Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sceptre (talk | contribs) at 23:30, 14 June 2023 (Closing requested move; moved using rmCloser). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Wives of life peers

Please clarify whether the wife of a British life peer should be referred to as 'Lady X' or as 'Baroness X'.

Baron#Style of address implies that 'Lady X' should be used. 'Baroness' as a title appears to be used only for life peers in their own right. However, it is not as clear as it could be, and it should be specified here.

There have been several disputed edits concerning this, including to:

Pinging @DuncanHill, CrumbleCrumble, Robin S. Taylor, and Mr. D. E. Mophon:. Verbcatcher (talk) 18:03, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ffion Hague, for example, should be referred to Ffion Hague, as this is the name she uses. DuncanHill (talk) 22:19, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I should have been clearer. I mean: what title that does a wife acquire as a result of her husband's life peerage?
For example, should this edit to Ffion Hague by Peter Philim be kept?
  • | honorific_prefix = The Right Honourable
  • | name = The Lady Hague of Richmond
  • Ffion Llywelyn Hague, Lady Baroness Hague of Richmond (née Jenkins; 21 February 1968) is a Welsh broadcaster, author, former civil servant, and wife of Conservative politician William Hague.
Verbcatcher (talk) 21:13, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The official title is certainly Baroness, as with the wives of hereditary barons and female life peers in their own right. The usual style is "Lady", but not the actual title. I would go with Baroness for article titles (if the title is needed) and first lines. "Lady" is for wives of knights and baronets. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:25, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that women members of the House of Lords use the style Baroness X (though their male colleagues are almost always Lord Y) to emphasize that they do not hold their titles by marriage. —Tamfang (talk) 20:42, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

James I and James II

There is a move request at Talk:James_I_(disambiguation)#Requested_move_3_August_2022 you might be interested in. Vpab15 (talk) 10:20, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

British sovereigns

Based on the recent discussion at Talk:Charles III/Archive 6#Requested move 8 September 2022, there is apparently a consensus to not follow the guideline as it exists when it comes to British sovereigns. This guideline would clearly endorse titles such as Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom or Charles III of the United Kingdom, instead of the actual article titles Elizabeth II and Charles III. British monarchs, going pretty far back, for the most part do not have a nation in the article title. In the discussion, there was a strong preference for conforming to that precedent, rather than this guideline. So it behooves us to change the guideline, because guidelines are supposed to reflect consensus, not attempt to dictate it. The main issue seems to have been that Charles Windsor is recognized as the primary topic for "Charles III," and therefore people wanted that to be the article title. Strictly speaking, this isn't necessary; the name of primary topic can redirect to a more rigorously titled article name, such as Princess Diana, which redirects to Diana, Princess of Wales. But it was the consensus outcome. And this isn't limited to British sovereigns. Already, in discussing how to use ordinals, the existing guideline explains why there is an article Juan Carlos I and not Juan Carlos, King of Spain, yet does not explain why the article title is not Juan Carlos I of Spain, which seems to be what the guideline should lead to. I believe the following should be added as an additional bullet under "As regards Country," I guess after the three existing bullets:


Country may be omitted if a given sovereign is the primary topic for their first name and ordinal with no further disambiguation. For example, Henry VIII (not Henry VIII of England) and Gustav III (not Gustav III of Sweden).


Does anyone object, or have a counterproposal? --DavidK93 (talk) 02:26, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Years ago, I warned against moving away from the "Monarch # of country" style of page names. But nobody would heed my advice & now we've got inconsistency across the board. Very soon, we're going to have an inconsistency for current queen consorts. GoodDay (talk) 16:21, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Same here. Deb (talk) 09:16, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Monarch # of country" is fine as a general rule that applies to less well known monarchs whose titles generally need some form of disambiguation anyway, but this is the English Wikipedia where British monarchs are generally very well known as their name and ordinal. There is no need to force a title like "Charles III of the United Kingdom" when everyone else in the English-speaking world refers to him simply as "Charles III". Striving for a certain amount of consistency in article titles is all well and good, but common-sense exceptions like this are a good thing, not something that should be lamented. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:41, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The move away from "of country" began years ago, primarily at Elizabeth II's page, after near repetitive RMs. Because 'some' editors (possibly Canadian & New Zealand monarchists) didn't want the United Kingdom in the article title, even though the UK was the country she was born in (later died & was buried in) & most associated with. GoodDay (talk) 23:47, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's certainly understandable, and our article titling policies strongly support "Elizabeth II" over "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom". Rreagan007 (talk) 23:50, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Back then, I suspect it was more politically motivated. Shall we call it, realm pride. GoodDay (talk) 00:05, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as an American I don't really have a dog in that fight. But I think I understand the sentiment. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:15, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"our article titling policies strongly support "Elizabeth II". I really don't think that's true, partly because the actual convention has had a truck driven through it by the "common namers". It seems to me important that it should be made clear what country a monarch ruled. In ten years' time there will be lots of people around who have no memory whatever of Elizabeth II. Deb (talk) 10:29, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That may be true generally, but the memory of Elizabeth II will last much longer for English speakers, and that's what matters on the English Wikipedia. In 50 years if you say "Elizabeth II" to most English speakers, they will likely know exactly whom you are talking about Rreagan007 (talk) 16:34, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom" is hardly much clearer than "Elizabeth II". If clarity is what you seek, then surely you should be advocating for something like Elizabeth II (queen of the United Kingdom). Surtsicna (talk) 17:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It worked well when the convention was observed for all monarchies, but once we abandoned all pretence at consistency, not so well. However, Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom is much easier to write down than Elizabeth II (queen of the United Kingdom). As for "most English speakers" remembering exactly who she was in 50 years time - well, I won't be here, so I can't have a wager on it with Rreagan007, but I'll be very surprised if that's the case. Half of them didn't know who she was when she was alive. Deb (talk) 18:45, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well let's do a thought experiment. In 50 years time, if you ask an English speaker "who was Elizabeth II", do you think people will be more likely to say Elizabeth II or Elisabeth II, Abbess of Quedlinburg? Rreagan007 (talk) 19:45, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Going on this, I'd say neither. Let's face it, most English speakers aren't British. Deb (talk) 15:34, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In these last two or so years, an editor has been opening RMs across several 'monarch' bio pages, pushing for 'name only' form. Unfortunately, the fellow has succeeded in a majority of them. GoodDay (talk) 19:43, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well that seems to suggest that the consensus of the Wikipedia community is that we should not force every monarch article title to follow the exact same format. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:45, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I never liked the way it was done, though. Going from one bio to another, instead of coming 'here' & seeking an overall consensus. GoodDay (talk) 19:48, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this page is not a policy page meant to dictate policy across Wikipedia. It is a guideline page meant to reflect the consensus that has formed around this particular type of articles over time. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:52, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The same method or methods were done in another area of Wikipedia, well over a decade ago, concerning bio article titles-in-general. It just had an appearance of sneakiness to it, intentional or not. GoodDay (talk) 20:06, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't mean it's the way it has to be done. Sometimes people like the idea of universal consistency in theory, but don't actually like it in practice when given the opportunity to make exceptions in specific cases. In all of the various RM discussions about monarch titles, this guideline is routinely brought up, and editors routinely reject the notion that we must conform all monarch article titles to one particular format. The British monarchs not including the country in the title is clearly an exception to the general guideline that editors have reached consensus on through various RM discussions over the years, and I think this guideline should indeed reflect that consensus as it currently exists. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:21, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is not consensus. It is pig-headedness by a few, tiring people out. I would propose to move them all back to standard format, where they were a couple of years ago. This is definitely NOT a guideline. Walrasiad (talk) 13:48, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You shouldn't be making the change you attempted on this Naming convention page, without consensus. GoodDay (talk) 14:24, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It absolutely is the current consensus on Wikipedia to not include the country in British monarch titles from George III onward. This consensus has developed organically over the last 12 years through many RM discussions such as: here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. It seems to be your "pig-headedness" that refuses to acknowledge this consensus. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:18, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Would be quite happy to see all those RM's reversed. GoodDay (talk) 15:55, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you would. Nevertheless, they prove that the consensus is to not include the country in the article title for British monarchs. And this guideline should reflect that consensus. What's the point of a guideline that does not accurately reflect consensus? Your bias against the British monarchy seems to be clouding your judgment in this matter. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:11, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There absolutely is no consensus not to include the country in British monarch titles. It just happens that many of the British monarchs from George III onwards either have unique numbers or are the primary topic, and that has led some, like yourself, to misunderstand the issues involved. Deb (talk) 17:42, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "many" it's all of the British monarchs from George III onward that do not include the country in the title. Are you saying that you don't think there is consensus to not include the country in British monarchs from George III onward? Rreagan007 (talk) 18:41, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Would be quite happy to see all those RM's reversed." So do I. They were all bad moves. Dimadick (talk) 19:46, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They were all good moves because they better complied with our article titling policies. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:42, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They were awful moves that ignored the consensus reached here about titling sovereign articles. They should be reversed. Walrasiad (talk) 23:22, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This guideline is meant to reflect consensus, not dictate it. There have been literally dozens of RMs on the British monarchs and a very clear consensus has formed in the Wikipedia community that British monarchs from George III onward should not have the country in their titles. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:30, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's the problem with the page-by-page RM approach. It leaves a related series of pages, with their titles inconsistent. Not very neat. GoodDay (talk) 23:36, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It reflects exhaustion. The stubborn doggedness of a few editors in pushing their favorite version, and ignoring the resolutions discussed and achieved more comprehensively here. It is exhausting to fight this over and over again, RM by RM, simply because a handful choose to willfully ignore the consensus. Walrasiad (talk) 00:24, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
RM discussions is how we determine consensus about what a particular article's title should be. It sounds like you're just making excuses because you don't think that consensus goes against your dogmatic desire to try to make all monarch article titles conform to what you think they should be. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:56, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

William's and Catherine's titles

Since Charles III became king. There's been conflicting edits over whether or not William & Catherine are still Duke & Duchess of Cambridge. Also, since William was appointed Prince of Wales, there's been confusion about whether or not he & Catherine are (again) still Duke & Duchess of Cambridge as well as Duke & Duchess of Cornwall. GoodDay (talk) 21:48, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he remains Duke of Cambridge. It's a substantive peerage, not a courtesy title, so it remains his until he dies (and it passes to his heir) or succeeds to the Crown (in which case the peerage merges with the Crown, and can be granted again). Choess (talk) 01:00, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any confusion. The edit summaries and talk page comments of your opposers don't contest whether or not the titles are still held. DrKay (talk) 06:52, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I may have come up with a solution. Charles' tenure as "Duke of Cornwall" didn't end in 1958, when he was created Prince of Wales. Therefore, William's tenure as "Duke of Cornwall" & "Duke of Cambridge" didn't end in 2022, when he was created Prince of Wales. GoodDay (talk) 06:59, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Prince of Wales always holds the titles "Duke of Cornwall", "Earl of Chester" and "Duke of Rothesay", and some others, such as "Earl of Carrick". However, some of these are not immediately or automatically granted. From the point of view of his title in this article, it's normal just to call him "Prince of Wales". When he's in Scotland, he's called by the Rothesay title, but he doesn't appear to have an Irish title. Deb (talk) 07:12, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Prince of Wales only hold those other titles, if he's the Monarch's eldest son. For example, the future George III was 'never' Duke of Cornwall, Rothesay etc, when he was Prince of Wales. GoodDay (talk) 07:14, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
More specifically, only if he's the monarch's oldest living son. Duke of Cornwall § Succession tells us that if a Duke of Cornwall should die without descendants [...], his next brother obtains the duchy, this brother being both the oldest living son and heir apparent. Presumably the same applies to Rothesay and the other lesser titles. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:32, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I know that. See George V's tenure as Prince of Wales, who was Edward VII's second son, but only surviving son by the time Edward ascended the throne. GoodDay (talk) 07:36, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, has any Duke of Cornwall died without descendants other than Arthur Tudor? —Tamfang (talk) 20:35, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamfang: several. Henry VI's son (Edward, in 1471); Richard III's son (Edward, in 1484); Henry VIII's son (Henry, in 1511); James I's son (Henry, in 1612) & Charles I's son (Charles, in 1629). Note - even though Edward III's son (Edward, in 1376) & George II's son (Frederick, in 1751) also never became king, both their sons (Edward III's & George II's grandsons) did. GoodDay (talk) 21:13, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
D'oh, I forget about those who died very young. —Tamfang (talk) 21:30, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot all about this. Don't even remember where the RFC was held or what the result was, on this topic. GoodDay (talk) 20:38, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • Comment - There definitely is a lack of consistency, in the bio titles. GoodDay (talk) 22:02, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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, Wikipedia should not create it. Editors’s hopes should have little weight compared to what sources do. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:47, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 [NAME], [TITLE] of [PLACE], or Princess [NAME] of [COUNTRY]), I would just hope for them to be uniform with the others. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 13:39, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

RfC - Article titles for Deceased Princesses

The result of the request for comment was option C: common name. DrKay (talk) 16:19, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@Johnbod, SmokeyJoe, Tim O'Doherty, Pincrete, and Deb: Estar8806 (talk) 02:59, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
B - for the late princesses who never became monarchs or consorts of monarchs. GoodDay (talk) 01:38, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Hardly typical. Johnbod (talk) 16:23, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "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 [e]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 "[w]e strive to make titles on Wikipedia 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • C. In most cases, COMMONNAME should clearly be preferred. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:48, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
The discussion above 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.


Requested move 7 June 2023

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:

{{q|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)[reply]

– 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 Wikipedia is lending encyclopedic credence to aristocratic pretense.

Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia (where one exists) for the most part. D1551D3N7 (talk) 22:16, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the english language, which are the more common usage? GoodDay (talk) 22:50, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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).[1] But there are a number of works listed with "Irmingard Princess of Bavaria".[2] 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)[reply]
    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 Wikipedia: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 wikipedia 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • Support, as per nomination. Any exceptions can then be resolved on relevant page Somej (talk) 09:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • Oppose - see Wikipedia:Official names for guidance. DrKay (talk) 16:17, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Statements that we should use the proposed names "out of respect for Germany's democratic constitution" are completely against Wikipedia's conventions and verge on WP:OFFICIALNAME. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:50, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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
name: Gloria Thurn und Taxis
name: Princess Gloria von Thurn und Taxis
name: Princess Gloria von Thurn und Taxis
Princess Maria Theresia of Thurn and Taxis (born 1980)
name: Maria Theresia Wilson
name: Maria Thurn Und Taxis
name: Maria Theresia von Thurn und Taxis
Johannes, 11th Prince of Thurn and Taxis
name: Prince Johannes Thurn und Taxis
name: Prince Johannes von Thurn und Taxis
Albert, 12th Prince of Thurn and Taxis
name: Albert von Thurn Und Taxis
name: Albert Thurn Und Taxis
name: Prince Albert von Thurn und Taxis
name: Albert Prince of Thurn and Taxis (no comma)
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
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
name: His Highness Karl Friedrich Prince of Hohenzollern
D1551D3N7 (talk) 11:17, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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 Wikipedia. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 15:36, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • Comment Is this to set a precedent with all Wikipedia articles about non-ruling royal persons and notable members of formerly noble families? This would be a huge change in article naming on Wikipedia.. 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)[reply]
    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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia:NPOV. Italians or Russians may not interact with English Wikipedia 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)[reply]
Oppose - Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Oppose Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia has no obligation whatsoever to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS let alone respect any existing or defunct political regime and ideology. Per WP:COMMONNAME, Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
The discussion above 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(royalty_and_nobility)&oldid=1160191333"