in English would be particularly confusing to readers.  But perhaps we should take this to a naming conventions page and invite the participation of others. john k 16:05, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: Why do I think it would be confusing: Do you want to translate every French title or just some? Do you want to mix Duc d'Orléans and Duke of Burgundy in the same article (cf. John, Duke of Burgundy)? If not, do you suggest to change to Duc de Bourgogne? Hope not :) What I would like to see: keep, as you said, the earlier titles in English (Burgundy, Aquitaine, Lorraine, Bourbon, Vendôme, etc). The later titles, around the Revolution Era, could be in English (for the sake of uniformity), with bolded French translation immediately after the English name, since you say that this is more acording to other sources. What would you like to see? Muriel G 08:17, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: I agree with your suggestion, seems a good compromise between the established French titles and reasonability. If we are going to make this a convention, shouldnt we ask for other people's opinion? Muriel G 17:20, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: As far as i know just Adam Bishop (great job in organizing the Rulers of Auvergne) and i already left him a message. Muriel G 09:43, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: I'd rather we followed normal English usage than the usage of other encyclopaedias, and it would seem rather odd to me to talk of "the Marquis de Somewhere" in the text of an article whose title is "Jean de Somewhere, marquis de Somewhere". Also, I believe usage such as "the earl of Warwick" is normally confined to history books, in which constant capitalisation of the numerous titles mentioned might be seen to break the flow (and which describe times when the Earl of Warwick was actually the earl of a place called Warwick rather than just someone with the title "Earl of Warwick"). Proteus (Talk) 16:41, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Proteus, could you provide some citations where the capital for the rank is used when reporting the full name of a French nobleman? john k 17:15, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You only need to search on Google to see what people do. Searching for "Motier Marquis de la Fayette" shows sites in English mainly using "Marquis de la Fayette" and sites in French (or based in France) using "marquis de la Fayette". The French embassy in the US () actually uses "Marquis". Proteus (Talk) 12:07, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: French titles

message: To whom it may interest:- User:Tkinias is not pleased with me at the moment, because I started transferring some of his articles, eg. Jules-Charles-Victurnien, 7e duc de Noailles, to what I thought was the correct title, ie. "7th duc" rather than "7e".  But in all the verbiage above, I don't think we ever discussed ordinals.  In fact, I didn't realise the French even used them.  So, anyone got any opinions? Deb 11:22, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: French Ordinals

message: I believe I brought this up a while ago on WikiProject Peerage, but not many people seem to watch there, so I thought I'd bring it up here: at the moment all life peers have their articles at the names they had before they were ennobled, but I think the system should be the same as it is for hereditary peers. While there are obviously exceptions such as Jeffrey Archer and Paddy Ashdown, most life peers are now plucked from obscurity or were unknown backbench MPs, and are almost always known by their peerage and not their name. How many people would realise that Thomas Henry Bingham was Lord Bingham of Cornhill, the Senior Law Lord, or that Ted Short was Lord Glenamara? The standard format for hereditary peers (Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington) even allows both pre-ennnoblement name and peerage to appear in the title, which is surely the best of both worlds and allows the greatest amount of instant recognition. I believe that unless a peer is overwhelmingly better known by their pre-ennoblement name alone (normally through being a famous politician), then both the name and the peerage should appear in the article title. Charlie Falconer, Baron Falconer of Thoroton would make it much more obvious to most people at first glance, or in a Google search, that the article was about the Lord Chancellor and not some random bloke who happened to have the same surname as him. Proteus (Talk) 11:34, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: If there was a vote, I didn't see it. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) says "Life peers (ie, people who have peerages awarded exclusively for their lifetime but who neither inherit it nor pass it on to anyone else) are generally mentioned by their personal name not title, because among other reasons a life peerage is often awarded at the end of a career, while the individual holding them may be far more widely known though their personal name, so use George Robertson, not Lord Robertson." It's said that for as long as I can remember. Proteus (Talk) 12:24, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: What you say is confirmation of what I thought.  The word "generally" surely implies "not always".  The vote I was thinking of related to hereditary titles, but the same applies there.  It all depends on the individual case. Deb 21:08, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That rule is definitely being interpreted as saying "no peerages in article titles for life peers", even if that's not what it literally says, so I think either it should be rewritten or it should be removed altogether and all peers should be treated with the same criteria, whether life or hereditary (there's already a rule saying hereditary peers known exclusively by their pre-ennoblement name should not have the peerage in the title). Proteus (Talk) 12:12, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the same criteria should apply to all peers. For many individuals, the awarding of a life peerage marks the beginning of a "new career" in the House of Lords or as a senior judge. The current rule states that titles should not be included in all cases, though the justification only applies in some instances. -- Emsworth 21:13, Jun 21, 2004 (UTC)
Would anyone have any objections, then, if I removed the paragraph about life peers and changed "Members of the hereditary nobility (ie, people who inherit their title), such as a marquess, viscount, count, duke. earl, etc., as with royals have two names" in paragraph 1 of that section to "Members of the nobility, such as a marquess, viscount, count, duke. earl, etc. (in the UK both hereditary and life peers), as with royals have two names"? Proteus (Talk) 18:26, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: Well, it's been a week, and no one's objected, so I'll take it that no one has any problems with that. Proteus (Talk) 09:26, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I just didn't understand what you meant by "two names". Deb 11:49, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: "two names" is just what's written there at the moment. I assume it means that a hypothetical Lord Smith is both "John Smith" and "6th Baron Smith", and that both should be included. I'm simply proposing changing that section so what it says at the moment (which probably isn't the best way of phrasing it, I admit, but I didn't write it) applies to both hereditary and life peers, and deleting the exception for life peers. The same exception that allows David Lloyd George and Bertrand Russell would allow Betty Boothroyd, Andrew Lloyd Webber and Margaret Thatcher, while making the far more useful (for most life peers) Valerie Amos, Baroness Amos the standard. Proteus (Talk) 14:32, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Life peers

message: I believe that the article on Catherine Oxenberg's mother should, according to our naming conventions, be at Princess Elizabeth of Yugoslavia, the name she uses in English-speaking countries, and which is part of her organization, the "Princess Elizabeth of Yugoslavia Foundation". However, others seem to think otherwise. We now have redirects (as the results of moves, etc.) at Kneginja Jelisaveta Karadjordjevic, Jelisaveta Karadjorjdevic, Princess Jelisaveta of Serbia, Countess Elizabeth of Serbia, Countess Jelisaveta of Serbia, Countess Jelisaveta of Serbia and Yugoslavia, Princess Elisabeth of Yugoslavia, and Princess Jelisaveta of Serbia and Yugoslavia.  There are (at present) no double redirects, but they are created whenever someone decides on another name.  Some guidance as to the proper place for the article would be welcome! -- Nunh-huh 18:49, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you - it should be at "Princess Elizabeth of Yugoslavia" - can't see any reason why not. Deb 21:08, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: I would like to see Elizabeth, Princess of Yugoslavia since Princess, at least last time i checked, is not a proper name. Muriel G 10:55, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: Fair enough, Elizabeth, Princess of Serbia and Yugoslavia then :) Muriel G 13:36, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: I dont see where is the problem. A monarchy usually has several Princesses and Princes. Muriel G 14:21, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see your point. Prince William of Wales does not belong at William, Prince of Wales. --Jiang 16:02, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: And why not ? :) Muriel G 13:46, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok!! I just saw the problem after i saved. You're right. Muriel G 13:57, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: I would be very happy to move it there (again) and fix the redirects (again), I'm just trying to get consensus first, because everytime I've fixed it Avala's moved it to yet another name, and we don't need yet another! - Nunh-huh 03:21, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Since we seem to be at consensus - 1, I'll do the fixing now. further thoughts still welcome. - Nunh-huh 06:31, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catherine Oxenberg's mother