Misplaced Pages

talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:59, 25 November 2023 editSurtsicna (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users130,758 edits →Survey← Previous edit Revision as of 17:01, 25 November 2023 edit undoAndrewPeterT (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,791 edits →Survey: ReplyTag: ReplyNext edit →
Line 998: Line 998:
*:I note that I could have said the same thing about ''that'' RfC, as a similar one had already taken place in January. RfCs{{emdash}}rightly or wrongly{{emdash}} will happen regardless of if similar ones have happened in the past, even if they were in the very near past. So, if the NCROY RfC was allowed to take place, then this one by the same token should be too. ] (]) 16:48, 25 November 2023 (UTC) *:I note that I could have said the same thing about ''that'' RfC, as a similar one had already taken place in January. RfCs{{emdash}}rightly or wrongly{{emdash}} will happen regardless of if similar ones have happened in the past, even if they were in the very near past. So, if the NCROY RfC was allowed to take place, then this one by the same token should be too. ] (]) 16:48, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
*::Do you mind linking to that January RfC? ] (]) 16:59, 25 November 2023 (UTC) *::Do you mind linking to that January RfC? ] (]) 16:59, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
*:Surtsicna, with all due respect, I understand why you would see this RfC as forum shopping. Moreover, , I do not see this RfC in the same vein as the WP:NCROY RfC you linked. I agree with Tim O’Doherty that this RfC should proceed for the standard 30 days.
*:And quite frankly, to add to Tim O’Doherty’s response, the consensus in the WP:NCROY RfC reflects a blanket judgement of ] that does not reflect specific nuances in how RMs have occurred, , and is '''arguably equally unproductive as the ] blanket judgment that I accept I have been pushing'''.
*:To make this point above clear, ? not a ]y attempt to force adherence to WP:COMMONNAME? <u>Or do these concerns only matter if WP:CONSISTENT is at hand?</u>
*:On a side note, I am exhausted from attempting to clarify my ] intentions to the community. At the expense of sidestepping WP:AGF and ], I again direct all participants to read the ] essay.
*:'''''] ] (])''''' 17:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)


===Discussion=== ===Discussion===

Revision as of 17:01, 25 November 2023

Shortcuts
This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Royalty and Nobility and anything related to its purposes and tasks.
Archives: Index, Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12Auto-archiving period: 6 months 
This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconBiography: Royalty and Nobility
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility.
WikiProject iconCouncil
WikiProject iconThis page relates to the WikiProject Council, a collaborative effort regarding WikiProjects in general. If you would like to participate, please visit the project discussion page.CouncilWikipedia:WikiProject CouncilTemplate:WikiProject CouncilCouncil
Archiving icon
Archives (index)
Index
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6
Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12

This page has archives. Sections older than 182.5 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III.

Signatures of medieval French monarchs

I was looking through Wikimedia and found charters of Philip VI of France, Charles V of France, and Charles VI of France. They all have the kings seals but they also have what looks like signatures beside the seals. Are those the signatures of the kings? ✠ Robertus Pius ✠ (Talk • Contribs) 19:24, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Caligula

Caligula has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:48, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Monarchies in Europe

Monarchies in Europe has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 15:26, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Infant rulers

Is an infant with a regent considered a ruler? See for instance Chuzi II, who I presume his mother was the regent. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 04:29, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

If there is an underaged royal who becomes the monarch, they will be given a regent, but they are still technically the monarch. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 22:20, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Not a ruling monarch though, I guess. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 22:24, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
We categorise them as Category:Child monarchs. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:42, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
My question is regarding the first sentence of the article, which states he was a ruler. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 23:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

"royal" consorts

Should we remove the word "royal" from lists and categories in which none, or not all, of the consorts were married to an actual king or equivalent royal monarch? Example: Category:Lists of duchesses features the word "royal" 14 times, but dukes and duchesses are obviously below the level of "king"/"queen". On the other hand, should we remove it from lists and categories of consorts which were all royal, so that the word "royal" is redundant? It is clear that "consorts" always refers to dynastic spouses, so there is no need to add "royal" where that is obvious. There is no List of ducal consorts of Foo, and no List of Fooian ducal consorts, anywhere on English Misplaced Pages. We just don't need the adjective 'ducal'. Why would we need the adjective 'royal'?

  • Cases where "royal" is correct, but adds nothing: For instance, all consorts in List of Belgian royal consorts are royal, so "royal" is not needed to distinguish "royal" Belgian consorts from "non-royal" Belgian consorts, because all of them have been royal.
  • Cases where "royal" is incorrect, and adds nothing: In cases such as List of Hessian royal consorts it is always incorrect to call them "royal", because landgraves and grand dukes are always below the level of "king/queen", and although whether "prince-electors" or "electors" were "royal" or not varied in time and place, it never applied to Hesse. Besides, the word "royal" doesn't really add anything significant or necessary to just saying List of Hessian consorts (which already redirects to List of Hessian royal consorts anyway). "royal" is not needed to distinguish "non-royal" Hessian consorts, because all of them were non-royal.
Many such cases can be seen in both Category:Lists of duchesses and Category:Lists of royal consorts. E.g. why are List of Mexican imperial consorts and List of Luxembourgish consorts categorised as "royal" consorts? None of then were married to kings or queens regnant, only to emperors/empresses regnant, counts/countesses regnant, dukes/duchesses regnant, and grand dukes/duchesses regnant.
  • Cases where "royal" applies only to some consorts, but not others: In the List of Bavarian royal consorts, "royal" is incorrect for all consorts from c. 556 to 1797, and it is only correct from 1797 to 1918. In other words, for a total of 1362 years of Bavarian consorts, "royal" applies only for 121 years, to only 4 out of 99 consorts in total. Therefore, I really don't think "royal" is justified, especially as long as we do not split this list into ducal, electoral and royal consorts, in which case "royal" would be a necessary distinguishing addition. (But I don't see a reason why we should split it; the article is fine as it is. It just has a needless extra word "royal" in the title, which is misleading for 95 out of 99 people mentioned in it).

Proposed solution: Let's just get rid of all mentions of "royal" in every category and list of consorts of Foo or list of Fooian consorts, unless and until there is a separate list for non-royal consorts of Foo or Fooian consorts which makes "royal" a necessary distinguishing addition. Examples:

Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:30, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Example: Category:Lists of duchesses features the word "royal" 14 times, but dukes and duchesses are obviously below the level of "king"/"queen". That doesn't mean they're not royal. Many European ducal and grand ducal families are considered to be royal families and have royal titles (e.g. Highness). -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:40, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Granted, but that would mean they are royal for reasons other than being duchesses, and it would only apply in individual cases rather than something we can assume to apply to all duchesses. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:45, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Welcome @Surtsicna and Marcocapelle: from the "Bosnian queens" CfR, which inspired me to ask this broader question. As you can see, we currently already have dozens of lists and categories for consorts of monarchs (emperors/kings/dukes/counts etc. male or female) where the word "royal" is not necessary, such as Milan (List of Milanese consorts) and Luxemb(o)urg (List of Luxembourgish consorts). In Category:Lists of duchesses, 53 out of 67 lists do not mention 'royal'. I think Bosnia doesn't need it either. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:52, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

My concern is that we are reinventing the word "consort". The word "consort" means "a husband or wife, especially of a monarch", "a companion or partner". One therefore cannot be a "consort of Bosnia". Using such fancy words where plain English would suffice risks confusing people who do not know them; worse yet, using the word incorrectly risks confusing those who do know them. Category:Consorts of Bosnia could reasonably include all married people from Bosnia. Ditto for article titles such as List of Milanese consorts. Surtsicna (talk) 17:11, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

"a husband or wife, especially of a monarch" is exactly how we are using it, aren't we? Otherwise we would be using "spouse". We are not reinventing anything, it already is plain English. Category:Consorts of monarchs is a child of Category:Spouses of heads of state, and Category:Monarchs, so we are calling any spouse of any monarch a consort, whether they be category:queens consort, category:empresses consort, grand princesses consort, countesses consort etc.
The only other time when English Misplaced Pages appears to use consort for categorisation purposes is Category:Consorts of deities, and Category:Viceregal consorts (but in some of the Australian and New Zealand cases, the wording "Spouses of Fooian Governors" is preferred). Thus, "consort" has a very strong dynastic connotation, and is rarely – if ever – used outside dynastic contexts (such as deities).
By contrast, I would argue that using fancy words such as "royal" to apply to duchesses is actually reinventing the word "royal". Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:26, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
If we are using the word "consort" in the sense of "a husband or wife", then we are positively dumb having titles such as List of consorts of Bosnia. One cannot be the spouse of a country. And what does "Milanese spouses" (as in "Milanese consorts") mean? Surtsicna (talk) 17:48, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
I agree with Surtsicna on the basic point of English usage: "Milanese consorts" and especially "Consorts of Bosnia" sound strange to my ear. (The latter would be, like, people who were married to Bosnia?) --JBL (talk) 18:14, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
We are using the word "consort" in the sense of "a husband or wife of a monarch". So if I had been the husband of Helen of Bosnia, I would have been a "consort of Bosnia". It doesn't mean I was married to the country.
"Milanese consorts" in List of Milanese consorts means "wives of the lords and dukes of Milan". Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:18, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Maybe I should make it even easier. There is no List of ducal consorts of Foo, and no List of Fooian ducal consorts, anywhere on English Misplaced Pages. We just don't need the adjective 'ducal'. Why would we need the adjective 'royal'? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:31, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
... because the construction "consorts of Bosnia" in English doesn't work, that's why. In some contexts, it can be understood that "consort" means "a spouse of a monarch", but when you pair it with "of Bosnia" that overrules the implicit . I mean, I don't have a theoretical explanation for this, I'm just telling you, as a native speaker of English, how it sounds -- I don't think any native English speaker (at least not of my dialect) would ever write what you're proposing and expect it to be understood in the way you want. --JBL (talk) 19:16, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
"Consorts of the rulers of Bosnia" means one thing. "Consorts of Bosnia" does not mean the same thing; what it means instead is nonsensical. The theoretical explanation here is that the word "consort" does not mean "spouse of a monarch" and cannot be used in place of that phrase. What "consort" means, per dictionary definitions, is spouse or companion; it being most commonly used in reference to the spouses of monarchs and deities does not alter its meaning. Surtsicna (talk) 19:45, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Despite the fact that we have so many lists of consorts I can understand that it may sound nonsensical when you overthink it. I don't think there is a general solution right now, we'd better develop some further case history - as currently happens for Bosnia. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:29, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
You do not have to overthink it for it to sound nonsensical. You just have to know what the word means. Surtsicna (talk) 21:17, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
I thought I knew what "consorts" meant, but now I'm not so sure. See my comment below. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:29, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
I'm prepared to go along with Marcocapelle's Alt rename of Category:Bosnian queens to Category:Queens consort of Bosnia as a first step. It could be that I am wrong about List of Milanese consorts and such; that we really need to add something in order to clarify they weren't married to the country, but to whoever was running the country. I do maintain that "royal" is often not the correct word to add, so at least for now I propose a case-by-case approach. We'll see where that gets us. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:50, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Observation: I must say that JBL saying that native English speakers wouldn't write or say consorts of Foo or Fooian consorts gives me some pause. It sounds natural to me, but I'm a non-native English speaker, so admittedly, my opinion shouldn't be given too much linguistic weight. I was also surprised to find almost no sources on Google Books or Google Scholar using a formulation like Milanese/French/Bavarian consorts. This raises the question why in Category:Lists of duchesses, 53 out of 67 lists do not mention 'royal' (or 'ducal', 'comital', 'imperial' etc.), yet nobody seems to have noticed until now that this is – apparently – a linguistic problem in English. I think developing some further case history, as Marcocapelle suggests, is the right thing to do. But before we do, I think we can already look at decisions such as why List of Austrian consorts was renamed to List of Austrian royal consorts in 2021, and back to List of Austrian consorts in 2022. I'll start trying to answer those questions now, because they may already contain certain precedents that we should take into consideration when deciding this question. Whatever the case, I'll freely admit that at this point, I'm not as confident that we can just remove the word "royal" from all these lists as I was earlier today. We'll see in which direction this exchange goes. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:27, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
    This confirms two points of contention we have seen above. 'Consort' can technically mean anyone's spouse, even though it has strong connections with dynastic spouses of monarchs. On the other hand, 'royal' doesn't quite cut it if we are talking about consorts of non-royal dynastic monarchs/rulers, such as dukes (i.e. duchesses consort). The Austrian renamings show the same tension that we see above. Unfortunately, both of them seem to have been undiscussed moves; there is no talk of this on the talk page. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:52, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
    Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:13, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
    As far as I can tell, Keivan.f did hundreds of undiscussed moves of Fooian consorts to Fooian royal consorts on 14 January 2021. Some of them have been reverted later, such as the Austrian example above. I do not see any discussion anywhere. Keivan.f just repeatedly said Anyone in Foo who's married is a consort for the first hundred-ish edits, then stopped writing edit summaries altogether, and for the last moves of the day started invoking per WP:TITLECON, perhaps because by that point Keivan.f had single-handedly made Fooian royal consorts the new self-invented standard overnight. If this was backed by consensus, I would have no problem with it, but I don't think it is. These are all bold undiscussed moves, some of which have been reverted since. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:23, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
    Unfortunately I think this means no consensus-based precedent has ever been set. These undiscussed renamings and partial reversions happened within the last 2.5 years, and nobody else seems to have noticed. I think that means we need to establish a new consensus here for the first time.
    The only precedent I really see is Peter Ormond moving several pages on 28 December 2021 from List of consorts of Foo to List of Fooian consorts because of consistency. But Marcocapelle and I recently established Suggestion B that we should rename/rescope all Fooian monarchs to Monarchs of Foo, especially when there is doubt which one is more correct. E.g. if a noblewoman born in Milan marries a king of Bosnia, she is a Milanese queen consort by "nationality", but surely, we are more interested in the fact that she is a consort of the king of Bosnia, regardless of where she was born. The renaming of Category:Cypriot monarchs to Category:Monarchs of Cyprus confirmed the Suggestion B principle. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:46, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
    Some lists such as List of Luxembourgish consorts / List of consorts of Luxembourg have never had 'royal' or any other such adjective in the title. Inexplicably, someone did add it to Category:Queens consort at some point (even though Luxembourg has never had any queens or kings), but Aciram correctly removed that miscat in 2020. I cannot help but get the impression that some people associate the word 'consort' automatically with 'royal', 'queen' or 'king', even in countries that have never had kings, queens or otherwise been royal. There is a lot of misnaming and miscategorisation going on here. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:05, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
    PS: This doesn't mean we don't need adjectives such as 'royal' or 'ducal', just that if we do, they should be applied correctly. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:07, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Dukes, Duchesses, Grand Dukes, Grand Duchesses, Landgraves, Landgravines, Margraves, Margravines, Electors, Electresses, etc., are all still royal, they’re just below the level of rank of King and Queen (and Emperor and Empress, etc.). - Therealscorp1an (talk) 21:49, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
If so, at what point do we no longer speak of 'royal'? Is every dynastic ruler automatically 'royal'? Royal literally just means "kingly", from French roy = "king". I really don't think it should be applied to any spouse below (or above) the royal (=kingly) level; those are by definition non-royal because they aren't married to kings/queens. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:56, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

List of banesses and queens of Bosnia moved to List of medieval Bosnian consorts

Does this help? I don't think so. If I correctly understood what everyone has been saying here, this just means "List of medieval Bosnians who were married". @Surtsicna @Marcocapelle @JayBeeEll you all convinced me that it was important to go for the phrasing queens consort of Bosnia. Where were you during this RM? I could have really used your support. Now a number of people who haven't read this whole discussion (despite me linking to it and explaining everything) have voted to turn it into something else that doesn't help clarify things the way we agreed to clarify them, and you were absent. Of course, you're not required to participate, but I do feel a bit abandoned.... The Milanese RM Talk:List of Milanese consorts#Requested move 13 July 2023 aren't doing too well either (although at least Marcocapelle supports it, thanks!). What can we best do next in order to try and have article/list names and category names of royalty and nobility align better? Right now it's people here and people there having very different discussions. Can we somehow centralise the conversation? Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:53, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Nederlandse Leeuw this sounds a lot like a WP:TANTRUM because the page didn't get moved to where you wanted it. In any case, consort does not just mean "someone who was married". According to Google English Dictionary (taken from Oxford Languages), "consort" means a wife, husband, or companion, in particular the spouse of a reigning monarch (emphasis my own). And in any case, are your average people going around referring to their husband/wife/spouse as "my consort"? Probably not. I don't see any cause for confusion there. estar8806 (talk) ★ 17:37, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Hmmm to be honest, the first half might look that way, but the comment above wasn't really meant like that. It was more a frustrated admission of failure to accomplish what I was trying and expecting to achieve. I thought I was in it together with the people with whom I thought I had established a consensus here. But they barely participated in the RMs we had discussed above (which they weren't required to, of course, but I had expected them to because we had all agreed here). At the RMs themselves, the consensus I thought we had established here was dismissed as irrelevant, or at least interpreted very differently over there. I didn't expect that, and that was disappointing. At the same time, I tried to be constructive and ask for what we could best do next, because evidently there had been essentially separate, different conversations resulting in separate, different agreements about the same topic. The conclusions about renaming the category and the list are at odds with each other right now.
By the way, I made the exact same argument based on the exact same dictionary earlier, and yet, this was rejected for other reasons, or based on other dictionaries etc. Moreover, I had also argued that the word "consort" wouldn't be used nowadays anymore in modern English except in dynastic contexts, but was also dismissed. So I wish I could agree with you, but unfortunately it's not that simple.
For now, I'm not really looking for taking the lead in solving this question, but if you or anyone else would like to take up the challenge, go ahead. I might participate, but I won't lead. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:58, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Discussion of interest

A discussion which may be of interest to the members of this group can be found here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:50, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Nicky Hilton Rothschild#Requested move 23 June 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Nicky Hilton Rothschild#Requested move 23 June 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 12:44, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Louis, Duke of Burgundy#Requested move 26 June 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Louis, Duke of Burgundy#Requested move 26 June 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Favonian (talk) 10:43, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Were all 'murdered monarchs' also 'dethroned monarchs'?

Should Category:Murdered monarchs be a subcategory of Category:Dethroned monarchs? Or can one person not be categorised as both simultaneously (as this is either redundant, or will lead to a logical contradiction)?

I'm asking because Anula of Anuradhapura is both in Category:Dethroned monarchs and Category:1st-century BC murdered monarchs. Sorry if this may sound strange or like linguistic nitpicking. But it seems to me that:

  • A: If you wikt:dethrone a monarch who is in office, but you continue to let them live (at least for some time), they are simply no longer a "monarch", because they are no longer in office. If they continue to claim to be the legitimate monarch, that makes them a pretender (with no prejudice against whether that claim is legitimate or not).
  • B: If you murder a monarch who is in office, then it is redundant to say you've dethroned them; due to being dead, they are automatically no longer a "monarch" either, because they are no longer in office.
  • C: If you murder someone after dethroning them, you've not murdered a "monarch", but an "ex-monarch", because they had already been out of office.
  • D: If you execute someone after dethroning them, you've not executed a "monarch", but an "ex-monarch", because they had already been out of office.

I know that it can be a point of view (POV) whether the monarch was really dethroned or not, and especially whether they were still the (legitimate) monarch or not. The classic historiographical problem is the Execution of Louis XVI: was that "putting citizen Louis Capet to justice" (D; as revolutionaries saw it) or "murdering/lynching the rightful King Louis XVI" (B; as royalists saw it)? I can imagine royalists will have maintained that Louis was the rightful monarch of France until his death, even though I think there is consensus in historiography that at least the Insurrection of 10 August 1792 and Louis' subsequent imprisonment (13 August 1792 to 21 January 1793) in the Temple fortress until his execution represents a dethronement. That is scenario A, which could still lead to C or D, depending on whether you consider the Trial of Louis XVI to have been legitimate or illegitimate. But scenario B is no longer possible, because Louis was evidently not in office anymore while imprisoned in the Temple.

All this leads me to the conclusion that we cannot simultaneously put people in the Category:Dethroned monarchs and the Category:Murdered monarchs trees. Because it leads to a logical contradiction. The only scenario in which I can see that happening is that if Hank becomes the monarch of Foo, is dethroned but allowed to live (A), and becomes the monarch of Bar, and is then murdered while in office (B). That means Hank is the dethroned monarch of Foo, and the murdered monarch of Bar, but not the dethroned monarch of Bar. Hank would only be in Category:Dethroned monarchs because of Foo. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:43, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

In normal language, I don't think a murdered monarch is referred to as "dethroned" (your category B). Dethroned implies that there is life after being a monarch. A murdered monarch is a murdered monarch. They cease to be a monarch for the same reason a monarch dies of natural causes, death, not because they are dethroned. They remain a monarch to the end of their life. We don't refer to dead monarchs as "ex-monarchs". DeCausa (talk) 10:57, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
My thoughts exactly. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:56, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Completely agree with both of you. --Marbe166 (talk) 16:40, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Almost completely agree, except that in "B" I would classify a ruling monarch that's been murdered as a "past monarch", rather than "no longer a monarch"; a very small distinction but of some importance when it comes to legitimacy/succession: fairly often in history a monarch is murdered only for their heir to ascend the throne, often deriving their legitimacy from shared blood with the previous monarch. I would consider "no longer a monarch" to be more aligned with "ex-monarch", as usually, both imply the line of succession has been vastly disrupted or even ended; while palace/familial coups where a monarch's brother/son/mother's brother's uncle's son seizes the throne do occur, and usually rely upon the legitimacy of the predecessor with some (often extraneous) justification for why the new guy should be able to take the throne, by and large, most cases where the previous monarch is in exile/prison, the line of succession, and the legitimacy derived therefrom, are ended. The distinction, therefore, is that a "past monarch" is fully legitimate and would have continued to be until the end of time or another cause of death, anyone who is "no longer a monarch" has presumably lost their legitimacy ipso facto, the same as an "ex-monarch". Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:30, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
For the sake of clarity and a TL;DR: I agree that: For "A", a dethroned monarch is either "no longer a monarch" or a pretender (if they still press the claim), and that for "C" and "D", if a monarch is dethroned and then murdered or dethroned and then executed, they are an "ex-monarch" at the time of death. My only quibble is that per "B", I believe that monarchs who are murdered while ruling should not be categorized as "no longer a monarch" but as a "past monarch", due to legitimacy considerations. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:35, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
I don't see any distinction between "no longer a monarch" and an "ex-monarch". In normal language, they are interchangeable. But, in any case, I don't think it matters to the question originally posed on the murdered/dethroned categorisations. DeCausa (talk) 06:42, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Just to add that there could be some factual ambiguity about whether a monarch was just murdered or dethroned and then murdered during or shortly after the coup. I'm thinking about some of the Roman and Byzantine emperors for example. There may be a case for some of these being in both categories. But that wouldn't mean Category:Murdered monarchs should be a subcategory of Category:Dethroned monarchs, which is the point of the question. DeCausa (talk) 10:20, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
FWIW - Louis XVI was 'no longer' monarch, by the time he was executed. France had already been a republic for about four months. Examples of former monarchs 'might of' been murdered, while their countries were still monarchies, are England's Edward II & Richard II. GoodDay (talk) 13:37, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
For the record, the category was renamed from Murdered to Category:Assassinated monarchs. – Fayenatic London 21:44, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion for William of the United Kingdom

(non-automated message) Greetings, members of WikiProject Royalty and Nobility! I have initiated a move request here that pertains to multiple royals. While participation is optional, I would appreciate any feedback! (Please note that I have not initiated this process before, so I apologize if this message is unnecessary.) Hurricane Andrew (444) 23:34, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

List of rulers of Provence has an RFC

List of rulers of Provence has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:19, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Notification of Llywelyn the Great move discussion

Hello, I have opened a discussion at Llywelyn the Great about moving the article to 'Llywelyn ab Iorwerth'. If you would like to participate please do so, particularly if you are familiar with Welsh history. Thank you, A.D.Hope (talk) 18:14, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Second-longest reigning monarch of Denmark

There is a discussion about including said information in the lead of the page Margrethe II of Denmark. The thread is Talk:Margrethe II of Denmark#Removal of notable length of reign text from lead. Your input is appreciated. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 20:21, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for David III of Tao

David III of Tao has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:55, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Purge consorts of pretenders?

I find it strange that List of royal consorts of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies doesn't end in 1861, and that List of Greek royal consorts doesn't end in 1973. Those kingdoms ceased to exist. It seems pseudohistorical to me to list the consorts of pretenders as if they actually still reigned as monarchs. Should we purge them? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:06, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

No opposition from me. GoodDay (talk) 22:55, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
Me, either. --JBL (talk) 00:37, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
I've removed such lists from other pages as well.98.228.137.44 (talk) 23:46, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Discussion of interest at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Disambiguation

(non-automated message) Greetings, fellow members of WP:ROYALTY! For your information, a discussion on WikiProject Disambiguation's talk page is ongoing regarding the appropriateness of including potential regnal names of European and Jordanian heirs in disambiguation pages related to royalty. Given the relevance to our topic focus, I would especially appreciate any well-informed opinions from our community! Thank you, Hurricane Andrew (444) 03:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

New royalty and nobility article creation tool

Hi everyone!

I noticed that plenty of articles relevant to this WikiProject were being created without going through the AfC process. I figured some of you might be interested in keeping tabs on those "ghost" articles, so I enlisted the help of User:AlexNewArtBot to generate a report of new articles that fit some criteria (for example, the presence of the word "marquess"). You can always see the Rules and Match log to see what triggered the bot to display some results over others. A new report is generated every 24 hours, usually between 22:00 and 00:00 (UTC).

If you like it, and given enough time for us to tweak it to avoid false positives, do you think it would be a useful addition to the WikiProject page, under the "articles for creation" part of the bot-assisted list?

This list was generated from these rules. Questions and feedback are always welcome! The search is being run daily with the most recent ~14 days of results. Note: Some articles may not be relevant to this project.

Rules | Match log | Results page (for watching) | Last updated: 2025-01-09 23:19 (UTC)

Note: The list display can now be customized by each user. See List display personalization for details.

Cheers, Pilaz (talk) 21:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:William I (disambiguation)#Requested move 10 August 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:William I (disambiguation)#Requested move 10 August 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:38, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Oscar I of Sweden#Requested move 17 August 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Oscar I of Sweden#Requested move 17 August 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Векочел (talk) 21:47, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Louis Philippe II, Duke of Orléans#Requested move 20 August 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Louis Philippe II, Duke of Orléans#Requested move 20 August 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 21:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Eric XIV of Sweden#Requested move 3 September 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Eric XIV of Sweden#Requested move 3 September 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Векочел (talk) 21:47, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Welsh royalty discussions

There are discussions concerning potential OR, RS and SCOPE issues on Talk:House of Aberffraw (article) and Talk:King of Wales (article), but could apply to other related articles. Editors of this project may be interested in these discussions, specifically those with an interest/expertise in Welsh history. Any contributions to the discussions would be welcomed. Thanks/Diolch DankJae 23:30, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Using "House of" for Nobility (not Royality)

I know several years back someone was adamant about using Visconti Family instead of House of Visconti. If this is still the case, someone who feels strongly about this might want to review the edits of MarcBgd‎ (talk · contribs). Peaceray (talk) 20:14, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

"House of" is not really idiomatic Eglish, and somewhat pretentious. Perhaps this is its attraction for some editors. Johnbod (talk) 20:27, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
I think it may very well be, example being The Fall of the House of Usher. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 02:57, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
Well, no it isn't. That is literally a house. No one ever talks of, say, the House of Cavendish, though I see we have a redirect. Johnbod (talk) 04:42, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
House of Windsor, House of Habsburg, House of Este, House of Hohenzollern. I think the broad convention is European ruling dynasties (not necessarily royal) are "House of..." but non-ruling aristocratic families aren't. The Visconti being a ruling family, "House of Visconti" I would say is reasonably common.. DeCausa (talk) 06:27, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
I don't think Poe wanted to circumscribe the topic to the destruction of the mansion. If you read the story, it is about the end of the Usher dynasty. The fall of it. And the Usher mansion gets destroyed as well as a result of some apparent supernatural connection. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 23:56, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Princess Pauline of Württemberg (1877–1965)#Requested move 22 September 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Princess Pauline of Württemberg (1877–1965)#Requested move 22 September 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:55, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Australian monarchy's infobox

Should the Australian governor-general be in the infobox of Monarchy of Australia, with the king? We'll need input, on whether or not this should be done. GoodDay (talk) 00:21, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

The discussion is taking place here. -- GoodDay (talk) 00:28, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Louis X, Duke of Bavaria

Does anyone know the exact date Louis X, Duke of Bavaria in 1516 Louis became Duke? ✠ Robertus Pius ✠ (Talk • Contribs) 16:20, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

RfC: How should articles on sovereigns of current European monarchies be (re)titled?

Please consider joining the feedback request service.
An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

A previous RfC determined that there was consensus to support updating WP:NCROY, a guideline that has been a basis for titling articles on European monarchs since the fall of the Western Roman Empire, to explicitly allow the use of shorter titles for these sovereigns if disambiguation is unnecessary. Given this result, which of the following four options is the best way to (re)title Misplaced Pages articles on pertinent European sovereigns going forward?

  1. Option 1 - Maintain the status quo and issue a WP:MORATORIUM on all requested moves (RMs) for European monarchs’ articles under the scope of WP:NCROY until 365 days have passed since the closure date of this RfC
  2. Option 2 - Rename pertinent article titles to follow WP:NCROY as currently written (whose guidance deferred to WP:COMMONNAME at the time of this RfC’s opening)
  3. Option 3 - Rename pertinent article titles to follow WP:RELIABLE and amend WP:NCROY accordingly
  4. Option 4 - Rename pertinent article titles to follow WP:CONSISTENT and amend WP:NCROY accordingly

All participants are strongly encouraged to read the nominator’s extended rationale before contributing. Hurricane Andrew (444) 22:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Notifications

All notifications below this text were added after comments from other users had been made starting at 22:13 UTC on November 23, 2023. This disclosure is added per WP:TALK#REVISE.

Extended rationale by nominator AndrewPeterT (APT)

NOTE A: This is my (APT’s) first time initiating a RfC, so I apologize if I have done anything improperly.

NOTE B: This RfC is attempting to resolve unsettled concerns regarding the application of WP:NCROY in lieu of WP:NCROY per se. Hence, I am opening this discussion here at WP:ROYALTY instead of WP:NCROY. Hurricane Andrew (444) 22:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Article titles that APT would like the community to focus on

I recognize that there are many articles on the English Misplaced Pages that are arguably under the scope of WP:NCROY. To avoid overwhelming readers of this discussion, I ask that as a community, we focus our attention on the article titles that I have explicitly listed in this section. Hurricane Andrew (444) 22:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

CONTEXT: The information provided below up to the end of this section was originally published by APT on September 18, 2023 as evidence in favor of his argument at the same RfC linked in the opening statement of this RfC. Also, “Adherence to WP:NCROY” refers to whether or not a cited article title followed Guideline 2 of WP:SOVEREIGN at the time APT published his information originally (Link to current text of WP:SOVEREIGN)

NOTES: First, to avoid overwhelming readers not familiar with European royalty, rulers of former monarchies are excluded. Also, as alluded to previously, sovereigns of the Vatican City are excluded because they are popes instead covered by WP:NCCL. Furthermore, the Presidents of France and Bishops of Urgell, the Co-Princes of Andorra, are excluded because they are instead subjected to WP:NCP and WP:NCCL, respectively.

Monarchs of Belgium

This section was edited at 04:17, 25 November 2023 (UTC) after comments from other users had been made starting at 22:13 UTC on November 23, 2023. This disclosure is added per WP:TALK#REVISE.

All sovereigns that have reigned since Belgium’s independence from the Netherlands in 1830 are included.

Monarchs of Belgium
Title Reign Adherence to September 18, 2023 version of WP:NCROY
Leopold I of Belgium 1831-1865 Yes
Leopold II of Belgium 1865-1909 Yes
Albert I of Belgium 1909-1934 Yes
Leopold III of Belgium 1934-1951 Yes
Baudouin of Belgium 1951-1993 Yes (only monarch with name)
Albert II of Belgium 1993-2013 Yes
Philippe of Belgium 2013-present Yes (only monarch with name)

Monarchs of Denmark

This section was edited at 04:17, 25 November 2023 (UTC) after comments from other users had been made starting at 22:13 UTC on November 23, 2023. This disclosure is added per WP:TALK#REVISE.

All sovereigns that have reigned since the establishment of the Danish House of Glücksburg in 1863 are included.

Monarchs of Denmark
Title Reign Adherence to September 18, 2023 version of WP:NCROY
Christian IX of Denmark 1863-1906 Yes
Frederick VIII of Denmark 1906-1912 Yes
Christian X of Denmark 1912-1947 Yes
Frederick IX of Denmark 1947-1972 Yes
Margrethe II 1972-present No (moved since closure of RfC linked in opening statement)

Monarchs of the Netherlands

This section was edited at 04:17, 25 November 2023 (UTC) after comments from other users had been made starting at 22:13 UTC on November 23, 2023. This disclosure is added per WP:TALK#REVISE.

All sovereigns that have reigned since the establishment of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in 1815 are included.

Monarchs of the Netherlands
Title Reign Adherence to September 18, 2023 version of WP:NCROY
William I of the Netherlands 1815-1840 Yes
William II of the Netherlands 1840-1849 Yes
William III of the Netherlands 1849-1890 Yes
Wilhelmina of the Netherlands 1890-1948 Yes (only monarch with name)
Juliana of the Netherlands 1948-1980 Yes (only monarch with name)
Beatrix of the Netherlands 1980-2013 Yes (only monarch with name)
Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands 2013-present Yes (only monarch with name)

Monarchs of Norway

This section was edited at 21:13, 24 November 2023 (UTC) and at 04:17, 25 November 2023 (UTC) after comments from other users had been made starting at 22:13 UTC on November 23, 2023. This disclosure is added per WP:TALK#REVISE.

All sovereigns that have reigned since the dissolution of the personal union of Norway with Sweden in 1905 are included.

Monarchs of Norway
Title Reign Adherence to September 18, 2023 version of WP:NCROY
Haakon VII 1905-1957 No (moved since closure of RfC linked in opening statement)
Olav V 1957-1991 No (moved since closure of RfC linked in opening statement)
Harald V 1991-present No (moved since closure of RfC linked in opening statement)

Monarchs of Spain

This section was edited at 04:17, 25 November 2023 (UTC) after comments from other users had been made starting at 22:13 UTC on November 23, 2023. This disclosure is added per WP:TALK#REVISE.

All sovereigns that have reigned in Spain since the establishment of the House of Bourbon-Anjou in 1700 are included, excluding monarchs from other royal houses.

Monarchs of Spain
Title Reign Adherence to September 18, 2023 version of WP:NCROY
Philip V of Spain 1700-1724 and 1724-1746 Yes
Louis I of Spain 1724-1724 Yes
Ferdinand VI of Spain 1746-1759 Yes
Charles III of Spain 1759-1788 Yes
Charles IV of Spain 1788-1808 Yes
Ferdinand VII of Spain 1808-1808 and 1813-1833 Yes
Isabella II of Spain 1833-1868 Yes
Alfonso XII 1874-1885 No
Alfonso XIII 1886-1931 No
Juan Carlos I 1975-2014 No
Felipe VI 2014-present No

Monarchs of Sweden

This section was edited at 04:17, 25 November 2023 (UTC) after comments from other users had been made starting at 22:13 UTC on November 23, 2023. This disclosure is added per WP:TALK#REVISE.

All sovereigns that have reigned in Sweden since the establishment of the House of Bernadotte in 1818 are included.

Monarchs of Sweden
Title Reign Adherence to September 18, 2023 version of WP:NCROY
Charles XIV John 1818-1844 No (and fails to acknowledge Norwegian regnal number)
Oscar I of Sweden 1844-1859 Yes
Charles XV 1859-1872 No (and fails to acknowledge Norwegian regnal number)
Oscar II 1872-1907 No
Gustaf V 1907-1950 No
Gustaf VI Adolf 1950-1973 No
Carl XVI Gustaf 1973-present No

Monarchs of Great Britain or the United Kingdom

This section was edited at 04:17, 25 November 2023 (UTC) after comments from other users had been made starting at 22:13 UTC on November 23, 2023. This disclosure is added per WP:TALK#REVISE.

All sovereigns that have reigned since the unification of the Kingdoms of England and Scotland in 1707 are included.

British monarchs
Title Reign Adherence to September 18, 2023 version of WP:NCROY
Anne, Queen of Great Britain 1707-1714 Yes (only monarch with name)
George I of Great Britain 1714-1727 Yes
George II of Great Britain 1727-1760 Yes
George III 1760-1820 No
George IV 1820-1830 No
William IV 1830-1837 No
Queen Victoria 1837-1901 No
Edward VII 1901-1910 No
George V 1910-1936 No
Edward VIII 1936-1936 No
George VI 1936-1952 No
Elizabeth II 1952-2022 No
Charles III 2022-present No

Monarchs of Luxembourg

This section was edited at 04:17, 25 November 2023 (UTC) after comments from other users had been made starting at 22:13 UTC on November 23, 2023. This disclosure is added per WP:TALK#REVISE.

All sovereigns that have reigned since the dissolution of the personal union of Luxembourg with the Netherlands in 1890 are included.

Monarchs of Luxembourg
Title Reign Adherence to September 18, 2023 version of WP:NCROY
Adolphe, Grand Duke of Luxembourg 1890-1905 Yes (only monarch of name)
William IV, Grand Duke of Luxembourg 1905-1912 Yes
Marie-Adélaïde, Grand Duchess of Luxembourg 1912-1919 Yes (only monarch with name)
Charlotte, Grand Duchess of Luxembourg 1919-1964 Yes (only monarch with name)
Jean, Grand Duke of Luxembourg 1964-2000 Yes (only monarch with name)
Henri, Grand Duke of Luxembourg 2000-present Yes (only monarch with name)

Sovereign Princes of Liechtenstein

This section was edited at 04:17, 25 November 2023 (UTC) after comments from other users had been made starting at 22:13 UTC on November 23, 2023. This disclosure is added per WP:TALK#REVISE.

Sovereign Princes of Liechtenstein
Title Reign Adherence to September 18, 2023 version of WP:NCROY
Karl I, Prince of Liechtenstein 1627-1684 Yes
Karl Eusebius, Prince of Liechtenstein 1662-1701 Yes (only monarch of name)
Hans-Adam I, Prince of Liechtenstein 1684-1712 Yes
Joseph Wenzel I, Prince of Liechtenstein 1712-1718 and 1748-1772 Yes
Anton Florian, Prince of Liechtenstein 1718-1721 Yes (only monarch with name)
Joseph Johann Adam, Prince of Liechtenstein 1721-1732 Yes (only monarch with name)
Johann Nepomuk Karl, Prince of Liechtenstein 1732-1748 Yes (only monarch with name)
Franz Joseph I, Prince of Liechtenstein 1772-1781 Yes
Aloys I, Prince of Liechtenstein 1781-1805 Yes
Johann I Joseph, Prince of Liechtenstein 1805-1836 Yes
Aloys II, Prince of Liechtenstein 1836-1858 Yes
Johann II, Prince of Liechtenstein 1858-1929 Yes
Franz I, Prince of Liechtenstein 1929-1938 Yes
Franz Joseph II, Prince of Liechtenstein 1938-1989 Yes
Hans-Adam II, Prince of Liechtenstein 1989-present Yes

Rulers of Monaco

This section was edited at 04:17, 25 November 2023 (UTC) after comments from other users had been made starting at 22:13 UTC on November 23, 2023. This disclosure is added per WP:TALK#REVISE.

Sovereigns since Monaco became a principality in 1633 are listed, excluding periods of occupation.

Rulers of Monaco
Title Reign Adherence to September 18, 2023 version of WP:NCROY
Honoré II, Prince of Monaco 1633-1662 Yes
Louis I, Prince of Monaco 1662-1701 Yes
Antonio I, Prince of Monaco 1701-1731 Yes
Louise Hippolyte, Princess of Monaco 1731-1731 Yes (only monarch of name in Monaco)
Jacques I, Prince of Monaco 1731-1733 Yes
Honoré III, Prince of Monaco 1733-1793 Yes
Honoré IV, Prince of Monaco 1814-1819 Yes
Honoré V, Prince of Monaco 1819-1841 Yes
Florestan, Prince of Monaco 1841-1856 Yes (only monarch with name)
Charles III, Prince of Monaco 1856-1889 Yes
Albert I, Prince of Monaco 1889-1922 Yes
Louis II, Prince of Monaco 1922-1949 Yes
Rainier III, Prince of Monaco 1949-2005 Yes
Albert II, Prince of Monaco 2005-present Yes

Hurricane Andrew (444) 22:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

The Norwegian monarchs pages no longer have "Of Norway" in their article titles. 2601:249:9301:D570:DCE:DB6E:BCC:F04D (talk) 05:00, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing this out. I have modified the Norwegian monarchs' table accordingly. Hurricane Andrew (444) 21:15, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
APT’s personal opinion on the RfC matter

I support Option 1, Option 3, or Option 4 as the outcome of this RfC. I do not support Option 2 because neither WP:NCROY nor WP:COMMONNAME establishes an explicit numerical threshold or ratio that can be used to choose one possible article title over another.

In addition, I am aware that my views regarding the article titles for European sovereign have received strong opposition from the community, both at the RfC I linked in my opening statement and at a requested move on Elizabeth II’s article that I initiated on July 30, 2023. Therefore, the rest of my statement will instead seek to inform the community of the context regarding each proposed outcome in this RfC instead of attempting to persuade participants to agree with my opinion. Hurricane Andrew (444) 22:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Option 1 context: WP:RMs for articles on British monarchs have been frequent

I am aware that WP:MORATORIUMs are counter to some general Misplaced Pages practices. However, in the past year alone (i.e. since November 1, 2022), at least six different RMs have been initiated to change titles for British sovereigns in particular:

RMs for British monarchs
Article where RM was initiated Start date of discussion End date of discussion
Queen Victoria November 29, 2022 December 6, 2022
Charles III July 23, 2023 July 31, 2023
Elizabeth II July 30, 2023 (that APT initiated) August 4, 2023
George I of Great Britain July 30, 2023 August 15, 2023
Elizabeth II August 14, 2023 August 14, 2023
William IV September 14, 2023 September 22, 2023

It should be noted that the simultaneous discussion of the Charles III, Elizabeth II, and George I RMs in July 2023 caused a user to raise a complaint at WP:ANI about the appropriateness of such discussions occurring. This complaint was redirected to the talk page of WP:RM, where it was concluded that the simultaneous discussions could proceed.

Evidently, the quantity of RM discussions in the realm of British monarch’s title has caused frustration and exhaustion among Misplaced Pages users. Consequently, I believe that as a community, we need to take a break from arguing over what the best title may be for not just British sovereigns, but all European sovereigns. A moratorium that lasts up to a year after the closing of this RfC therefore seems prudent. Hurricane Andrew (444) 22:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Option 2 context: There is a disconnect between the letter of WP:NCROY and current practice

As of the start of this RfC, Guideline III of the Sovereigns section of WP:NCROY stated the following (Bolded emphasis mine):

Only use a territorial designation (e.g. country) when disambiguation is needed. In the case of kings, queens regnant, emperors, and empresses regnant whose common name is ambiguous or not the primary meaning, article titles are normally in the form "{Monarch's first name and ordinal} of {Country}". Examples: Philip IV of Spain; Henry I of France; Joan II of Navarre.

Moreover, Guideline V of the Sovereigns sections of WP:NCROY stated (Bolded emphasis mine):

European monarchs whose rank is below that of king (e.g., grand dukes, electors, dukes, princes), and whose plain common name is ambiguous, should be at the location "{Monarch's first name and ordinal}, {Title} of {Country}". Examples: Maximilian I, Elector of Bavaria, Jean, Grand Duke of Luxembourg. This is often usage, and avoids the question of when these duchies became monarchies, as opposed to noble offices within the Kingdom of Germany/the Holy Roman Empire

However, these blanket guidelines do not account for where multiple sovereigns’ titles are currently located. This is clearly illustrated in the list below:

  1. Juliana of the Netherlands is the only queen named Juliana to have an English Misplaced Pages page, but her article title uses the "{Monarch's first name and ordinal} of {Country}" format regardless.
  2. No other person named Christian X other than Christian X of Denmark has an article of English Misplaced Pages article. However, the Danish monarch’s page still uses the "{Monarch's first name and ordinal} of {Country}" format.
  3. The only person named Anton Florian with a Misplaced Pages page is Anton Florian, Prince of Liechtenstein. Nevertheless, the sovereign prince’s article title still follows the "{Monarch's first name and ordinal}, {Title} of {Country}" template.

From the above evidence, it can be seen that there is greater nuance to how European monarchs are titled on Misplaced Pages beyond whether or not they are the only sovereign with their regnal name. Work needs to be done to either amend WP:NCROY accordingly or move a number of article titles to adhere to the current guidelines of WP:NCROY. Hurricane Andrew (444) 22:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Option 3 context: WP:RSs show (Name) of (Country) format is more common in secondary sources

WP:RS states the following:

Prefer secondary sources – Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a paper reviewing existing research, a review article, monograph, or textbook is often better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised. Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves (see Misplaced Pages:No original research and Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view).

Based on the following evidence in this section, an additional justification for using the "{Monarch's first name and ordinal} of {Country}" format for article titles on European sovereigns emerges:

  1. For example, when completing a search for “Wilhelmina of the Netherlands” on JSTOR (a digital library of academic journals and books), one sees that 24 primary sources and 122 secondary sources use this designation for the Netherlands’s queen regnant during World War II (i.e. over 400 percent more secondary sources than primary sources).
  2. Likewise, when completing a search for “Christian IX of Denmark” on JSTOR, one sees that 7 primary sources and 74 secondary sources use this exact title for Denmark’s king at the start of the 20th century (i.e. over 900 percent more secondary sources than primary sources). Hurricane Andrew (444) 22:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Option 4 context: The WP:CONSENSUS of the linked RfC in the opening statement has been debatable

In the closing statement of the RfC written on November 2, 2023, the closer noted that ...editors pointed out that the proposal reflects current practice…

However, by analyzing a series of RMs initiated before November 2023 for European sovereigns whose targets were more concise titles, a more nuanced picture of this current practice emerges:

NOTE: APT originally included some of these RMs in his evidence for the RfC linked in the opening statement of this discussion.

RMs for European monarchs
Article where RM was initiated Proposed target Was RM successful?
Anne, Queen of Great Britain Queen Anne No
Elizabeth I of England Elizabeth I Yes
George I of Great Britain George I No
Juan Carlos I of Spain Juan Carlos I Yes (Note that this discussion happened on a separate article talk page)
Maria Theresa of Austria Maria Theresa Yes
Napoleon I of France Napoleon I (now at Napoleon) Yes
Oscar I of Sweden Oscar I No
Victor Emmanuel III of Italy Victor Emmanuel III No

As can be seen from the above information, the supposed consensus that was acknowledged in the November 2023 RfC was not truly agreed upon. Additionally, a box in the lede of WP:SILENCE states the following:

Is there consensus?
...
  • Someone complained about my idea →
    You can no longer assume consensus exists because you have seen evidence of disagreement.

I can produce this evidence of disagreement on the spot: Two days after the RfC linked in the opening statement closed, I voiced my disagreement in writing with the final decision (albeit on a user talk page). This edit should indicate in no uncertain terms that one can no longer assume consensus exists regarding that RfC outcome.

Furthermore, I am not the only user who has expressed disagreement with how article titles on European sovereigns have been titled in recent years, as illustrated by this discussion on George III’s talk page.

Finally, as I illustrate in Appendix A of my extended rationale below, there is precedent for longer titles that are not necessarily WP:COMMONNAMEs to be used to identify members of European royalty on Misplaced Pages. The outcome of the November 2023 RfC is inconsistent with the pattern that I will show in that section. Hurricane Andrew (444) 22:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

APT’s notes for the closer

  1. First and foremost, I thank you in advance for carefully considering all of the opinions expressed in this dicussion. RfCs like mine are no easy task for the community to resolve, and your service is greatly appreciated.
  2. I ask that you be cautious for signs of response bias and participation bias when evaluating the substance of each argument expressed. As with most other functions of Misplaced Pages, there was no randomness involved in the creation of this RfC. Therefore, the consensus of this sample of Misplaced Pages editors cannot be generalized to be reflective of the population of all Misplaced Pages users. Moreover, this discussion may only reflect extreme viewpoints or other biased perspectives.
  3. WP:COMPETENCE notes the following:
Basically, we presume that people who contribute to the English-language Misplaced Pages have the following competencies … the ability to understand their own abilities and competencies, and avoid editing in areas where their lack of skill or knowledge causes them to create significant errors for others to clean up.
Consequently, I ask that in the spirit of this guidance, as you evaluate each argument made in this RfC, you place greater weight on reasonings that show a strong understanding of the implications of this discussion on the article titles of pertinent European monarchs.

Hurricane Andrew (444) 22:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

APPENDIX A: Evidence of WP:COMMONNAME already being disregarded for multiple European royals (and WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT being used)

NOTE: APT originally published this information on September 18, 2023 as evidence in support of his argument in the RfC linked in the opening statement.

Below, I have listed select princes and princesses from five current European monarchies. Moreover, using Google search results, I show that each of their Misplaced Pages article titles are less common than some alternatives but are still used regardless'. I see no reason why monarchs’ titles should not follow the same trend in the spirit of WP:CONSISTENT:

Misplaced Pages titles for European princes and princesses
Title Google hits for Title Alternative name Google hits for Alternative name Percentage comparison of Google Title hits with Google Alternative hits
William, Prince of Wales 659,000 Prince William 129,000,000 0.5% of Google Alternative hits
Catherine, Princess of Wales 1,220,000 Kate Middleton 152,000,000 0.8% of Google Alternative hits
Diana, Princess of Wales 4,940,000 Princess Diana 53,500,000 9.23% of Google Alternative hits
Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex 1,850,000 Prince Harry 170,000,000 1.09% of Google Alternative hits
Meghan, Duchess of Sussex 4,870,000 Meghan Markle 347,000,000 1.40% of Google Alternative hits
Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon 122,000 Princess Margaret 12,200,000 1% of Google Alternative hits
Anne, Princess Royal 452,000 Princess Anne 14,900,000 3.03% of Google Alternative hits
Prince Andrew, Duke of York 310,000 Prince Andrew 78,800,000 0.39% of Google Alternative hits
Prince Edward, Duke of Edinburgh 184,000 Prince Edward 95,500,000 0.19% of Google Alternative hits
Frederik, Crown Prince of Denmark 62,000 Prince Frederik 640,000 9.69% of Google Alternative hits
Haakon, Crown Prince of Norway 18,600 Prince Haakon 271,000 6.86% of Google Alternative hits
Prince Carl Philip, Duke of Värmland 26,200 Prince Carl Philip 797,000 3.29% of Google Alternative hits
Leonor, Princess of Asturias 130,000 Princess Leonor 954,000 13.63% of Google Alternative hits

Hurricane Andrew (444) 22:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Survey

  • Option 4 - Bring back consistency, in the form of Monarch # of country. GoodDay (talk) 22:15, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Support either option 1 or 4: supporting 4 to restore the "Monarch # of country" format which should not have been abandoned and whose abandoners have created circular arguments to detract from the inherently flimsy backing of the "concision" in the first place. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:40, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 2, if I'm understanding "Option 2 context" correctly. We should not be employing disambiguation strings unless they are necessary, per WP:DAB and WP:CONCISE. Just ensure that redirects like "Foobar IV of Elbonia" and "King Foobar IV" and "King Foobar IV of Elbonia" redirect to the "Foobar IV" article. WP:CONSISTENT means to name articles consistently, and when disambiguation is necessary, to employ consistent disambiguation strings. It does not mean and never has meant to "pre-disambiguate" unambiguous article titles with disambiguation strings to make them "consistent" with those that are necessarily disambiguated.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:50, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 4 - Definitely Monarch # of country, with redirects set up for well known names like "Elizabeth II" to go to "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom". While I understand that people are trying to have Misplaced Pages use common names to make pages easier to find, and that makes sense on an individual level, it's now created confusion where so many monarchs are written in different styles. This has resulted in monarchs being more difficult to find, not less. El Dubs (talk) 01:22, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 2 per SMcCandlish. Only disambiguate when necessary. That doesn't necessarily mean that we should move all of the existing unambiguous "Monarch # of country" articles to plain "Monarch #" though: WP:COMMONNAME allows us to add the country in cases where reliable English-language sources consistently do so (which is likely to be the case for countries whose monarchs are not well known to English-speaking readers). Rosbif73 (talk) 06:59, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 2 per SMcCandlish. I also oppose relitigating issues immediately after the closure of previous RfCs on the same issue. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:17, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 4 per GoodDay and El Dubs. --Marbe166 (talk) 10:24, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 2 per SMcCandlish and Celia Homeford. Thryduulf (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose Option 4. There are 4 other points besides consistency to consider when deciding on an article title. Consistency is not the most important one, nor should it be promoted above the others. The supporters of option 4 want to move Elizabeth II to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, but this has already been discussed and rejected in multiple prior discussions including in July 2023, August 2023 and September 2023. This RfC appears to be yet another attempt to circumvent the requested moves process in a desperate attempt to add 4 extra unnecessary words to a natural, recognizable, precise, concise, neutral article title that is consistent among British monarchs. Since this is the fourth attempt to move that article in as many months, I should think a moratorium on any further attempts will be imposed by the community regardless of whether option 1 is selected or not. I do not believe the community will accept further discussion on this issue at the end of this RfC and any attempt to launch such a discussion is very likely to be viewed as disruptive editing. On option 3, please note that WP:RELIABLE is a wikipedia-wide content guideline that overrides any naming convention. If a name is not found in reliable sources, it is not verifiable or recognizable and is therefore contrary to both the verifiability policy and the article titling policy. Consequently, option 3 is non-negotiable regardless of any other option chosen in addition to it. DrKay (talk) 18:30, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 2 per the fact that WP:COMMONNAME is policy and so is WP:LOCALCON. Option 3 is also the same as option 2, COMMONNAME assessments must be based on reliable sources. Oppose option 4 as it would sidestep recent RFCs on the matter. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:39, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
    I would also support option 1. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:19, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 1 These things should be decided locally, and a rest from the endless number of time-wasting RM proposals would be wonderful. Consistency is not that important. Johnbod (talk) 19:53, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 1 I feel that here I have to repeat what I said on the Elizabeth II PROD, she's not just Queen of the UK so it would be UNDUE to title her as Elizabeth II of the UK and the same principle would apply for monarchs who hold multiple crowns so option 4 would be inappropriate. It should be decided locally on a case by case basis as Johnbod says. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 20:41, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 1 and oppose all others. Only Option 1 is consistent with the previous RfCs, everything else is an attempt at a do-over. This should be procedurally closed insofar as it affects British monarchs due to the multiple RfCs on the subject in the past several months, all of which have come to the same conclusion. Frankly, it should be procedurally closed entirely. It's just being used as a way of getting another do-over on the question of British monarchs.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:57, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
    On reconsideration, I could live with option 2, given the recent changes to NCROY. I agree with the comments of Kahastok, below. Wehwalt (talk) 22:25, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
  • I'm not clear what I'm supporting and opposing with each option. On one hand, the extended rationale rules that any title not of the form Cheese IV of Onion or Cheese, Queen of Onion is not in accordance with WP:NCROY. On the other, it acknowledges that WP:NCROY currently prefers WP:COMMONNAME, in which case articles claimed not to be in accordance with WP:NCROY are in fact in accordance with WP:NCROY. I note that Option 4 is interpreted as requiring a move to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, but it cites WP:CONSISTENT, and consistency with other British monarchs would imply the opposite - that George II of Great Britain be moved to plain George II. It is argued below that WP:COMMONNAME isn't a clear enough standard, but we have used WP:COMMONNAME as a standard on the rest of the 'pedia for donkeys' years and there is no reason why this topic should be uniquely difficult to manage. More broadly, this appears to me to be an attempt to relitigate the previous RFC, which ended less than a month ago, where the issues seem to have been well-discussed and where consensus was reached. So I say we should speedy close and implement the result of the previous RFC. Kahastok talk 22:10, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
    FWIW, a few years ago, all British monarchs - George I to Elizabeth II, had of Great Britain or of the United Kingdom, in their artiel titles. GoodDay (talk) 22:23, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
    Clarification by APT - Before I continue, I want to say I am doing my best to not WP:BLUDGEON these discussions. However, I also feel the need for my perspectives and intentions to be truthfully represented. Therefore, I am taking this opportunity to respond to the claims that have been made in Kahastok's comment (some of which are also stated in other users' posts).
    1. First, I understand that some users see this RfC as an attempt to relitigate the issues of the RfC linked in the opening statement. I disagree with this claim. That RfC was attempting to determine consensus into what changes should be made to the explicit language of WP:NCROY based on the current titling practices of European sovereigns at the time. By opening this RfC, I seek to determine a consensus on what sitewide WP:PG should take precedence when changing any titles for relevant European sovereigns from now on, given the outcome of the WP:NCROY RfC and respecting the consensus that emerged there. (In any case, a user has noted that Option 3 is non-negotiable regardless of what other options the community agrees upon.)
    2. Second, I explicitly stated the following in my statement for the WP:NCROY RfC linked in the opening statement (Emphasis in original):

    Regardless of where we stand on this issue, I hope that we can all agree that this RfC should bring closure to a debate that has been in the making for the years. I will respect the final decision and will offer my services to amend WP:NCROY as appropriate depending on what the community agrees to.

    Evidently, I disagree with the outcome of the WP:NCROY RfC, and I have not been afraid to express this disagreement. However, this RfC was not and should not be seen as attempt to override that consensus. As I elaborate on further in 6., some of the fine print of WP:NCROY still does not align with the current titling practice, even with a new consensus and new language.
    3. Third, I am very perplexed by the editors that are claiming that some supporters of this RfC are attempting to move Elizabeth II's page back to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. Not once in the opening statement, my extended rationale, or in any of the survey comments provided so far, let alone from those who support Option 4, do I see any explicit calls for this move to occur. Yes, a user gave Elizabeth II's article as part of an example of what they would ideally like to see regarding the titling practices for European sovereigns. Yes, I notified followers of the talk page for Elizabeth II’s article that this RfC was occurring. However, I fail to see how merely providing an example of an article title and linking that article's talk page to an RfC is evidence of wanting a RM for such an article.
    4. Fourth, as with the WP:NCROY RfC, I have stated on multiple occasions that I was going to accept the eventual outcome of the Elizabeth II RM:
    Exhibit A - From my opening statement for the Elizabeth II RM from July 2023: Although I hope that a move to my requested targets will ensue from this discussion, I recognize that such a decision will come from the consensus that emerges.
    Exhibit B - From my extended rationale above (Emphasis in original): In addition, I am aware that my views regarding the article titles for European sovereign have received strong opposition from the community, both at the RfC I linked in my opening statement ... and at a requested move on Elizabeth II’s article that I initiated on July 30, 2023. Therefore, the rest of my statement will instead seek to inform the community of the context regarding each proposed outcome in this RfC instead of attempting to persuade participants to agree with my opinion.
    Above all, I have found the RMs for Elizabeth II’s article that have happened since the one I initiated since to be WP:DISRUPTIVE editing, and they should not have occurred.
    5. Fifth, not once did I rule that any of the current article titles for European monarchs were not in accordance with the current version of WP:NCROY in my tables in the "Article titles that APT would like the community to focus on" section. This adherence to WP:NCROY was in reference to a previous version of WP:NCROY, which I made clear in context: The information provided below up to the end of this section ... was originally published by APT on September 18, 2023] as evidence in favor of his argument at the same RfC linked in the opening statement of this RfC. Also, “Adherence to WP:NCROY” refers to whether or not a cited article title followed ... Guideline 2 of WP:SOVEREIGN at the time APT published his information originally]
    6. Sixth, I indeed noted that the current version of WP:NCROY prefers WP:COMMONNAME in the opening statement. Also, if this is what WP:NCROY is going to be based on, this actually means that some articles currently formatted Cheese of Onion or Cheese, Queen of Onion are not in accordance with WP:NCROY, as I highlight in my Option 2 context.
    Case in point: Juliana of the Netherlands is the only monarch named Juliana to have a Misplaced Pages article. Moreover, Queen Juliana is a more WP:COMMONNAME for Juliana of the Netherlands, which I can show with JSTOR results. However, her article still follows the "{Monarch's first name and ordinal} of {Country}" format, which WP:NCROY currently rules is unnecessary for a monarch with an unambiguous regnal name like Juliana.
    7. Seventh, I will concede that the claim regarding WP:CONSISTENT is correct for British monarchs. However, using this same reasoning, Margrethe II should be moved back to Margrethe II of Denmark because as can be seen in the tables of monarchs above, every other Danish sovereign that has reigned since 1863 uses the "{Monarch's first name and ordinal} of {Country}" titling format. Likewise, Alfonso XII, Alfonso XIII, Juan Carlos I, and Felipe VI should all be moved back to Alfonso XII of Spain, Alfonso XIII of Spain, Juan Carlos I of Spain, and Felipe VI of Spain because the majority (i.e. 7 out of 11) of Spanish House of Bourbon-Anjou monarchs are titled with the "{Monarch's first name and ordinal} of {Country}" template.
    8. Eighth, with respect to WP:COMMONNAME, just because that guideline has been frequently referenced in Misplaced Pages discussions does not mean that it is without its flaws. And I reiterate the claim I made in the Discussion section below that the lack of a specific numerical threshold in WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NCROY has been a factor in the intensity of the RM debates for European sovereigns. I will emphasize why a lack of a specific proportion is problematic with the following hypothetical example:
    • Editor A initiates a RM to move Foo III of Royalburg to Foo III. They cite WP:COMMONNAME in their request and note that 150% more secondary sources on JSTOR use “Foo III”.
    • Editor B supports Editor A's RM because Editor B's threshold for a WP:COMMONNAME is 140% more secondary sources on JSTOR.
    • Editor C opposes Editor A's RM because Editor C's threshold for a WP:COMMONNAME is 170% more secondary sources on JSTOR.
    • Editors D, E, and F all oppose Editor A's RM because Editor D, E, and F's threshold for a WP:COMMONNAME is 200% more secondary sources on JSTOR. Also, Editor A concedes that Editors D, E, and F have a stronger opinion.
    Because of the WP:CONSENSUS that emerged in that hypothetical discussion, Editor A's RM failed even though WP:COMMONNAME would have supported the move.
    To make it explicitly clear, if WP:COMMONNAME and/or WP:NCROY had specified a specific numerical ratio to select one common title over another, I would have endorsed Option 2. However, until either guideline is modified to explicitly include such a proportion, I stand by my opposition to Option 2 (while supporting Options 1, 3, and 4).
    Finally, I apologize if the following violates WP:AGF and WP:5P4. However, I highly encourage all participants not familiar with WP:READBEFORE to give that essay a thoughtful read. I hope that we can all agree that it is extremely frustrating to have to respond to false claims in any discussion.
    Hurricane Andrew (444) 03:44, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
    If I may--it may well be that there was no intent of reversing the recent failed RMs of British monarchs, But the supporters of Option 4 seem to assume there was. Whatever the intent, that is one reason why this RfC is causing a certain amount of frustration. Piled on the RMs first for individual British monarchs, then for groups of British monarchs, then perhaps for more individual British monarchs, it never seems to end. It is thus that some editors are viewing this as an unnecessary rerun of previous RfCs, and given how much editor time gets devoted to such discussions, beginning to rise to the level of disruption.
    On another matter--you complain of inconsistency among the titles of monarchic articles. We are barely three weeks since the close of the RfC amending NCROY and Misplaced Pages was not written in a day. Give it time. Several articles have been moved, others have not reached consensus for move. The community has barely begun to decide how to treat the more difficult cases. Judging by the evidence posted in initiating this RfC, the most difficult seem to be where the monarch is the only one of that name, and yet this RfC doesn't offer any guidance for that situation. It is time to step back and let the community work these things out. It is not the time for a fresh RfC, especially since if 2, 3, or 4 were adopted, the implementation would require a great amount of further discussion.
    I expressed my support for Option 1, but on reflection, I find that a mixed bag. It carries with it, part and parcel, a moratorium on further RMs for a year. I would be glad to see that in the case of British monarchs where moves have already been discussed to death, but I find it would also have the side effect of cutting off at a very early stage discussions of whether other articles, which have not yet had a RM, should be moved per NCROY. I would not seek to prevent that. Although I note, rather dispiritedly, that a moratorium on RMs does nothing to prevent further discussions like this, which has the effect of an RM. If this goes on, there's going to be another AN/I thread on whether there is disruption, and while this isn't the sort of area in which AN/I tends to take action, it's not going to do anyone any good. Wehwalt (talk) 14:34, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 1 / 3 / 4, not really sure what I'm voting on here, actual suggestion is just to overturn the recent change to NCROY and go back to the situation we had from 2019-2023 or so. That means using Option 4 / old-NCROY as the "default" (i.e. John I of Foo) and letting Option 3 (i.e. COMMONNAME / Reliable Sources) override it when there's a common name / the monarch is really famous. And Option 1 just seems good sense regardless, no need for constant move requests, just let things be sometimes. Opposed to option 2, i.e. throwing away "of Foo" everywhere. Just a first name isn't a significant enough disambiguator unless the person is incredibly famous like Queen Victoria, which is why "of Foo" is helpful as a replacement for a last name. SnowFire (talk) 02:32, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 1 for reasons given by Wehwalt and Kahastok: speedy close. This is just another attempt to change the naming of the British monarchs, which has been confirmed by consensus several times this year. I think it's starting to be an abuse of the RfC process. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:34, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Option Close down this forum shopping thread. We had this same discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:NCROY#RfC:_Should_the_guideline_explicitly_accept_Elizabeth_II,_Carl_XVI_Gustaf,_etc_titles? from 5 September until 2 November and reached a consensus, which OP and the participants already know because they took part in it. Surtsicna (talk) 16:18, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
    I note that I could have said the same thing about that RfC, as a similar one had already taken place in January. RfCs—rightly or wrongly— will happen regardless of if similar ones have happened in the past, even if they were in the very near past. So, if the NCROY RfC was allowed to take place, then this one by the same token should be too. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:48, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
    Do you mind linking to that January RfC? Surtsicna (talk) 16:59, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
    Surtsicna, with all due respect, I understand why you would see this RfC as forum shopping. Moreover, as I responded to a user above, I do not see this RfC in the same vein as the WP:NCROY RfC you linked. I agree with Tim O’Doherty that this RfC should proceed for the standard 30 days.
    And quite frankly, to add to Tim O’Doherty’s response, the consensus in the WP:NCROY RfC reflects a blanket judgement of WP:COMMONNAME that does not reflect specific nuances in how RMs have occurred, as I explain in my Option 4 context in my extended rationale, and is arguably equally unproductive as the WP:CONSISTENT blanket judgment that I accept I have been pushing.
    To make this point above clear, should the RMs for Norwegian monarchs not have been decided on a case by case basis? Is this RM not a WP:POINTy attempt to force adherence to WP:COMMONNAME? Or do these concerns only matter if WP:CONSISTENT is at hand?
    On a side note, I am exhausted from attempting to clarify my WP:AGF intentions to the community. At the expense of sidestepping WP:AGF and WP:5P4, I again direct all participants to read the WP:READBEFORE essay.
    Hurricane Andrew (444) 17:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

There was a time, when all the bios of monarchs were in the style of Name # of country. Due to multiple RMs? that consistency has been evaporated, which (IMHO) is regrettable. GoodDay (talk) 22:13, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I completely agree with your response, GoodDay. Hopefully, my extended rationale shows to the broader community the extent to which these "consensuses" in this area were arguably never the case. Hurricane Andrew (444) 22:19, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Here's examples of confusion we've left for less familiar readers, concerning page names. We've got a monarch's page called Queen Victoria & a consort's page called Queen Camilla. There's German/Prussia monarchs, William I of Germany & Wilhelm II. But let's not forget (and plenty of examples of these) many current monarchs with no mention of their country, while their consorts mention the country. GoodDay (talk) 14:35, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Why is this a problem when titles like King Crimson, King Gale of Narnia, Queen Claye, Queen Clea, etc, exist uncontroversially? A reader only needs to read the articles to learn the status of the person being referenced. Thryduulf (talk) 15:02, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
Another reason indeed, to re-add the countries. So we don't have less familiar readers confusing monarchs/consorts with band names, sports names & fictional characters. GoodDay (talk) 15:09, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
Thryduulf, the examples you have cited are articles that would not fall under the scope of WP:NCROY. I agree that WP:COMMONNAME should be the basis for titling the articles you mention, and I agree with GoodDay that we should have a separate naming convention for non-fictional, literal royals so that readers can distinguish these two types of articles with WP:PRECISION.
Furthermore, since you mentioned King Gale of Narnia, I will counterargue by naming three fictional sovereigns whose Misplaced Pages articles do not have regnal titles: Palpatine, Elsa (Frozen), and Anna (Frozen). Hurricane Andrew (444) 04:07, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

@DrKay: I've been considering accepting an moratoriom on RMs in this area, after this current RFC ends. In these last few weeks, RMs on monarch bios have been popping up frequently, with some closures (IMHO) highly questionable. GoodDay (talk) 19:00, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Comment to those who support Option 2 - I understand and respect the opinions that you are expressing in this RfC. However, my core issue with WP:COMMONNAME (and by extension, the guidelines of WP:NCROY that are based off of it) is that there is no explicit numerical threshold or ratio that can be used to select one "common" article title over another.

Evidently, to establish an arbitrary WP:COMMONNAME proportion across all subject areas is impractical. However, in my opinion, this lack of a specific cutoff for WP:NCROY in particular is why the RMs for European monarchs have been so numerous, so heated, and so inconclusive. A community of multiple editors is reasonably going to have differing interpretations over what title is "more common" in secondary and other reliable sources. If we do not agree upon a specific numerical ratio to refer to, I worry that this discussion is simply going to appear again at a later date with a more unproductive tone. Hurricane Andrew (444) 21:41, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

  • Comment. I think articles GA and up at the time of rating should be analyzed for adherence to guideline (years later they may not have the same initial standards). In other types of articles, the title and lead of articles many times or mostly don't adhere to guidelines due to editors not knowing about them or checking them, not necessarily because editors think it is better to use whatever method they used. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 22:32, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
There doesn't need to be a numerical threshold, only consensus of editors at an articles talk page if the issue comes up. This is true of all articles titles, not just those under NCROY. The recent RFCs seem to have been the result of an attempt force consistency across articles, which has been rejected in many cases. This will fade and maybe in a few more years more there'll be new RFCs about renaming, and new ideas will come to the fore. None of this is set in stone, and it shouldn't be. The world changes and Misplaced Pages will change with it, hard set rules only act as a yoke to that change. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:14, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

In the tables, I note "Adherence to WP:NCROY". While it is noted, once, in the rather lengthy text, that this refers to the articles' present adherence to the former version of WP:NCROY, such may be missed by participants who are being given an awful lot of material to sort through, and who may, quite understandably, believe that what is being alleged is that those article titles presently do not comply with WP:NCROY, and form opinions based on that misapprehension. Can it not be made clear in each table that what is being referred to is whether the present article title would comply with the old version of the policy?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:39, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Wehwalt, thank you very much for your well-intentioned suggestion. I had decided to not modify the Adherence to WP:NCROY table row descriptors initially because I had assumed that the context sentence would have been sufficient clarification. However, given that I have now started to spend more time and energy than I had expected into responding to claims made in this discussion, I will be changing these headers as soon as possible. I also want to mention that per WP:TALK#REVISE, I will need to explicitly indicate that I modified the headers. Hurricane Andrew (444) 04:07, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
I have updated pertinent the table headers above. Hopefully, this should alleviate some confusion on the other participants' end. Hurricane Andrew (444) 04:19, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Categories: