Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:46, 2 November 2023

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.

RFC: Article titles for Various Princesses

Requesting comments based on closing comments on two RMs (not moved) I recently proposed regarding the styling of Princesses of the Blood, who married men with other titles, following their deaths Talk:Princess Louise, Duchess of Argyll#Requested move 24 January 2023 and Talk:Princess Alice, Countess of Athlone#Requested move 23 January 2023. Both of these proposed RMs did focus on British Princesses, but the wider community of monarchies also see this (such as Princess Alix of Luxembourg or Princess María de las Mercedes of Bourbon-Two Sicilies. Most articles I've found seem to follow this line, but some, such as Princess Mary, Duchess of Gloucester and Edinburgh and Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon do not line up with that idea. Estar8806 (talk) 21:42, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - There definitely is a lack of consistency, in the bio titles. GoodDay (talk) 22:02, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
• WP:COMMONNAME is king here - trumps consistency every time. Even princesses have some right to choose their own naming style. We seem to be having a rash of proposed royalty moves at the moment, & I'm inclined to think that after 20+ years we have got the vast majority of them right by now, so am hard to pursuade that any change is needed. Johnbod (talk) 04:18, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
• WP:NCROY has always been a huge problem. I think it foolishly tried to impose a consistency that simply is not there in the real world. Along the way it has also produced a number of unintuitive results. Given the lack of real world consistency, go with how actual sources reflecting back refer to the person, that is, give more weight to sources written well after the person’s death. Sources from their birth knew nothing of what the person would become. I suspect that for princesses, like people generally, they will tend to more often be known for their highest title in life, and will only be best known for their childhood title if their childhood title remained the most senior for all their lives. For princesses with interesting lives, such as multiple careers and/or marriages, it could be anything, and the decision should be made by the least connected sources. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:02, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

  WP:CONSISTENT is good, but not at the expense of conflict with WP:COMMONNAME. WP:NCROY is too often in conflict with COMMONNAME, therefore something is wrong. Consistency should be looked for within the usual results of COMMONNAME decisions. If consistency is not there, Misplaced Pages should not create it. Editors’s hopes should have little weight compared to what sources do. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:47, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

• Comment We should always try to be as consistent as possible without delving into the ridiculous. If something is trying to promote consistent article titling, more often than not, I will support it. I think that WP:NCRAN as is should be the largest and most important factor in deciding article titling for those that it covers, not the broader WP:COMMONNAME. NCRAN does say exceptions can be made, which is of course true, which is why it should be adhered to; however, lately, too many people have trying to change titles using the exception clause. So, whatever style get chosen (Princess , of , or Princess of ), I would just hope for them to be uniform with the others. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 13:39, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
• Comment (Summoned by bot) this is outside my expertise, but while a of consistent base for most common circumstances is inherently a good thing I think the search for consistency here is futile and unhelpful. There is no consistency and consistency should not be applied for its own sake., as someone said on another recent 'Royal' RfC. WP:COMMONNAME overrides any imposed WP guideline and this appears to be one of those anomalous situations which no 'rule' will ever adequately cover. Pincrete (talk) 13:41, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I always aim for consistency if possible, as it helps people to know where to look for an article, especially if there are many people with the same name - for example, Princess Mary. Deb (talk) 15:29, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

• Do not discard long-embedded practices. WP:NCROY should continue to be followed to give the technically correct information, follow long-standing conventions, have something that is absolutely available, and for consistency with others that have no alternative names. Use the title at the time of their death and mention other titles in the body. Where there is an alternative names arguably more WP:COMMONNAME, meaning more popular current-day shorter or slang reference(s), that can be mentioned in lead and used as a link to the article just like other cases of alternative titles and is done for Diana, Princess of Wales with Princess Di. To instead try to use a COMMONNAME for title would lead to debates over when does COMMONNAME overcome proper name, which of multiple names is most common today then tomorrow, a prolonged muddle of both approaches existing in WP, and if one does not use the official title of the person then where and how is it going to be mentioned later. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:24, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

RfC - Article titles for Deceased Princesses

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It's been two months since I last proposed an RfC on this matter and I've come to realize that I may have formed that RfC poorly. So I'm going to give it a second go (note- I apologize if this is against any policy that I'm aware of)

So, to my question: should the article titles for deceased princesses who received a title from marriage (such as Princess Louise, Duchess of Argyll in the UK) have their article titles based on:

A - The title they held at birth, in line with WP:CONSORTS for the spouses of sovereigns; or (for example: the example I cited above would be moved to Princess Louise of the United Kingdom;
B - The highest title they held during their lifetimes (where the example I've used her would remain at the present title).
C - whatever WP:COMMONNAME dictates. (added by Johnbod)

I understand that some have a problem with seeking consistency where it may not exist in the 'real world'. However, WP:CONSISTENT is a part of our article titles policy. Even if we don't always abide by it (perhaps not nearly as much as we should, but I digress) we should at least have some form of guideline to abide by if/when consistency is needed. Happy to hear everyone's thoughts, Estar8806 (talk) 01:35, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Procedural note - I intend to ping contributors to the last RfC on this topic in around 24 hours. Estar8806 (talk) 01:36, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

@Johnbod, SmokeyJoe, Tim O'Doherty, Pincrete, and Deb: Estar8806 (talk) 02:59, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

B - for the late princesses who never became monarchs or consorts of monarchs. GoodDay (talk) 01:38, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

C - whatever WP:COMMONNAME dictates; this nearly always outranks WP:CONSISTENT. The last Rfc is just above btw. I notice most participating then said the same; you should certainly have added that as an option, so I have done so. Johnbod (talk) 03:07, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

@Johnbod I'm not exactly certain why you think you can simply change an RfC I've proposed, but I digress. The point of this was to determine what we should defer to in the absence of clear WP:COMMONNAME. Estar8806 (talk) 03:20, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

And also, most editors above cited either giving precedence to COMMONNAME, which I do not intend to change, rather give us something to fall back on. And, by my count, 3 editors above had issues with searching for consistency, 3 did not. I wouldn't call half "most". Estar8806 (talk) 03:24, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

(ec) Because you can't just exclude the option most people preferred last time! I'm afraid you aren't very good at drafting these things - you admit your last go at this was done "poorly". There's nothing about "The point of this was to determine what we should defer to in the absence of clear WP:COMMONNAME" in your nom, & some of the consistency fans are pretty clearly ready to over-ride WP:COMMONNAME. Only one person had commented, and you don't WP:OWN an rfc just because you started it. I commented last time that too many royal naming Rfc's were being started, and 2 months really is too soon to repeat one. Johnbod (talk) 03:26, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Again say, only half the editors last time had any problem with a search for consistency, certainly not "most". Also, read the last paragraph in my nom I understand that some have a problem with seeking consistency where it may not exist in the 'real world'. However, WP:CONSISTENT is a part of our article titles policy. Even if we don't always abide by it (perhaps not nearly as much as we should, but I digress) we should at least have some form of guideline to abide by if/when consistency is needed.. On your final point, I'm not claiming any form of ownership for the RfC (I'm sorry if it was perceived that way, perhaps I was slightly flustered), but you nonetheless missed the point of the RfC. Estar8806 (talk) 03:30, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

• C Little to add to what I said above: "I think the search for consistency here is futile and unhelpful. There is no consistency and consistency should not be applied for its own sake. … … WP:COMMONNAME overrides any imposed WP guideline and this appears to be one of those anomalous situations which no 'rule' will ever adequately cover" . Pincrete (talk) 06:19, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
• C: Consistency is the last and least important of the WP:CRITERIA, and is rightly overridden by WP:COMMONNAME. We should be giving priority to what the late princesses in question are called by reliable sources published after their death. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:17, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  That may be true but it's not the same as common name. "Princess Diana" is the best possible example of an unacceptable common name. Deb (talk) 16:08, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  Hardly typical. Johnbod (talk) 16:23, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  "rightly overridden by WP:COMMONNAME" - huh? In what world does an enormously broad policy such as COMMONNAME (so broad it dictates the titles of over 6 million articles) have the right to be a complete block to any future RM on royalty/nobility pages that use consistency, as a whole argument or a partial one, as rationale for such a move? Let us not forget that the hallowed COMMONNAME even admits that ditors should also consider all five of the criteria for article titles, one of which is indeed consistency. Nowhere does it say that WP:CONSISTENT is less important than the others: in fact, it says "e strive to make titles on Misplaced Pages as consistent as possible with other titles on similar subjects.". I accept that, whilst COMMONNAME is policy and that this page here is merely a guideline, this was engineered in the specific interest of these pages, accepted by the community, and has been used widely for years, and continues to be used widely. COMMONNAME was not intended for these articles in particular, and does not have their needs in the best interest. Common sense prevails, and if that runs out, this guideline should. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 12:37, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

• B unless there is a clear reason to do otherwise (I can't think of one). I don't agree that COMMONNAME should "outrank" consistency. TBH, there probably isn't a "common name" for most such women in any case. Deb (talk) 11:27, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Really? Princesses always get media attention. Johnbod (talk) 15:35, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

    After they are dead? Rarely. Deb (talk) 16:07, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

    • ???? As usual, we use the COMMONNAME they had when alive (unless they are a Japanese Emperor). Johnbod (talk) 16:23, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

      I'm saying most of them don't have a common name. Historical sources will refer to them from a different name from what they had when they were alive. Another example: Who is the "Duchess of York"? Deb (talk) 18:17, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

• C. In most cases, COMMONNAME should clearly be preferred. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:48, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
• C when possible (and it often won't be, e.g. when Princess X isn't the primary topic of "Princess X"), but otherwise neither A nor B. I don't think this is amenable to a general judgment that one or the other among A and B best fits the remaining criteria of recognizability, precision, naturalness, and concision, even as a default convention. It depends. What is the person more often called, in reliable modern sources? What is she most significant for? Who else has the same name, and how well do potential titles function as natural disambiguation? How long she spent being styled a particular way, and how she was styled at particular times (birth, or death, or otherwise) may be relevant, indirectly. Generally I would leave this up to editors' case-by-case judgment. Editors can consider consistency between certain articles, but should be careful that even ostensibly very comparable articles – for example, princesses who are siblings – will often not be similarly situated when all these factors are considered. Adumbrativus (talk) 04:54, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

  Just as a quick comment-

  I don't know how you would say "C" is often not possible, and then go on to say what the subject is more often called should be a key consideration, which is the whole idea of COMMONNAME.

  On a second point, case-by-case judgement generally isn't a good idea. That's why consistency is part of the article titling policy.

  I do however think that your point on how long a princess was known by what title may be an important consideration.

  Nonetheless, I think a lot of commenters here missed the point of the RfC. This isn't a discussion of COMMONNAME vs NCROY, but rather what to default to in the absence of a clear common name. NCROY is (sadly) ignored quite often, just look at all the article titles for various monarchs in conflict with WP:SOVEREIGNS. Estar8806 (talk) 02:56, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

  To clarify about the first point, issues unrelated to COMMONNAME may prevent the use of the common name as the article title – in my example, primary topic. What I mean is that, even in that situation, or even if no single name has a clear absolute majority, editors should still consider if there are significant differences in the relative frequency of the names being proposed. Adumbrativus (talk) 06:44, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

• C -- I can only deal with UK. Under current usage the daughter or granddaughter of a monarch is entitled to be called princess and this is likely to be the common name. I would suggest that the suffix "of the UK" is inappropriate because the title came from being a member of the royal family, but not a ruler. If there is a need to disambiguate, it might be appropriate to use the name of her husband or royal parent. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:37, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
• C. If there is a COMMONNAME, use it, or one of them. Failing that then B, eg Mary Tudor, Queen of France. Notice that highest position overlaps with COMMONNAME. Even in her lifetime, although she was queen of France so briefly, it was prominently referred to. Failing that, name at end of life. Failing that, I.e. if so inconsequential that there are no sources commenting on the Princess at the end of her life, use her birth name. This converges for infant and childhood deaths. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:30, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

  A problem with “COMMONNAME” is that most sources might be too close, eg from her lifetime, and with a scarcity of sources in modern times. COMMONNAME should be weighted against a large number of primary sources, and weighted for reliable secondary sources commenting historically, and if these don’t exist, maybe COMMONNAME should be considered to not exist, rather than pointing to primary sources. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:34, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

• B, as the correct term although that is misstated - the as Princess Louise, Duchess of Argyll is not the “highest” title, that is her birth name followed by her title by marriage and the correct title. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:40, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 7 June 2023

This discussion was listed at Misplaced Pages:Move review on 15 June 2023. The result of the move review was withdrawn.

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. I see no policy-based reason to depart from the closure of the Hohenzollern RM from last December. In particular, I would like to direct editors to what I said in the penultimate paragraph of the closure:

WP:COMMONNAME allows us to use a less common name if a more common one is problematic. From assessing this discussion, I don't think anyone has adequately argued against the assertion that the princely title is problematic. Indeed, several editors take the view that it is problematic. It is from that that I ultimately conclude that the more preferable title when considering the COMMONNAME policy is the personal name.

The same is true in this RM. That the current titles correspond to the "common name" is, for most of the articles here, is an unsupported assertion.

In general, NCROY says that the use of princely titles in pretence as article titles is to be discouraged and a high bar – a little beyond COMMONNAME, actually – is set to delineate when the use is appropriate.

In the case of the German ex-nobility, with the context of the failed Reichsburger coup last year, in my view, that bar is exceedingly high, and nothing in this discussion indicates that, apart from maybe one edge case, that bar is met. (closed by non-admin page mover) Sceptre (talk) 23:30, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

• Gloria, Princess of Thurn and Taxis → Gloria von Thurn und Taxis
• Princess Maria Theresia of Thurn and Taxis (born 1980) → Maria Theresia Wilson
• Johannes, 11th Prince of Thurn and Taxis → Johannes von Thurn und Taxis
• Albert, 12th Prince of Thurn and Taxis → Albert von Thurn und Taxis
• Princess Iniga of Thurn and Taxis → Iniga von Thurn und Taxis
• Friedrich Wilhelm, Prince of Hohenzollern → Friedrich Wilhelm Prinz von Hohenzollern
• Karl Friedrich, Prince of Hohenzollern → Karl Friedrich von Hohenzollern
• Prince Luitpold of Bavaria (b. 1951) → Luitpold Prinz von Bayern
• Princess Irmingard of Bavaria → Irmingard von Bayern
• Franz, Duke of Bavaria → Franz von Bayern
• Prince Max, Duke in Bavaria → Max Emanuel in Bayern
• Prince Leopold of Bavaria (born 1943) → Leopold Prinz von Bayern
• Prince Konstantin of Bavaria → Konstantin Prinz von Bayern
• Prince Ernst August of Hanover (born 1954) → Ernst August von Hannover (born 1954)
• Prince Ludwig Rudolph of Hanover → Ludwig Rudolph von Hannover
• Prince Heinrich of Hanover → Heinrich Prinz von Hannover
• Alexander, Prince of Saxony → Alexander Prinz von Sachsen
• Albert, Margrave of Meissen (1934–2012) → Albert von Sachsen
• Rüdiger, Margrave of Meissen → Rüdiger von Sachsen

– This discussion was already had for the House of Hohenzollern on the talk page here the reasoning is the same as that given by User:Seelefant and should apply to all German nobility born after 1919.

The Weimar Constitution of 1919 abolished in Article 109 any and all royal and aristocratic prerogatives, including titles. The words of the title were allowed to be retained as part of the family name, which is functionally just that - a regular, "bourgeois" surname that should not be translated, and not be put before the first name, title-style. These persons, born after 1919, are not, have never been, and will never be German princes, no more than a contemporary person carrying the name of "Müller" thereby retains the legal requirements to make and sell bread. Germany is a republic, not a constitutional monarchy. There are no German "princes" today, no matter what some people fancy to call themselves. This should be changed (in accordance with WP:NCROY "do not use dissolved or defunct titles"), and out of respect for Germany's democratic constitution, so not to give the impression that Misplaced Pages is lending encyclopedic credence to aristocratic pretense.

Misplaced Pages:NPOV is also relevant as keeping these names supports a royalist minority view and a view held by the extremist far-right Reichsbürger movement which were recently in the news for a coup plot.

I'm opening this request as User:Willthacheerleader18 reverted my moves claiming they weren't discussed before. I'd like to point out that this was general topic was discussed before on many pages. For example on the talk page for Albert Prinz von Thurn und Taxis there is a discussion about the incorrect page name and it seems like there was a consensus on the change so User:Julle changed it in February 2013. That change was reverted by DWC LR without discussion a month later.

The names I'm proposing are the same as the names used on the German Misplaced Pages (where one exists) for the most part. D1551D3N7 (talk) 22:16, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

In the english language, which are the more common usage? GoodDay (talk) 22:50, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support per wp:NCROY we shouldn't use hypothetical titles by default, if are the persons common name we can move it back with an individual request—blindlynx 02:47, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose All of these moves should be treated separately, since there may be different arguments for each individual. WP:NCROY says "Do not use hypothetical, dissolved or defunct titles, including pretenders (real or hypothetical), unless this is what the majority of reliable sources use." (emphasis added). In the case of Princess Irmingard of Bavaria, for example, Google Books only lists one English-language work under "Irmingard von Bayern" (and that is a bibliographic reference which proves to be inaccurate if one looks at the actual book). But there are a number of works listed with "Irmingard Princess of Bavaria". This is just one example of how "the majority of reliable sources use" a princely title which some people think is "defunct". I'm not sure why D1551D3N7 proposes some changes which include "Prinz" (or some other title) in the surname and others which don't. In the case of Prince Max of Bavaria, he is never known as "Max Emanuel in Bayern". Noel S McFerran (talk) 06:08, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

  I responded to the common name argument in a separate comment.

  I think it would be unreasonable to open 20 separate move request discussions concerning the exact same topic, if I did that I would get a lot of people arguing that I should have done a joint move request. We would also have the exact same back and forths on each one. This also avoids silly arguments like "Y, the sister of Prince X should have Princess Y as the article title since he has it". Doing them all together helps with Misplaced Pages:Consistency.

  I don't just "think" the titles are defunct. They ARE defunct for all intents and purposes. They are claimants to a throne that DOES NOT EXIST and has not existed for over 100 years. How far away from the time of the abolition of a monarchy must we be before you would consider these titles defunct? If you want to claim the titles are somehow not defunct please present an actual argument.

  RE: Irmingard

  this book seems to use "Irmingard of Bayern", "Irmingard von Bayern" and "Irmingard of Bavaria".

  Given she was born shortly after the abolition of the monarchy and the fact she was persecuted by the Nazi's for being her father's daughter and common usage I think it's fair to keep the current title in her case but I don't think this argument extends to all of them.

  I kept Prinz in the surname if it was used on the German[REDACTED] but you're right, perhaps we shouldn't include Prinz. Sometimes Prinz or Herzog etc is incorporated in the surname, other times it isn't.

  RE: Max

  Hard to find any sources that talk about him or reference him in general outside of his supposed throne claims but it appears that the surname is actually "Herzog in Bayern" not "in Bayern" so that's a mistake on my part. D1551D3N7 (talk) 21:31, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. These aren't their common names in English, and some of the suggested targets are ambiguous (Albert von Sachsen). Celia Homeford (talk) 07:10, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for pointing that out, it should be Albert von Sachsen (1934–2012) or Albert von Sachsen (born 1934) or Albert von Sachsen (historian)

  I don't see any others that are particularly ambiguous. D1551D3N7 (talk) 10:46, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support, as per nomination. Any exceptions can then be resolved on relevant page Somej (talk) 09:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - If they're more commonly known in english, by the current names. PS - Would we also be having an RM, concerning the same topic in Romania, Greece, Bulgaria, etc? GoodDay (talk) 14:46, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

  I responded to the common names argument further below.

  I do intend to look into the Romania, Greece, Bulgaria, Italian etc. ones also but different countries treat things differently so will require some research. Let's focus on the German cases first. D1551D3N7 (talk) 11:26, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - see Misplaced Pages:Official names for guidance. DrKay (talk) 16:17, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - we shouldn't be using German for these titles. Franz, Duke of Bavaria is also not known as "Franz von Bayern" in English. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:04, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

  They aren't titles, they are surnames and thus should not be translated. It would be like I insisted on referring to you as Tim Descendant of Doherty. D1551D3N7 (talk) 18:32, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

• Comment You claimed that I reverted your edits, but I did not. I requested they be reverted. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 00:05, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose as the proposed names are not used by a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources – and are not even consistent in their use of "Prinz". Rosbif73 (talk) 06:30, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Statements that we should use the proposed names "out of respect for Germany's democratic constitution" are completely against Misplaced Pages's conventions and verge on WP:OFFICIALNAME. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:50, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

• Comment

I don't see any arguments being given that explain how the changes on these pages should be treated any differently than in the case of their House of Hohenzollern counterparts

RE: Common Name

In a lot of cases the current article name is not the commonly used name.

I've collected a list of sources for some of the people listed.

Even in cases where Prince or Princess is used as a title the name used still doesnt match the article title as the titles tend to be English translations instead of keeping the German, they are surnames and should not be translated.

I agree with User:blindlynx and User:Somej, usage of the defunct titles should be exceptions not the norm and can be resolved later on the individual talk pages.

Gloria, Princess of Thurn and Taxis

name: Gloria von Thurn und Taxis

• RND (german)
• T-online (german)
• Spiegel (german)
• TownAndCountryMag
• MansionGlobal.com
• WMagazine
• Telegraph
• d'Elora, Camille (31 January 1995). "Point de Vue". _Gloria von Thurn und Taxis: La Mal Aimée_ (in French)
• Bild.de (german)
• Vatican

name: Gloria Thurn und Taxis

• aleteia.org

name: Princess Gloria von Thurn und Taxis

• Vanity Fair
• New York Times

name: Princess Gloria von Thurn und Taxis

• artnews.com
• telegraph

Princess Maria Theresia of Thurn and Taxis (born 1980)

name: Maria Theresia Wilson

• bild.de (german)

name: Maria Thurn Und Taxis

• mariatnt.com (her own website)

name: Maria Theresia von Thurn und Taxis

• sueddeutsche (German)
• bunte.de (german)

Johannes, 11th Prince of Thurn and Taxis

name: Prince Johannes Thurn und Taxis

• Vanity Fair

name: Prince Johannes von Thurn und Taxis

• New York Times
• artnews.com

Albert, 12th Prince of Thurn and Taxis

name: Albert von Thurn Und Taxis

• his website
• adac-motorsport.de
• ewrc-results.com
• cnbc
• BBC

name: Albert Thurn Und Taxis

• his dissertation

name: Prince Albert von Thurn und Taxis

• Forbes
• BBC

name: Albert Prince of Thurn and Taxis (no comma)

• order of saint george

Princess Iniga of Thurn and Taxis

Couldn't find any good sources in general, ones used in the article don't mention her or are dead links. Will probably nominate for deletion due to lack of notability

Friedrich Wilhelm, Prince of Hohenzollern

name: Prince Friedrich Wilhelm

• Telegraph

given he was born shortly after 1919 I'm willing to concede on this one

Karl Friedrich, Prince of Hohenzollern

name: Karl Friedrich von Hohenzollern

• nzz.ch
• cotidianul.ro (romanian, regarding how usage of his title is controversial)
• bunte.de

name: His Highness Karl Friedrich Prince of Hohenzollern

• hohenzollern-schloss.de

D1551D3N7 (talk) 11:17, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support Gloria, Maria Theresia, Albert, and Karl. For the others, I would like to see more evidence of COMMONNAME. JoelleJay (talk) 18:11, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support all, for all that this nomination may have been a bit big. I believe the COMMONNAME concerns cut the other way above - these names should be considered the "default" (and yes, English Misplaced Pages doesn't use German, but it does take names as is. In the same way that an English last name of "Cooper" does not mean the person actually makes barrels any more, it seems that the likes of "Prinz" really are their last names, in the same way that "Prince" is a last name in English too). Only if an affirmative case is made for use of the English translation of the nonexistent title in English should we consider using that - basically a "Queen Latifah" case. (The main example I can think of is something like Prince Rupert Loewenstein, which honestly I'd rather move too, but at least English media does indeed call him "Prince" in English.) Keeping these names translated implies that there is an Actual Government Title afoot here, and that is quite inaccurate for the same reason we don't call Jean-Christophe, Prince Napoléon Emperor of France. SnowFire (talk) 05:14, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

We don't call Jean-Christophe Bonaparte "Emperor of France" but we do call him Prince Napoléon. As we do call Jean d'Orléans the Count of Paris, Carlos de Bourbon de Parme the Duke of Parma, and other nominal heads of formerly ruling dynasties by their courtesy titles that have no legal official capacity. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 15:36, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:OFFICIALNAME and WP:COMMONNAME. Particularly for those who are heads and consorts of former ruling houses (like the 11th Prince of Thurn and Taxis and the Dowager Princess of Thurn and Taxis). Translating them to the German names also seems silly, as English sources do not refer to them as such and this is English Misplaced Pages. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 15:36, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

  We're not "translating them to German names", these people are German of course their names are German. Currently it is the articles that are translating names into titles. In the case of Johannes the English sources I could find don't refer to him as "Johannes, 11th Prince of Thurn and Taxis" but either "Prince Johannes Thurn und Taxis" or "Prince Johannes von Thurn und Taxis" - note the lack of "of" or "and". Even if the title was to retain "Prince" in it the name is wrong as per COMMONNAME. The same applies to Gloria D1551D3N7 (talk) 19:14, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

• Comment Is this to set a precedent with all Misplaced Pages articles about non-ruling royal persons and notable members of formerly noble families? This would be a huge change in article naming on Misplaced Pages.. I mean, we have people like Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna of Russia (whose title is not recognized in Russia) and Vittorio Emanuele, Prince of Naples (whose title is not recognized in Italy).. not to mention the dozens of articles on heads and membrs of noble families in countries where the nobility has been abolished. This move seems to focus on persons from the Germanic regions, but if we are to do this, would this not follow suit with similar articles with people from Russia, France, Italy, Hungary, Czech Republic, Poland, etc.? -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 16:22, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

  You are committing a logical fallacy here - appeal to tradition. It should be the way it is because it is the way it is is not a valid argument. Just because articles for other pretenders exist with the titles doesn't make it right in any way.

  The convention already exists to not use titles for pretenders. The precedent already exists in the case of German nobility if you read the first sentence of my request. It is up to those who oppose to put forward a reason that differentiates these other German houses from House of Hohenzollern.

  Here we're only talking about German houses to have a more straightforward discussion, it's quite clear how the monarchy was abolished and the titles were removed, other former monarchies may have allowed people to keep their titles - I haven't looked into all of them yet. It was also 100 years ago, it's not exactly recent.

  The title of Maria Vladimirovna's page is contentious as you can see on the talk page and her Russian article does not have the title. The same applies to Vittorio, there's discussion on his talk page and his Italian article does not have Prince of Naples in the title. Why is English Misplaced Pages consistently taking a royalist point of view on these articles when most people from these countries clearly do not share this view? It clearly violates Misplaced Pages:NPOV. Italians or Russians may not interact with English Misplaced Pages enough to encounter these articles.

  I think we should follow suit with similar articles with people from Russia, France, Italy, Hungary, Czech Republic, Poland, etc. D1551D3N7 (talk) 19:42, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Oppose - Misplaced Pages is not bound to follow a country's laws based on how people should be called, particularly a law that has been obsolete for nearly a century. WP:NCROY says that titles in pretense should be used when most sources do so.

This is a complete WP:TRAINWRECK and these should be proposed individually for better discussion. The fact that the only evidence cited in the nom was a section of the Weimar Constitution, which isn't even in effect anymore, WP:NPOV was cited in a sentence that clearly is not intended to keep that NPOV, an assertion that one user made a change so there must therefore be consensus, and the fact that German Misplaced Pages uses the proposed titles, which are in no way obligated to do. None of this would make me support any of the moves individually (but that should be discussed elsewhere, hence TRAINWRECK). estar8806 (talk) ★ 18:13, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Comment on the Weimar Constitution: The cited part is still valid law in germany per Art. 123 Abs 1 GG. Theoreticalmawi (talk) 05:48, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support By reasons given by the proposer. The evidence presented is very clear. When there are such cases where a name with consensus get reverted without discussion after some time, it is a absolute no-brainer that the reached consensus should be reinstated.:

Another important point is that the usage of such fake titles can be dangerous. We just had the case of the "prince" Reuß, who headed the 2022 German coup d'état plot.

Furthermore, some on this list even lack notability, so an english common name does not exist because no reliable english source ever covered these individuals. Theoreticalmawi (talk) 05:39, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Misplaced Pages is and has always been what most reliable sources say about a subject, not what anyone personally believes to be WP:Truth based on WP:Original research on what laws say. Misplaced Pages has no obligation whatsoever to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS let alone respect any existing or defunct political regime and ideology. Per WP:COMMONNAME, Misplaced Pages determines which article titles to use based on prevalence in independent, reliable English-language sources.

Also, the nominator has failed to provide evidence for the claim that English sources are translating surnames rather than simply using defunct titles. Let's take the case of Georg Friedrich of Prussia for example. His legal surname is "Prinz von Preussen". Yet, multiple English-language sources have referred to him as "Prince Georg Friedrich of Prussia" instead of "George Friedrich Prince of Prussia". See The Economist, The Sunday Times, Associated Press to name a few. I have never seen anyone seriously write a multi-words last name in such a manner. Then there are sources putting a comma right after "Friedrich" and before "Prince of Prussia". See Deutche Welle and Financial Times. At least in the West, first name and last name is only separated by a comma when a name is rewritten to present a last name first.

Furthermore, please be aware that Misplaced Pages:Consensus can change especially if the previous consensus is not based on the existing policies and guidelines.

StellarHalo (talk) 09:45, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

• Comment "... and out of respect for Germany's democratic constitution" is irrelevant, just as respect for each respective country's government or leader has been irrelevant in every discussion about renaming the articles on Czech Republic (Czechia), Swaziland (Eswatini), Turkey (Türkiye), Burma (Myanmar), Cape Verde (Cabo Verde), Ivory Coast (Côte d'Ivoire), etc. Largoplazo (talk) 12:12, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

• @Sceptre:, I noticed that of the items in this request, Princess Irmingard of Bavaria was the only one not moved. Was this an oversight or was this the edge case mentioned in the closing comment?98.228.137.44 (talk) 04:34, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

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

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)

• Closed move reviews