Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:33, 18 February 2024

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 7 sections are present.

Russian tsarinas

One thing with WP:CONSORTS that troubles me is the section on Russian tsarinas. There's no reason that their names as empress need to be included as opposed to the typical format for deceased queens and empresses consort. I'm not going to do a formal RfC tag (yet) but hopefully someone has some insight as to why this has become the case and whether or not they would support removing that section and returning the Russian empresses to the same format as most other queens and empresses consort. estar8806 (talk) ★ 02:39, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I think because they essentially changed their names and/or religion when they married the tsars? I mean Dagmar of Denmark was known as Maria Feodorovna in Russia, and that's a completely different name to her birth name. Also, since they are mostly notable as tsarinas, the names they took after their marriages are most probably the common names. If we are to continue using the married names, the currently used format allows for disambiguation. We have two Russian empresses named Maria Feodorovna (1, 2) and two named Alexandra Feodorovna (1, 2). They were not really creative when it came to names I guess. Also, the maiden name is not unique in the case of Dagmar of Denmark, though if there were ever a consensus to use maiden names for Russian empresses we could easily determine if she is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC or not. Keivan.f 12:39, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Although I have very little knowledge, professional or otherwise of Russian royalty, I have also had issues with the way the English Misplaced Pages's articles on the tsarinas and empresses consort of Russia are titled. Unless there are reliable scholarly sources that would support calling these tsarinas and empresses by their married names, I, like estar8806, am in favor of renaming their article titles to be more in line with WP:CONSORTS, per WP:CONSISTENT.

On that note, as they are, the article titles of Russian tsarinas and empresses consort are inconsistent. For example, the article on Ivan V of Russia's wife is called Praskovia Saltykova (her maiden name), but the article on Alexander I of Russia's wife is primarily titled Elizabeth Alexeievna (her married name), while including her maiden name. Also, as Keivan.f noted, names such as "Alexandra Feodorovna" fail WP:PRECISION, as there are two empresses consort of Russia referred to as such. Finally, only including maiden names for the article titles of non-Russian tsarinas and empresses consort would be in the spirit of WP:CONCISE when compared to the current names. Hurricane Andrew (444) 03:26, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

The page name of Princess Alexandra, the Honourable Lady Ogilvy

Just a short, possibly few, months ago, I created a move request here, and received feedback from merely 4 of 5 people. It was in regards to the name of the page listed in the title of this section. Princess Alexandra, as far as I have studied, does go by an official title which is the Honourable Lady Ogilvy, but following the WP:Commonname rules and the Royalty naming conventions. Honourable Lady Ogilvy is not a substantive title because she acquired it solely through marriage and is known as "Princess Alexandra" from many sources, but for clarification and encyclopedic reasons as well as the naming conventions, should take upon "of Kent". This section is, of course, much shortened than my original post on the requested move page, and I highly encourage you to read it. I am only putting this here to get more feedback upon the correct title and if it can be changed or not. I would like all who contribute to this to please put the following options before their comment to create a valid and clear consensus:

• Support – (message)
• Oppose – (message)
• Unsure... – (message)
  

Thank you!
BillClinternet (talk) 01:41, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Update

I am still taking opinions on this matter, however, I ask that you stay on topic.

Thanks be to those who've already shared their thoughts.

BillClinternet (talk) 00:26, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support move to "Princess Alexandra of Kent" - BillClinternet, I agree with the rationale of your original proposal, especially given that as you noted, the House of Windsor's website doesn't even mention "The Honourable Lady Ogilvy" in their primary biography for Alexandra.

I will add the following rationale for supporting such a page move:

Princess Alexandra of Kent is the common name for the cousin of Elizabeth II in question, at least according to Google search results:

• 1: "Princess Alexandra of Kent" yields 204,000 hits,
• 2: "The Honourable Lady Ogilvy" yields 49,500 hits, and
• 3: "Princess Alexandra The Honourable Lady Ogilvy" yields 49,100 hits.

Finally, while I recognize the following may violate WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, it should be noted that the English Misplaced Pages article titles for three of the four sisters of Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden (and Princess Alexandra's third cousins) follow a similar format as the current article title of "Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Lady Ogilvy": (The sisters are numbered from oldest to youngest)

1. Princess Margaretha, Mrs. Ambler
2. Princess Désirée, Baroness Silfverschiöld
3. Princess Christina, Mrs. Magnuson

I would support moving these three article titles as well to Princess (name) of Sweden in the spirit of WP:CONSISTENT if this discussion favors a move for Princess Alexandra's page.

Hurricane Andrew (444) 03:51, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts. Another thing to point out too, is that on most, if not all, Misplaced Pages pages with the beginning simply have "Princess Alexandra..." followed by a territorial suffix, with an exception for the 2nd Duchess of Fife.

I believe the matter of the Swedish princesses should be posted on their respective Misplaced Pages talk pages.

I think it's completely out-of-question for people to have been saying that just because she took on the title "Princess Alexandra of Kent" prior to her marriage doesn't mean that isn't her common name.

Another thing is... Ignore all rules! The use of "The Honourable Lady Ogilvy" makes the article so inconsistent as the fact her father was the Duke of Kent and grandfather being George V, making her seem like a minor British peeress, although being a Princess.

Thanks for the thoughts,

BillClinternet (talk) 04:05, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

• Procedural oppose. It's inappropriate to launch an identical requested moves discussion at a different venue without informing any previous participants or the original talk page. I see nothing wrong with launching an identical discussion at the article talk page many months after a previous discussion has closed or a new discussion about a different target at the same article talk page soon after a discussion of a different target, but launching an identical discussion of the same target so soon after the last one in a different, dare I say secret, venue is out-of-process. DrKay (talk) 06:53, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
• Procedural oppose I agree entirely with DrKay. It hasn't been a month since the last discussion was closed and here we are again. People just have to accept the results when something doesn't go their way. Not to mention that any requests for a name change should follow the rules set out by WP:RM and such discussions take place on the article's talk page, where those who are interested and previous participants can have a chance to chime in. Some members of the community opposed this name change for different reasons which I will not go into here. Keivan.f 11:58, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

  I understand your opinions, although they don't relate to the matter whatsoever with an exception for where this discussion is placed and when.

  Opposition to the matter of the title doesn't relate to where and when in regards to the previous discussion.

  Thanks for your thoughts, however.

  BillClinternet (talk) 12:20, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support - either Princess Alexandra of Kent or Princess Alexandra, Lady Ogilvy. We don't need "The Honourable..." bit, either way. GoodDay (talk) 14:08, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you. I'd like to add that I think adding "Lady Ogilvy" would complicate things a bit more, because that is even further from her actual title and innacurate.

  Thanks for the support.

  BillClinternet (talk) 02:56, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support Princess Alexandra of Kent, but not the other options. Deb (talk) 14:34, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you.

  BillClinternet (talk) 02:55, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. The standard on living royals appears to be to refer to them by their current titles. She hasn't been "Of Kent" in 6 decades.2601:249:9301:D570:38CF:2358:328E:C8EF (talk) 13:49, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

  Common-name, royalty naming conventions, and original talk page debate on Alexandra's talk page says otherwise. I suggest making an account and familiarizing yourself in Misplaced Pages decorum, basic rules, guidelines, and most foremost the five pillars.

  Appreciate the input, though.

  BillClinternet (talk) 17:43, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

RfC: Should the guideline explicitly accept Elizabeth II, Carl XVI Gustaf, etc titles?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of the discussion is consensus in support of the proposal to update the guideline to explicitly endorse the use of shorter titles where no disambiguation is needed.

Discussion focused around article title WP:CRITERIA and current practices.

• Recognizability was brought up as an argument against the proposal. This was rebutted, editors point out that titles should be recognizable specifically to someone familiar with the subject.

• Precision was discussed as an argument against the proposal, but this was also rebutted, as it specifically suggests the lack of a need for disambiguation (natural or otherwise) when there is primary topic or no ambiguity.

• Consistency was brought up as an argument against the proposal but this idea was mostly rebutted. It was pointed out that disambiguation (including natural disambiguation) is explicitly not an area where consistency is generally applied, and examples including heads of state were brought up as a comparative example. Ultimately this was the strongest argument in favor, as one editor pointed out (in the Statement by AndrewPeterT below) that WP:TITLE allows for topic-specific naming conventions. However, overall it is still not a strong argument in favor, both because of the aforementioned rebuttals and also since it's so tightly coupled to the proposal so as to nearly be begging the question.

• As pointed out by editors, concision is a clear argument in favor of the proposal, and no effective rebuttal based on WP:CRITERIA or other policy was provided.

• Finally, editors pointed out that the proposal reflects current practice, which suggests an very strong consensus the other way would be needed to reject the proposal.

Based on the strength of argument from existing policy, and existing practices amongst editors, as well as the preponderance of opinions, there is a strong consensus to adopt the proposal.

I will point out that based on points raised in this discussion, the proposal is very much in line with existing policy, namely WP:CRITERIA. My own opinion is that it may benefit editors to have this guideline updated to better reflect that policy, rather than be laid out as "exceptions to exceptions" to that policy. It could be an opportunity to simplify the guideline. However that note is explicitly not an outcome of the discussion and just my own interpretation of the state of the guideline with respect to the discussion. (non-admin closure) —siroχo 09:46, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

For over a decade now the titles of articles about British monarchs have been at Elizabeth II, George VI, Edward VIII, etc. Likewise it has been 13 years since Maria Theresa of Austria was moved to Maria Theresa (discussion) and Louis-Philippe I of France to Louis-Philippe I (discussion), longer still since Napoleon I of France was abandoned for Napoleon. Three years ago the country qualifiers were dropped for titles such as Juan Carlos I and others (discussion), Carl XVI Gustaf and others (discussion), Elizabeth I (discussion) and others, Louis XIV and others (discussion), etc.

This year multiple attempts to move articles back to the Name Number of Country format failed: Alfonso XIII to Alfonso XIII of Spain and similar (discussion), Napoleon III to Napoleon III of France and similar (discussion), Elizabeth II to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom and similar (discussion)

Should a point be added to WP:SOVEREIGNS to reflect these changes and explicitly endorse the use of shorter titles where no disambiguation is needed? Surtsicna (talk) Surtsicna (talk) 07:50, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

• Query. Just to be clear: is the proposal to set out a list of articles where this exception applies or is it a statement added explicitly accepting that exceptions can be agreed locally at each article (without listing the articles). The former would be quite unusual, I think. DeCausa (talk) 08:10, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

DeCausa: it is an open proposal, where hopefully we can hammer out the best course of action in a joint effort. I am not fond of the former option you listed; it does not help make the guideline relevant again. See my comment below for my idea on how to approach this. Surtsicna (talk)

DeCausa: I have now included an explicit proposal of action in the opening for clarity and simplicity. I still invite everyone to share alternative ideas. Surtsicna (talk) 09:30, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, I believe the guideline should be updated to reflect the present (and long-standing) reality. As it stands now, NCROY is out of touch and consequently largely irrelevant. The change could be as simple as listing some of the examples under point 2 of the Sovereigns section; alternatively (and preferably), we could add a new point explicitly endorsing the disambiguation-less format for subjects with unambiguous or primary-usage names. Surtsicna (talk) 08:23, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
• Query I was bought here by a notification at an article I watch. Please be more specific about which part of WP:NCROY is under review and the specific text that might be changed. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:48, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

  WP:SOVEREIGN; the question is whether the guideline should be modified to take into account the apparent preference for shortening the biography titles over the past decade. What specific text could/should be changed is open for discussion; see my idea above. Surtsicna (talk)

Cinderella157: I have now included an explicit proposal of action in the opening for clarity and simplicity. I still invite everyone to share alternative ideas. Surtsicna (talk) 09:29, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

• Yes but where there needs to be distinguishing, then you could use the longer terms unless there is a clear WP:PRIMARY case for leaving it alone (like Charles III). The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 09:17, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

The C of E: I have now included an explicit proposal of action in the opening for clarity and simplicity. I still invite everyone to share alternative ideas. Surtsicna (talk) 09:29, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

• Already the guideline says "If there is an overwhelmingly common name, use it: William the Conqueror, John Balliol, Peter the Great, Henry the Fowler, Mary, Queen of Scots, Gustavus Adolphus, Eric of Pomerania, Charlemagne. This is in line with WP:COMMONNAME." So, maybe all that's needed is to expand on the treatment of British monarchs in this way, such as Queen Victoria. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:22, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Andrew Davidson: I have now included an explicit proposal of action in the opening for clarity and simplicity. I still invite everyone to share alternative ideas. Surtsicna (talk) 09:29, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, omit the country name in general, with two exceptions that I can think of. The first, already mentioned above, would be where the use of the country name or the like would be necessary for disambiguation, e.g., with all the various ones named Charles IV. The second would be where someone is overwhelmingly known by such a name, and such would therefore clearly constitute the common name. Seraphimblade 09:57, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
• Yes, but per Seraphimblade's suggestion. The addition of the country is often clunky and unnecessary. It should be added "when neccessary" (per Seraphimblade) rather than the default with permitted exceptions. DeCausa (talk) 10:25, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
• Yes Project naming conventions should provide context specific guidance but remain consistent with the superior WP:P&G (WP:AT). Disambiguation is only required when there is an actual conflict in titles. Concision is preferred over unnecessary precision. When there is more than one fourth (IV) Henry, we have WP:PRIMARYTARGET. A preferred pattern of disambiguation ("{Monarch's first name and ordinal} of {Country}") should only be applied when necessary. The guidance at WP:SOVEREIGN should be amended such that it is in harmony with WP:AT in every respect. By my reading, this is more than just a simple copy-edit but a general review. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:22, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
• Yes. Current guideline language (normally have article titles in the form "{Monarch's first name and ordinal} of {Country}") is misleading by omission. The community has upheld "{Monarch's first name and ordinal}" across a range of articles, a pattern which cannot be swept under the rug as exceptions. Even something as simple as, "in most cases, they have article titles of the form '{Monarch's first name and ordinal} of {Country}'...; in other cases, they have article titles of the form '{First name and ordinal}' (examples: Elizabeth II, Napoleon III)", would be a helpful start. I'm not proposing to bring back the overly rigid-sounding prescriptive language ("if xyz is unambiguous, use xyz") from 2–3 years ago. Rather, the problem is that the guideline should be more accurately descriptive of actual practice. Spending some words on this is not unnecessary creep; it's a significant point that has naturally arisen repeatedly. Adumbrativus (talk) 11:27, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
• Yes. As said above, it’s already the precedent without disambiguation. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:10, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

No. It’s a slippery path to the worse outcome. The expense is poor adherence to CONSISTENCY and RECOGNIZABILITY. The loss of “King”, “Queen”, and “of <country>” hurts RECOGNIZABILITY, and has created frequent conundrums of inconsistency, the worst being that non-regnant queens are given more formality than regnant queens. This path was, is, tempting, because sources tend to use shortforms. However, sources, whether primary cotemporary sources, or modern biographies, are written from a perspective of high familiarity. Unfortunately, the real world sources do not have consistency in referring to royalty, and so this is an unusual case of Misplaced Pages having to choose a consistent style. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:21, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Elizabeth II/Archive 48#Requested move 30 July 2023 is an interesting discussion. I haven’t read it thoroughly, but I believe it does make the case that there is a problem, even if the solution was rejected. I don’t know the solution, but I suspect that “of <country>” should be for non anglophone countries. For the Anglophone countries, the country could be assumed to be of the language of this Misplaced Pages, and the anglophone country name changes too often, over centuries. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:31, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I don’t see why we need “formality” from spelling out everything in the title. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:37, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

We don’t. Is that the slippery slope fallacy you’re applying. If it’s not minimalist, it’s ridiculously long? SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:05, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

How is this a slippery slope? I’m simply responding to the worst being that non-regnant queens are given more formality than regnant queens; why is that bad? I don’t understand your third sentence. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:35, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

You used the construction “spelling out everything”, which sounds like going to an extreme. Some princesses have many names and titles. It sounded like you equate putting in anything unnecessary means putting everything in the title and making it ridiculously long.

Maybe I misunderstand you. What do you mean by “formality”. For me, formality for title for royalty is something that contributes consistency and connection to reliable source usage.

On non-regnant queens getting more “formality” than regnant queens, I am referring to how a non-regnant queen is more likely to be titled with her title, and worse he childhood title, than is a Queen regnant. For example, I think the comparison of Matilda of Flanders and Empress Matilda is confusing. Which one would you guess was queen of England? Which one would a reader not encultured to Misplaced Pages guess? SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:54, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

You are not supposed to guess which one was queen of England from the article title. That is what the lead sentence is for. Recognizability means that a reader familiar with the subject would recognize that they arrived at the correct article upon seeing the title. Someone familiar with Matilda of Flanders would know that they are at the right place because that is her common name. Ditto for Olav V, Louis XVI, Edward III, etc. Surtsicna (talk) 17:32, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Agree you are not supposed to guess.

Someone familiar with Queens of England might be hindered in Matilda being titled by origin not highest notable rank.

I know the purpose of a lead sentence. Can you state the purpose of an article title? SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:01, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Article titles: Article titles should be recognizable, concise, natural, precise, and consistent, with "recognizable" defined as recognizable to people familiar with the subject. On preciseness it explicitly says Saint Teresa of Calcutta is too precise, as Mother Teresa is precise enough to indicate exactly the same topic. So according to that policy we should just drop the origin unless there is a clear need to disambiguate, which I don't see with Queen Victoria. The other three are way less well-known than the one of the UK. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:17, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Extreme cases make bad law. Mother Theresa and King Carl XVI are extreme at the end of extremely notable. I don’t think there is serious disagreement on Mother Theresa or Carl XVI, unless someone argues that there can be only on e suitable article title.

Matilda of Flanders is a more middle of the road example. Obscure to most readers, passingly familiar to many English historians, familiar to very few. Is there a kernel of agreement between us that her article title is non-ideal? Someone bluelinked Matilda, Queen Consort of William I of England. I suggest Matilda, queen consort of William the Conqueror might be the best title, by using the current Misplaced Pages article title of her husband king. Put into the title text her substantive highest position, in a way that might be suitable for consistency and easy recognisability with all other historical Queen consorts. There are a number of other possibilities, all with pros and cons, but all are non-minimalist. To note one piece of annoying noise, her COMMONNAME probably uses “Maud”. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:24, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I get what you were saying in the reply right below this one now. However, none of the royal consorts mention that they are a consort in their article title, partly because "you are not supposed to guess". For someone familiar to queen consorts Matilda should also be recognizable. I have no clue on English royal history so would you kindly enlighten me on why COMMONNAME would be Maud? Aaron Liu (talk) 01:18, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Maud is the diminutive form for Matilda. She seems to have been actually called Maud. It’s like Harry for Henry. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:58, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

COMMONNAME is not about arbitrary nicknames, it’s about what most modern people known the subject as. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:18, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I didn’t mean to suggest otherwise. I noted that it looked like in her time she was actually called Maud, but you’re right, modern sources overwhelmingly call her Matilda. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:04, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Additionally, I didn’t mean absolutely everything; I think adding title, position and origin is already “spelling out everything”. Misplaced Pages prioritizes COMMONNAME way over formality. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:03, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Title, position, and origin, agree that would be too much.

Carl XVI is minimal, unambiguous, but it is too little.

Prominent cases should set good example. Minimal titles are unworkable for the general case, the work for unusual names, which tend to be obscure cases.

Queen Victoria is an excellent example. England/Britain/UK/Empress of India can be assumed, for the English Misplaced Pages.

Queen Victoria of Sweden would be a good future title. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:58, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

What I do not understand is why Carl XVI Gustaf should need "of Sweden" appended to his name for recognizability if Park Geun-hye, for example, does not need "of South Korea" appended to hers. Surtsicna (talk) 12:54, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

You do not understand why there is a separate guideline for royalty and nobility? Or you don’t understand why a national President is not considered royalty? I don’t think you are being genuine here.

The question you appear to be alluding to is whether the style of titling should indicate royalty.

Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden looks reasonable. I think King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden has a strong line of merit. But why not Kung Carl XVI Gustaf?

President Park Geun-hye of South Korea? I agree, Park Geun-hye of South Korea looks wrong, unlike Carl of Sweden, but both are shorthand, hurting recognisability, and making it really hard to have consistency between well known cases and obscure cases.

I submit that title RECOGNISABILITY and CONSISTENCY are much more valuable to readers than brevity, and have no pretence that there is an easy answer to this persistent problem. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:25, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Fairly obviously, Surtsicna isn't raising either of the 2 questions you pose. The question is why should a monarch have a country designation and a non-royal head of state should not? The answer is they shouldn't - unless disambiguation is needed. It's unnecessary otherwise. DeCausa (talk) 13:59, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Fuzzy — I prefer to add the title first (especially for Queen Victoria as vs. Victoria — what if someone seeks a London train station, a Canadian provincial capital, or an Australian state?); and retaining it for the article title (Queen Elizabeth II) even when relatively unambiguous (as in Elizabeth II).

On the other hand, adding the country name where one rulet is overwhelmingly sought is just clumsy (to non-enthusiasts). When someone outside the Wikiverse seeks King Henry VIII or Tsar Nicholas II she or he normallly wouldn't think to add "of England" or "of Russia". There was a long drawn-out debate before "of the United Kingdom" was dropped from Queen Victoria.

—— Shakescene (talk) 14:16, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

We don't currently add King or Queen except in rare circumstances like Queen Victoria - it's not part of the existing guideline. DeCausa (talk) 14:19, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

For royalty and nobility, titling is a confusing mess. COMMONNAME does not align with cases where there is no COMMONNAME. This is a problem to be solved. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:07, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, and not just heads of state. If we argue that Carl XVI Gustaf needs "of Sweden" for recognizability while a simple personal name (e.g. Björn Ulvaeus) suffices for all other unambiguously named Swedes (so no Björn Ulvaeus of Sweden or Björn Ulvaeus of ABBA), we come to the absurd yet inevitable conclusion that the king of Sweden is the least recognizable Swede on Misplaced Pages. Surtsicna (talk) 14:49, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

We're discussing the existing guideline, so that's hardly a reason it itself to stop proposing changes. —— Shakescene (talk) 15:36, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Surtsicna, you appear to be operating under the assumption that a short Misplaced Pages title implies an important subject, and a long Misplaced Pages title implies an obscure subject. Is that right? What makes you think readers understand this convention? SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:09, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

The simple logic that titles are usually made longer only to disambiguate from more well-known subjects. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:20, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

“simple logic” is a term usually indicating a starting point for analysis, not the end point.

It seems to me that an awful lot of backroom Wikipedians, as soon as “disambiguate” is mentioned, abandon consideration of the balancing of the five titling criteria.

Titles should be made longer as required to better fit a balance of the five titling criteria, and the simple logic explanation does not align with the five titling criteria.

- SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:30, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

It's either precise or natural, and precise is the more likely of the two unless there are other reasons you'd like to mention. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:13, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

DeCausa, there is a real world convention, historically, for royalty to be suffixed “of country”, but not for civilian leaders. That’s a reason to do it. There are reasons to not do it. Why do you say it shouldn’t? What are your working assumptions?

Unless disambiguation is needed it is unnecessary. Those are commonly repeatedly words, but a lot of good things are unnecessary. Is necessity a criterion? What about CONSISTENCY and RECOGNIZABILITY? A few more words in short titles, like Edward VIII could dramatically improve CONSISTENCY and ROCOGNIZABILITY. “of the United Kingdom” is problematic due to the country having several different names over the course of the multiple King Edwards, which means CONSISTENCY is lost, for that suffix. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:05, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

There is a real world convention, historically, for royalty to be suffixed “of country”. No there isn't. That's just an unsupported assertion. "George V of the United Kingdom". Nope. What you're missing is the regnal number does all the heavy lifting where there's no need for disambiguation. (Lack of a regnal number may be one of the circumstances where more is needed eg John, King of England.) Otherwise it's just clunky and pointless. DeCausa (talk) 22:30, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Unsupported assertion? Do you read history?

eg “Queen Mary of Scotland and Prince Francis of France”

eg “Mary of Teck”

Are you really denying familiarity with this convention, it’s existence?

Regnal number is another convention, with its own pros and cons.

Clunky, an aesthetic quality, yes, avoid clunky. Carl XVI of Sweden is not clunky.

Pointless? No, “of country”, you may dislike it, is but “pointless” really your claim? SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:47, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

That is not just because it's their origin country, it's because it's their house. Teck is not the country (which is Germany), but the house name is the Duke of Teck. An equivalent for King Carl would be "Carl XVI of Bernadotte" which doesn't disambiguate or add to recognizability much. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:24, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

WP:RECOGNIZABILITY says the article title should be the name which someone familiar with the subject will recognize. Someone familiar with Louis XIV will recognize the title Louis XIV. Recognizability is not a factor here. Surtsicna (talk) 22:55, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Title policy as written today may not be the font of all wisdom.

Louis XIV is an extraordinarily notable example.

What about King Louis X? There is only one. I am familiar with the Kings of France, and I find King Louis X ambiguous because I don’t know all other Louis X were not king.

I think the prominent examples should align with obscure examples, and minimalism can’t do that. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:11, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

On review, I’d like to alter my “no” to “tentatively only”.

My problems with this guideline is almost entirely with consorts, and I’m not seeing this proposal apply to consorts.

I think with all the examples of shortened Tes to be noted, there was a good COMMONNAME justification. It doesn’t follow that all titles should be shorted where disambiguation is not needed.

explicitly endorse the use of shorter titles where there is a COMMONNAME justification.no disambiguation is needed

SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:20, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

• I think there are two scenarios where no disambiguation might not be needed. In some cases the name is unique and there have been no other monarchs with that name (ex. Louis XVI). In other cases there have been rulers with a similar name but one subject is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (ex. Henry VIII). I think we should definitely cover this matter in some form in NCROY guidelines because the issue has been raised multiple times recently. I'm just not sure how it can be worded. But overall I agree with the nominator's proposal. Keivan.f 14:56, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
• No "explicitly endorse the use of shorter titles" No the shorter title are highlyy problematic, since they do not mention either the country or the person's title. Dimadick (talk) 17:59, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
• Name # of country- Is the style I have & continue to support, for all the monarch bios titles. GoodDay (talk) 22:34, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
• Yes "a point be added to WP:SOVEREIGNS to ... endorse the use of shorter titles where no disambiguation is needed", since that is the proper kind of titling to use per WP:DAB and WP:CONCISE. This rarely consulted guideline page should not be confusing anyone to the contrary.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:23, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
• Yes we should definitely update this naming convention to align with actual practice, which tends (quite rightly) to be much closer to WP:AT. As Cinderella157 points out, this will entail a general review of the guideline, not just a simple copyedit. Rosbif73 (talk) 17:05, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
• Hard no - these titles should not be endorsed. They are abhorrent. They explicitly went against the existing guildeline, and should not be the norm, not be an exception and should not be encouraged. Some article titles have become worryingly western-centric and systematically biased, which is not something I wish to enshrine into a guideline which really needs to be shown a bit more respect, and not stamped on by the ever-irrelevant WP:COMMONNAME. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:16, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

  And why is the existing guideline better? Titles only have to be recognizable to those in their field, they don't have to be recognizable to everyone. The bias argument only applies when it is prioritized over other similar titles, which the proposed also avoids. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:39, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

  The field of kings and queens, nobles and royalty, is extensively familiar, I don’t think restricting the scope of relevant readers works here.

  I think Anglophone bias on en.wiki is ok.

  I think “abhorrent” is extreme exaggeration, but agree that the trend, to case by case minimalism, is not beautiful. Technically, it is to completely abandon consistency as a criterion, it is unbalanced, which is ugly if not quite abhorrent. Consistency in the reader-facing result should not be confused with a simple consistent rule.

  No one need argue that the existing (the old) guideline is better. The old guideline did not work well. The reason, I submit, is that it was based on mixing primary source usage with expert jargon (or “shorthand”).

  I think a changed guideline is needed. Ideas include: different rules for anglophone vs nonanglophone; use of King Queen etc for regnants; use of native language titles for foreign monarchs and nobles; something, I make no claim that the answer is obvious. Perhaps a tertiary work on global royalty and nobility should be studied for style possibilities. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:37, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

  For current regnants, sure, and these already usually have COMMONNAMEs. For past ones they are likely to be not familiar to non-historians, so I still think no additional dab is better. Probably add country to each one if a past anglophone name conflicts with another one. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:16, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

  I honestly do not understand this reasoning. The community has been consistently rejecting the superfluous disambiguation preached by this guideline for over a decade. Do you think that this guideline burying its head in the sand will do anything to restore in practice the format that you like? The allegations of bias are just preposterous. Surtsicna (talk) 09:31, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  That's not true. A recent RM for George I and George II of GB failed. An RM for Victor Emmanuel III of Italy failed. How much more unambiguous can you get than "Victor Emmanuel III"? Franz Joseph I of Austria has failed twice in RMs. Vasilis I, II and III of Moscow all failed. Eystein I was moved to Eystein I of Norway. Haakon IV and Haakon V were moved without discussion, but Haakon II of Norway and Haakon III of Norway were left alone. Charles X is a French king, but Charles XI is a redirect to a Swedish king and Charles IX is a dab page. Srnec (talk) 05:49, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

  RMs that are half and half split between "remove disambiguation" and "keep disambiguation" indicate that a guideline is unnecessary. See the bigger number of RMs in the opening statement. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:19, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, the guideline should reflect how articles are actually named, and not omit examples because they don't fit with some editors' ideas of how they should be named. Andejons (talk) 06:14, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
• No, these titles should not be accepted. I thank the nominator for opening this RfC, as I have also noticed how problematic this issue has become. I am in a hurry right now, so my response will be brief for the time being. However, when I have a spare moment, I will present a detailed argument with plenty of policy-based and discussion evidence to substantiate my answer. Hurricane Andrew (444) 16:53, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
  • I have posted my detailed rationale at the bottom of this discussion. Hurricane Andrew (444) 00:04, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
• Yes, there is clearly a consensus that monarch article titles that are the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for their WP:COMMONNAME do not need the "of country" natural disambiguator in the article title. This consensus has become well established in many WP:REQUESTED MOVES discussions over the past 13+ years, and this guideline should explicitly acknowledge that community consensus. The "of country" designation is a perfectly good use of WP:NATURALDISAMBIGUATION, but it should only be used when it is needed (i.e. when there is no primary topic for a certain monarchical name). Rreagan007 (talk) 03:11, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
• No, or at least not as specifically proposed. While I prefer "Name # of country" for all monarchs as it improves WP:RECOGNIZABILITY. And while I agree that articles like Carl XVI Gustaf and Alfonso XIII are WP:PRIMARYTOPICS and do unambiguously define their scope, I fear that those could not as easily be recognized without "of Sweden" or "of Spain". At the same time, I also understand that Elizabeth II, Louis XIV, Napoleon, and Maria Theresa are all relatively well-known figures and I am comfortable with those being exceptions to a rule. I would even be comfortable with moving some articles at the "Name of # country" format, such as Nicholas II of Russia, where Nicholas II accomplishes the same task. But will readers be able to understand who Gustav III was.

In general, I don't think we should encourage shorter titles as that could harm RECOGNIZABILITY. For me, its comparable to the idea that Obama, for example, is a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to Barak Obama, but we wouldn't entertain the idea that his article should just be "Obama" because it harms RECOGNIZABILITY, even if it is WP:CONCISE and WP:PRECISE.

In short, I don't think a point saying to use the most concise possible title should be added, but I wouldn't be so opposed if we better ensured that concision was balanced with RECOGNIZABILITY. That also being said, a large number of the present exceptions come from Britain, and I cannot say as of now how I would feel about a blanket proposal covering them. estar8806 (talk) ★ 20:14, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

• Agnetha Fältskog is just as much "of Sweden" as Gustav III is. This argument is based on an incorrect understanding of the recognizability criterion. This criterion does not mean defining the subject in the title. It means, by the definition of it, that the person familiar with Gustav III will recognize that "Gustav III" refers to Gustav III; and they will because that is what Gustav III is called and there is no other. Surtsicna (talk) 17:51, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

• No. It's sheer laziness. The whole change to the conventions was flawed and still is. Deb (talk) 10:38, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

  Which change? Aaron Liu (talk) 14:41, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

  The one that removed the need to differentiate between countries. Deb (talk) 14:54, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

  1. You're talking as if it has been implemented.
  2. It seems like this RfC has expired already. I'll be filing a closure request soon.
  Edit: Someone has already filed one... Aaron Liu (talk) 15:17, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think you understand. There was a convention, as in Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, but the common namers managed to get it overturned. This was years before your arrival on Misplaced Pages. Deb (talk) 17:07, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

  The guideline has not changed since September 5, and even those changes were just changing examples and capitalization of explaining the guideline, not the rules. If we ignore these, the guideline hasn't changed since . Aaron Liu (talk) 17:34, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

• Yes in the case of Elizabeth II, because the disambiguation page shows there is little scope for confusion, it mainly referring to things named after her. Other cases will need to be judged on their merits, according to how much scope there is for ambiguity. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:16, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
• Yes per WP:CONCISE. Note that the proposal is to endorse the use of shorter titles where no disambiguation is needed (emphasis added). The arguments in favor seem to cite WP:CONSISTENT, which explicitly says Wikipedians have consistently shown that consistency does not control: Disambiguation. For instance, just because Georgia (country) exists, there is no reason to have articles titled, for instance, Azerbaijan (country), Armenia (country), etc. This applies to natural disambiguation, as well; the existence of Querétaro City and Chihuahua City does not mean we have to retitle Guadalajara to Guadalajara City (emphasis in original). WP:CONCISE and WP:CONSISTENT say we should avoid unnecessary "of Country" disambiguation. HouseBlaster 20:11, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Statement by AndrewPeterT

Well, the RMs are popping up & a few unilatteral page moves have begun, in these last few weeks. GoodDay (talk) 19:13, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, they have. And quite frankly, this is becoming a matter beyond which an RfC at this time can resolve. Hurricane Andrew (444) 19:36, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Muhammad of Eretnids?

I need some guidance in disambiguating this page. I have made repeated moves.

Move history of Muhammad of Eretnids and my reasoning:

1. It was initally Giyath al-Din Muhammad, same name as Ghiyath al-Din Muhammad, so a move was needed.
2. I first changed it to Muhammad, Sultan of Eretnids per some examples in this article.
3. Then, Muhammad, Eretnid Sultan to make it shorter.
4. Lastly, Muhammad of Eretnids in accordance with the examples for Middle Eastern rulers in the last sentence of WP:NCROY#Names and titles outside the West.

Now, I noticed that that sentence refers to modern rulers. So, any suggestions? There doesn't seem to be an exact rule especially for Middle Eastern rulers. And since he is mostly referred to as either Muhammad or Ghiyath al-Din Muhammad in sources, I can't go for an option that is more popular among RS. I desperately need some title suggestions for disambiguation and also tips for the future. I have also recently moved some other articles, but it wasn't a series of moves unlike this. Aintabli (talk) 03:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I believe an explicit guideline is warranted just by the amount of articles on rulers from the Muslim or Middle Eastern tradition. The very last sentence on WP:NCROY#Names and titles outside the West just adds to the confusion. Aintabli (talk) 05:56, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree that some more detailed guidance is probably warranted. I'll leave that for others who know more about these traditions, but I do have a few comments regarding your example:

Firstly, Muhammad of the Eretnids or Muhammad, Sultan of the Eretnids would seem better from a purely linguistic point of view

Secondly, your multiple moves had left a couple of double redirects. Normally a bot fixes these, but for some reason this hadn't happened so I have done so manually. Pay attention to this aspect if discussion here leads you to move the article again.

Lastly, a dab page and/or some hatnotes are probably needed to help readers who might be looking for Ghiyath al-Din Muhammad. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:31, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

@Rosbif73, I added Template:About to the aforementioned page. I hesitated from correcting the double redirects in case the page would have to be moved again but forgot to do that after I undid my comment that you've later restored. Do you have any comments on whether “Muhammad of the Eretnids” or “Muhammad, Sultan of the Eretnids” is better, or are you neutral in that regard? Aintabli (talk) 14:22, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm neutral on that – I don't know enough about the context of these sultans or how they are described in reliable sources. Rosbif73 (talk) 19:36, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and moved the page to Ghiyath al-Din Muhammad I. Aintabli (talk) 05:01, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Other pages for disambiguation

In case anyone else is interested, there are a few more pages that need to be disambiguated or would benefit from this discussion

• Obviously, Ghiyath al-Din Muhammad. As mentioned before, this Ghurid ruler has the same name as Ghiyath al-Din Muhammad of the Eretnids.
  • His successor is also a Muhammad (Muhammad of Ghor). There doesn't appear to be another Mu'izz al-Din Muhammad (his regnal name), so I believe Muhammad of Ghor can be moved to Mu'izz al-Din Muhammad.
• Ibrahim I of Ramadanids (full regnal name: Ṣārim al-Dīn Ibrāhīm, which was also used by Ibrahim II of the same state) might need to be moved based on the decision to be made on Muhammad of Eretnids. Aintabli (talk) 16:52, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

To understand it correctly, the name used most in WP:RS about Muhammad of Eretnids is "Ghiyath al-Din Muhammad"? I get thats the exact same name as the Ghurid ruler Ghiyath al-Din Muhammad, but what does it have to do with Muhammad of Ghor? His name is a bit different. HistoryofIran (talk) 19:15, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran If the Ghurid ruler Ghiyath al-Din is renamed to something like (either with or without Ghiyath al-Din) Muhammad of Ghor/the Ghurids/etc. for disambiguation, I thought that could easily be confusing because the new title of Ghiyath al-Din Muhammad and Muhammad of Ghor would be almost indistinguishable. But if "Muhammad of Ghor" is the name overwhelmingly used in RS, of course, it can stay as it is. Aintabli (talk) 19:26, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

The New Islamic Dynasties (page 234) by Clifford Edmund Bosworth (easily one of the most prominent historians for the Islamic era) calls Muhammad of Eretnids for "Ghiyath al-Din Muhammad I" (his grandson is called Ala al-Din Muhammad II Chelebi). The namesake Ghurid ruler doesn't have a regnal number. Would this be a solution?: Move to Muhammad of Eretnids to "Ghiyath al-Din Muhammad I"? And ofc still keep the disambiguation in each page HistoryofIran (talk) 19:41, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I like that this would not involve any disambiguation suffixes, i. e. "of (the) Eretnids", so I think we can go with that. Thanks a lot! If any other editors would support moving Muhammad of Eretnids to Ghiyath al-Din Muhammad I, I am going to move the page once and for all. Aintabli (talk) 19:55, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Requested moves to shorter titles

In light of the RfC about changing this guideline to endorse concise titles such as Elizabeth II, I have proposed several moves regarding articles about English kings (from Edward I to Edward V). Please see Talk:Edward I#Requested move 5 November 2023. Surtsicna (talk) 19:47, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Well this push to eliminate "of country" from monarch bios page titles, is certainly in full swing. I'm guessing, heirs-apparent/presumptive & others in line of succession, will be next. GoodDay (talk) 19:20, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

That seems like a bit of a slippery slope. 2601:249:9301:D570:8D44:DAF4:3F4B:EDC7 (talk) 21:07, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Then there's the consorts. GoodDay (talk) 15:15, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Then there's dukes, counts et al. When are they going to be trimmed? But apparently those titles can stay, unless they're Italian for some reason?

I regret not realizing this RFC was on at the time. I would have opposed it vigorously. What a disaster it is wreaking. Walrasiad (talk) 09:38, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Consorts & royals in line of succession

I'm curious. Seeing as (since the recently closed RFC) more RMs (if they're still used) will result in more monarch bio page titles having "of country" removed. One wonders, are the consorts & royals in line of succession to thrones, to be next?
Examples -
Queen Letizia of Spain changed to Queen Letizia
Princess Ingrid Alexandra of Norway to Princess Ingrid Alexandra
Haakon, Crown Prince of Norway to Crown Prince Haakon
Victoria, Crown Princess of Sweden to Crown Princess Victoria
This does appear to be the growing trend. GoodDay (talk) 17:58, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

This seems like a slippery slope fallacy. 2601:249:9301:D570:DCE:DB6E:BCC:F04D (talk) 04:55, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh.... it's going to eventually happen. GoodDay (talk) 18:11, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

That's a bridge that can be crossed if we get to it. 98.228.137.44 (talk) 02:45, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

RfC of interest

(non-automated message) Greetings to anyone on the talk page of WP:NCROY! I have opened an RfC on WT:ROYALTY that may be of interest to users passionate about this guideline! You are encouraged to contribute to this discussion here! Hurricane Andrew (444) 22:09, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Discussion of interest: JOBTITLES

FYI, there's a discussion under way at WT:MOSBIO#JOBTITLES simplification proposal that potentially impacts these naming conventions. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:26, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Should 'Name # of country' be changed to 'Name # (country)'?

With all due respect to the previous RFC on naming of monarch bios. Why hasn't anyone ever suggested going with Name # (country) style, for those that won't end up as Name # style? Must admit, it would shorten the article title. GoodDay (talk) 20:49, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Natural disambiguation is preferred over parenthetical disambiguation per criterion 2 of the Misplaced Pages:Article titles#Deciding on an article title policy. DrKay (talk) 20:58, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

As far as making it shorter is concerned, it would only make the title one character shorter, since adding the parentheses would cancel out the removal of "of", so in practice, it would just be removing a second space between words. 2601:249:9301:D570:54F1:409D:EC26:FB49 (talk) 17:57, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

The reason I mentioned it. Sometimes, those who want to drop "of country" from monarch page titles, have mentioned that "of country" isn't a part of a monarch's name. GoodDay (talk) 18:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Re-open the RFC

There is a plethora of monarchical names being closed over the strong opposition of the community, citing the recently-changed RFC above. This is causing severe disruption of long-stable article titles across Misplaced Pages.

The recent closure of the RM on Ferdinand VI of Spain over vigorous and overwhelming opposition seems to indicate that wider community opinion is not in line with the recently-changed guidelines. Neither I, nor many others, were aware nor participated in this RFC.

Most of these pages has been stable for 20 years - never proposed to move. That is an indicator of wider community consensus than the few people that happen to monitor the NCROY page. The RfC change slipped through on a 12-8 vote. The Ferdinand VI of Spain was opposed on 8-3, a bigger margin. It seems to me anomalous that a small group can engineer and overturn a long-term wider community consensus by ramming through a change in a guideline page, that affects a massive amount of pages, destabilizing Misplaced Pages and overriding long-standing community consensus. The wider community's opinion should not be treated as irrelevant because it was not expressed in the right location and right time.

It has been recommended that I should take this up here. So I would request the RFC be re-opened, and the matter revisited, so the wider community can participate. Walrasiad (talk) 06:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Anyone is welcome to open a new RfC at any time. I would however note that RfCs and RMs are not about counting votes but weighing up policy-based arguments, as exemplified in the closer's rationale: Based on the strength of argument from existing policy there is a strong consensus to adopt the proposal. Likewise, for the specific example you mention (Ferdinand VI), the closer noted that none of the Oppose votes are actually based in policy.

The fact that the majority of recent RMs to remove "of country" have passed is itself a strong indicator of community consensus, opposition notwithstanding. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:06, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Where did the last RfC take place? Here? Then, I think any new RfCs should be opened at a place when the wider community can contribute, not just people who are interested in WP:NCROY guidelines. This new set of guidelines is affecting WP:TITLECON in many instances, which is a policy. Keivan.f 14:52, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not convinced a new RfC is justified, but agree that if one is held, it should be notified to relevant prominent places such as WT:AT or WT:BIOG to get wider input. I also agree with User:Srnec below that a pre-RfC discussion would be highly advisable before embarking on a widely publicised RfC.

Incidentally, WP:TITLECON is an essay, not a policy. Did you perhaps mean WP:CONSISTENT? Rosbif73 (talk) 13:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree we need to reconsider the NCROY change, particularly given the contentiousness and lack of consensus apparent in the spate of RMs it's prompted. I also agree that greater participation would be extremely helpful, since (again as the RMs suggest) the wider community doesn't seem to be nearly as on-board. Though a bit cumbersome, mass pings to the participants of RMs associated with the change might be good. ╠╣uw  12:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I support a new RFC, but I think we should have a pre-RFC discussion to identify the issues that need sorting and if there is perhaps a middle ground position, since I doubt there is community support for moving, e.g., Elizbaeth II anywhere. Srnec (talk) 04:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. This is one of those situations where neither extreme — nation on all or nation on none that are unambiguous — will give us the optimal results. The former would mean moving Liz, and you’re right that that’s probably a non-starter; the latter would mean keeping the nation off of even lesser-known monarchs, which the contentiousness and only scattershot success of recent RMs shows is also not working. The most successful path is probably going to be a compromise somewhere in the middle. ╠╣uw  14:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

• The RFC should be reopened. There's no shame in RFCs that make the wrong call due to an accidentally skewed turnout or the like, but when an RFC maybe made the wrong call, then a reconfirmation RFC is merited. I don't really want to be the one to spearhead it myself. But this is something where the needs of readers needs to come first and requires wide input, so should probably be advertised on CENT.
  • As a side procedural comment, @Rosbif73:, the whole point of RFCs is indeed to change policy. So an argument of "it's against policy" is meaningless here - RFCs are how policy is set, reflecting community consensus. And I'd argue it can hardly be argued the old RFC showed great consensus behind it, as its RMs have been radioactively controversial every time. I'm not saying whether this is right or wrong, just the sheer raw fact that it created this has to be acknowledged, which doesn't happen for truly non-controversial changes. SnowFire (talk) 22:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose further discussion of this matter - I will quote what I have posted on the WP:ROYALTY talk page, some of which other editors have expressed above in their own words:

... I would like to say the following both to share my experiences with this matter and give a "friendly warning" to other users.

As a human being, I personally agree with what is being expressed. Yes, it is frustrating that not every Misplaced Pages article on European monarchs follow the same format. Yes, it may seem strange to the average reader why some Danish (and British) monarchs are not called like the others in the encyclopedia.

But as a Wikipedian, I must respectfully disagree with trying to go back to the (Name) of (Country) format across the board. As noted on WP:COI, . And as frustrating as may be, it was a reflection of WP:CONSENSUS, which is the core of how decisions should be made on Misplaced Pages. It is best that we acknowledge this consensus, however frustrating it may be, and do our best to follow it, as I have done since last December.

Furthermore, , I have already started two of these . You can see for yourself how the conversations went ...

. I gave far more reasons to go back to the (Name) of (country) format consistently than presented here. Yet my proposal was opposed so vigorously that , which is the standard duration of such a discussion.

... I again gave reasoning far more comprehensive than presented here . I even went as far as to ensure that as many voices as possible were heard. However, the discussion did nothing to change the engrained consensus of the community.

Finally, I would like to note that one move discussion each on the Peter Krešimir IV and Ferdinand VI articles were subject to a move review. For , the decision to move away from the (Name) of (country) format was upheld

Now, if after reading this post, a fellow user would still like to start another RfC or other Misplaced Pages-wide discussion on the titling matter, you are welcome to do so. But expect strong opposition from the community, including from myself.

AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 17:33, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Going through the post-RFC multiple RMs in progress & closed. It appears the RFC-in-question's decision, isn't proving to be easily applied. GoodDay (talk) 00:08, 17 February 2024 (UTC)