Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)/Archive 12

message: There seems to have been a dispute over the naming of Hawaiian monarchs this past week that got a bit ugly.  Being argued over is whether or not the addition of the appendage "of Hawaii" at the end of the titles are actually necessary.  The argument is that the Hawaiian royal names are unique to Hawaii and Hawaii only and therefore the appendage of country shouldn't be needed, much like other non-Western and non-European monarchs are titled on Wikipedia.  (See the Japanese emperors: Hirohito, Akihito, etc.).
Also, the titles used for the Hawaiian monarchs seem confusing as they do not reflect the most common names they were known as, especially for the monarchs of the House of Kalakaua.  Julia Kapiolani of Hawaii should be listed as just Kapiolani as she is popularly known.  Believe it or not, many Hawaii residents don't know that Kapiolani's first name was Julia.  David Kalakaua of Hawaii should be simplified to Kalakaua, the official name he adopted upon becoming king.  At first I had difficulty finding these articles because of the complicated, confusing titles being used.  And as for the "of Hawaii" appendage, they are totally unnecessary I think because again, the names are unique to Hawaii and Hawaii only.
I think it should be defined as policy that Hawaiian names be referred to by their one name titles assumed upon becoming king and queen, respectively....
* Kamehameha
* Kamehameha II
* Kamehameha III
* Kamehameha IV
* Kamehameha V
* Lunalilo
* Kalakaua
* Liliuokalani
As opposed to the titles given now...
* Kamehameha I of Hawaii
* Kamehameha II of Hawaii
* Kamehameha III of Hawaii
* Kamehameha IV of Hawaii
* Kamehameha V of Hawaii
* William C. Lunalilo of Hawaii, or William Charles Lunalilo of Hawaii
* David Kalakaua of Hawaii
* Liliuokalani of Hawaii
--James Easton 21:12, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Sound okay to me. Note that I reverted some previous moves by an anon editor because they were done improperly using copy-and-paste rather than "move article", not to take any particular position on what the best name for the article is.  Some earlier disussion on this topic at Talk:David Kalakaua of Hawaii. -- Infrogmation 21:40, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: "of Hawaii" is needed, no matter how unique we think the title.  At the moment Edward I redirects to  Edward I of England.  The  use of William C. Lunalilo of Hawaii seems insulting if not POV, David Kalakaua ( which is the name I have most often come across) should redirect to Kalakaua of Hawaii for much the same reason.  The point about Kamehameha vs Kamehameha I is covered under ordinals royal numbering.  --garryq 10:23, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: From recollection aren't the Chinese and Japanese exceptions made because putting "of China" would be an inaccurate description, rather than any uniqueness of title? Timrollpickering 11:39, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: Seems to me it's a mistake for any convention not to be worldwide.Indulging parochialisms is less important than uniform equal treatment.--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 04:11, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Monarchy of Hawaii

message: The life peers policy was flawed (as discussed above). Since no-one objected to the proposal, I have made the necessary changes. -- Emsworth 13:46, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks reasonable, - but I only agree if the exceptions are kept as loosely defined as above.   On the bright side it does seem the new policy allows us to have John Thurso at John Thurso. 80.229.39.194 13:50, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Strongly disagree with the move of Bill Deedes.  He is simply not known as Baron Deedes in the UK.  80.229.39.194 14:15, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: Is Lord Deedes exclusively known as Bill Deedes, given that he has been a Baron for almost twenty years? -- Emsworth 14:41, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep.  You can't just look at a calendar and guess.  The moving of Denis Healey is also wrong.   80.229.39.194 14:52, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: And Cecil Parkinson.  Please can you stop this.  Thanks, 80.229.39.194 14:55, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to move it back if you believe the move was wrong. I have definitely decided to exclude: Lord Coe, Lord Ashdown, Lady Boothroyd, former PMs, and perhaps others as I come across them. Perhaps something easier to do would be to list below individuals whom you think should not be moved. For now, I will stop making the controverted moves; we can then discuss the individuals listed below as appropriate. -- Emsworth 14:59, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I will look into that.  I suspect it would be a big list.  I would suggest including all former Foreign Secretaries, Chancellors, and probably actually all former Cabinet members, along with former PMs from the list of ones to move now.  I will not be especially bothered by movings of non-cabinet people.  80.229.39.194 15:03, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously, one excludes those who were in the cabinet in the Lords (Lord Williams of Mostyn, Lady Amos, etc.) But the rule decided upon in the hereditary peers poll was that just personal names are to be used in the title when they are used exclusively in speech; the same standard has been applied to life peers. Google gives 2,420 hits for "Lord Howe of Aberavon," plus (most likely) a few from the 88,000 for "Lord Howe." So, how can one say that Lord Howe of Aberavon is exclusively referred to as Geoffrey Howe. -- Emsworth 15:09, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: That's quite a good rule - as a default.   I'd quite happy to see someone like Valerie Amos at Baroness Amos even, and the same for Baroness O'Cathain - I had to look up Detta and couldn't find it in any media.  Other Lords we wouldn't want to move include Andrew Lloyd-Webber and John Birt.   80.229.39.194 16:07, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Ooh, and another point is we should have a stronger presumption in favour of having the peerage name in the article title, if the peerage title is not the same as their surname.  So if all else was equal, we might have John Smith (Baron Smith), but David Jones, Baron Walker  80.229.39.194 16:08, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: (80.229.39.194 is me by the way as you can verify from the very similar sort of stuff in the contributs list ;)  Morwen - Talk 16:52, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: I also think we may be going too far now, and have marked my disagreements above.  Deb 10:14, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: This page wasn't on my watch list. so I couldn't object. There is going to be a whole host of arguments about this, with pages being moved to and fro. There are certain individuals who may not have had widespread national attention before their peerage but were prominent locally. A case in point is Giles Radice was was an MP for something like 30 years. Also people think of individuals differently depending on what generation they are from. Brian Rix for example will be familiar to people today as Lord Rix, and Mencap. But to anyone over 40 he is more familiar as the man behind the Whitehall Theatre farces. Mintguy (T) 11:12, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: Can we have a complete list of all those who have been moved? 12:09, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Life Peers policy

message: :When it comes to popes, whether Roman Catholic, Coptic or elsewhere, the format to be used is "Pope {papal name} {ordinal if more than one} of {episcopal see}". Popes of Rome shall not be linked with their episcopal sees: Rome is understood. Besides popes should not be entered as personal name. So Pope John Paul I, neither Albino Luciani nor Pope John Paul I of Rome....
But it says "ordinal if more than one", and "I" isn't more than one. What should it say? (- unsigned)
Until there was a Pope John Paul II, Wikipedia would call Pope John Paul I "Pope John Paul". We refer to him as Pope John Paul I now that there has been a second pope with his name. (Note that, for better or worse, Wikipedia has adopted the British system, in which there is a "Queen Victoria" but no "Queen Victoria I" until there's a "Queen Victoria II". Most non-British systems of ordinal numbers simply give a "I" to the first monarch of any name (i.e., it's properly King Juan Carlos I of Spain, even though Wikipedia insists on calling him Juan Carlos of Spain, because it insists on mapping non-British monarchies onto the British model). - Nunh-huh 03:04, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Papal ordinals 

message: The general rule may be the following:  "use the most common form of the name used in English if none of the rules below cover a specific problem."
However, there are obvious exceptions that would not sound right.  Wilhelm II of Germany should not be disfigured to William II of Germany.  There are many other similar problems of disfigurement.  Many people would say that Pedro II of Brazil should not be disfigured to Peter II of Brazil even though that disfigurement is mandated by the general rule.
I propose the following rule for handling many exceptions for people living after 1785.  Wikipedia should follow the usage of the London Times.  Your local university library can get access to the digital London Times after 1785.  Accordingly, en.Wikipedia.org should use the monarch's name that is commonly used in the popular English press as manifested by the usage in the London Times.
Specifically, since the London Times uses Pedro rather than Peter in referring to Pedro II of Brazil, Peter II of Brazil should be moved to Pedro II of Brazil.  Similarly, Peter I of Brazil should be moved to Pedro I of Brazil.  ---Rednblu 17:02, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That would seem consistent, but probably not appreciated. This is from Talk:Juan Carlos of Spain: "Wiki doesn't translate things into english, it uses the form used in english. English speakers call him Juan Carlos not John Charles so that is why he is called Juan Carlos here. Ditto with Wilhelm II of Germany, who though often called William was regularly called Wilhelm in english also, so there is no need to translate his name. But nobody in English called Tsar Nicholas II Nikolai so he is in as Nicholas, as is his brother Michael II, not MIkhail, just as Juan Carlos' father-in-law is in as King Paul of Greece, not Pavlos." And this is from Talk:Haile Selassie of Ethiopia: "Modern monarchs are all in the form of [[{Name} {ordinal if more than one} of {name of state}]], with the name used in english unless a native name is used also in english or there is no english equivalent. (eg, Tsar Nicholas II of Russia not Tsar Nikolai II, Kaiser Wilhelm II not Kaiser William II)." So there are exceptions to the rule, and Wilhelm seems to be one. And so perhaps I was a bit rough, and Pedro/Peter should be an exception, too? I just haven't seen any arguments for Pedro being the more common name for him in English. Where does the Britannia put him, for example? That could serve as a guideline. -- Jao 09:15, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
---
"Consistent, but probably not appreciated."  Yep.  That sounds right to me. :))  Britannica puts both Peter I and II of Brazil under "Pedro."  But they also put a lot of early Pedros of Portugal under Peter.  So they have a very relaxed set of rules.  My cursory sampling of monarchs' names in the Britannica would be consistent with giving monarchs Anglicized names if they have been dead for over two hundred years.  So maybe you have accurately stated the rule:  "Consistent, but probably not appreciated" with the understanding that the cost-benefit balance between "consistent" and "not appreciated" shifts somewhere around 150 to 200 years.  :))  ---Rednblu 14:08, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: After consulting the digital archives of the London Times for the 1800s and finding many, many references to Dom Pedro of Brazil and none for "Peter of Brazil," I propose the following.  First, "Peter II of Brazil" should be moved to "Pedro II of Brazil;" similarly for his father "Peter I of Brazil" should be moved to "Pedro I of Brazil."  Second, that Wikipedia should adopt the Anglicized monarch name if the London Times did at the time; similarly Wikipedia should adopt the native monarch name if the London Times did at the time.  ---Rednblu 16:45, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The London Times solution might be a bit flawed, as the tendency is towards non-anglicized/non-normalized names for living people. At least it has been so for some time, I don't know really about the 19th century. But I think it might be quite right to have the Pedros of Brazil at Pedro. My comments on the talk page were more a reaction to the French analogy (which was seriously flawed) than anything else, really, and if evidence is Pedro is the more common usage in English, then Pedro it should be. Perhaps this discussion should be copied to Talk:Pedro II of Brazil and Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles) alike, so it will be more visible for those interested. -- Jao 17:37, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
---
I am copying this dialog right now.  I also posted a comment to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles.  ---Rednblu 17:54, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exceptions for [[Wilhelm II of Germany]] etc.  Suggest we follow the usage in the London Times 

message: Thanks for assisting so quickly our quandary over the proper name for the page on "Pedro II of Brazil."  I moved the page name back to "Peter II of Brazil." 
But I have a question.  Should I move Wilhelm II of Germany to William II of Germany? ---Rednblu 08:46, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That would seem consistent, but probably not appreciated. This is from Talk:Juan Carlos of Spain: "Wiki doesn't translate things into english, it uses the form used in english. English speakers call him Juan Carlos not John Charles so that is why he is called Juan Carlos here. Ditto with Wilhelm II of Germany, who though often called William was regularly called Wilhelm in english also, so there is no need to translate his name. But nobody in English called Tsar Nicholas II Nikolai so he is in as Nicholas, as is his brother Michael II, not MIkhail, just as Juan Carlos' father-in-law is in as King Paul of Greece, not Pavlos." And this is from Talk:Haile Selassie of Ethiopia: "Modern monarchs are all in the form of [[{Name} {ordinal if more than one} of {name of state}]], with the name used in english unless a native name is used also in english or there is no english equivalent. (eg, Tsar Nicholas II of Russia not Tsar Nikolai II, Kaiser Wilhelm II not Kaiser William II)." So there are exceptions to the rule, and Wilhelm seems to be one. And so perhaps I was a bit rough, and Pedro/Peter should be an exception, too? I just haven't seen any arguments for Pedro being the more common name for him in English. Where does the Britannia put him, for example? That could serve as a guideline. -- Jao 09:15, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
---
"Consistent, but probably not appreciated."  Yep.  That sounds right to me. :))  Britannica puts both Peter I and II of Brazil under "Pedro."  But they also put a lot of early Pedros of Portugal under Peter.  So they have a very relaxed set of rules.  My cursory sampling of monarchs' names in the Britannica would be consistent with giving monarchs Anglicized names if they have been dead for over two hundred years.  So maybe you have accurately stated the rule:  "Consistent, but probably not appreciated" with the understanding that the cost-benefit balance between "consistent" and "not appreciated" shifts somewhere around 150 to 200 years.  :))  ---Rednblu 14:08, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: After consulting the digital archives of the London Times for the 1800s and finding many, many references to Dom Pedro of Brazil and none for "Peter of Brazil," I propose the following.  First, "Peter II of Brazil" should be moved to "Pedro II of Brazil;" similarly for his father "Peter I of Brazil" should be moved to "Pedro I of Brazil."  Second, that Wikipedia should adopt the Anglicized monarch name if the London Times did at the time; similarly Wikipedia should adopt the native monarch name if the London Times did at the time.  ---Rednblu 16:45, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The London Times solution might be a bit flawed, as the tendency is towards non-anglicized/non-normalized names for living people. At least it has been so for some time, I don't know really about the 19th century. But I think it might be quite right to have the Pedros of Brazil at Pedro. My comments on the talk page were more a reaction to the French analogy (which was seriously flawed) than anything else, really, and if evidence is Pedro is the more common usage in English, then Pedro it should be. Perhaps this discussion should be copied to Talk:Pedro II of Brazil and Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles) alike, so it will be more visible for those interested. -- Jao 17:37, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
---
I am copying this dialog right now.  I also posted a comment to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles.  ---Rednblu 17:54, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion copied from [[User talk: Jao]] 

message: While the examples given in the recent edit under "All Titles" are unobjectionable, it should be made clear that the general principle articulated in the Chicago Manual of Style reflects American usage only: British usage is to use capitals even when it is not attached to the name of a person, when that person is referred to: e.g. "The Prime Minister today visited the Queen at Balmoral" Andrew Yong 11:32, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Capitalisation

message: I preface my comments by stating that I have a strong interest in genealogy, and that is how I came to find Wikipedia - by searching for names of interest.  Having skimmed through a lot of the previous discussion on naming conventions, particularly for Royalty, I find that most of the talk has ignored the fact that all individuals have a 'birth' or 'baptismal' name that sticks with them throughout their lives.  Some individuals acquire various titles at birth and others at stages through their lives, some are more commonly known by short forms and nicknames, some have no surnames or family names, but all are named in some way at birth, almost universally by their parents.  Some people become better known by the title, the name of their office, their reputation, or some other appellation, but their birth name cannot be ignored.
Therefore individuals should be primarily indexed under their, usually, unique birth name.  This is the only truly consistent method to adopt.  It is also the only way that searches of a huge volume of data, such as Wikipedia, can find all the references to that individual.  No matter what stage of their life they may hold whatever office or title, they still retain their birth names, as has been indirectly indicated in previous discussion.  It is not possible to compile a comprehensive record in any other way - there will be too many ambiguities.
Thus, using the example given previously, the place where the biographical details of the person known to most British citizens as the Queen Mother should reside would be under a heading "Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon".  Of course there would be numerous cross-referencing from her other appellations, but the primary article should be under her birth name.
I am also involved in compiling and using many other database applications, and the above is consistent with sound practice elsewhere.
Another comment should be made in reference to the 'anglising' of foreign names - in my opinion this should not be done.  Carl Josef was not named Charles Joseph, neither was Carlos named Charles.  It is presumtuous and incorrect.  Have all the Mexican-Americans named Pedro been renamed Peter by the US Government? No, they are recorded as Pedro. Why would Wikipedia presume to change people's names?
:Well, I certainly agree with you. Deb 14:15, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it's not my place to defend the above, but I took the comments (specifically the word "primarily") to mean that there would be exceptions, but that in the majority of cases the birth name would be used.  Note that he doesn't say the full birth name, and in fact gives the example of Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, which was not her full name but was the name she used before she acquired any other names or titles.  I particularly agree with him on the question of foreign names, though I've always gone along with the standards that had already been established before I arrived here (which is rather a long time ago now). Deb 17:26, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: But this is an argument for using the name by which people are most commonly known, rather than an argument for always appending a person's title. - 17:10, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming conventions 

message: On Talk:Princess Olga of Greece and Denmark an objection is being raised to referring to Princess Olga of Greece and Denmark as such, on the basis of "neutrality". This seems quite silly to me (I believe the name is correct under current naming conventions), but other opinions and further input would be welcome there. - Nunh-huh 20:36, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comment: Princess Olga of Greece and Denmark 

message: I have to say I have been absolutely disgusted with the Wikipedian practice of moving articles on peers to titles which use only one given name. All my Encyclopaedia Britannica editions unite,for example,in listing the 3rd Marquess of Salisbury with "Robert Arthur Talbot Gascoyne-Cecil" in the article title,not just "Robert Gascoyne-Cecil". If some names trigger a length limit (like the Earl of Mar from 1930-32,John Francis Hamilton Sinclair Cunliffe Brooks Forbes Goodeve-Erskine) I can see some relaxation,but with all the Earls of Mar who have been some form of "John Erskine",the additional names should not be considered any more optional than the number.I've already expressed to Proteus that I have zero respect and zero tolerance for this policy and will only contribute or improve articles I am sure do NOT observe it...but the problem is the existence of this "bright idea" in the first place.If a particular given name is the most used,that should be mentioned in the article text, but there is no reason for a reference that aspires to be authoritative to be less than completist in the article title.Letting the full names be only in the text is putting the cart before the horse.--Louis Epstein/le@put.com/12.144.5.2 18:10, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: If a peer is best known by a shortened form of the name it should be used - see Talk:Charles Ronald George Nall-Cain, 3rd Baron Brocket for one discussion on this. But I agree there are some peers, usually in the higher ranks and from later inheritances, who should have fuller versions of their names than they've been moved to. Flexibility and individual talk page discussions are best here. Timrollpickering 16:30, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Use All of a Peer's Given Names,Within Reason!!