Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:35, 21 August 2009

The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Misplaced Pages. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic.

Archives

2002 July 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Modification of convention for monarchs

Misplaced Pages's current convention related to the proper naming of sovereigns is ambiguous. A recurring topic of discussion is what happens when more than one country shares a head of state (eg, Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth Realms)? Some ask why the current title, Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom is not adequate. Well, is have been said that since the British Empire no longer exists, and nearly all residual legislative links between the UK and former colonies have been severed, it is no longer appropriate for the UK to have a "monopoly" on the reigning monarch of 16 different heads of state.

My proposal is that English Misplaced Pages, in accordance with the majority of foreign language editions, eliminate the country marker from all monarchs. Only the regnal name and numeral (if any) would be retained. In the case of two prominent monarchs, a disambiguation would be needed. However, in the case of one well-known monarch and one lesser-known one, a simple heading could be placed on the dominant article, directing the reader to any other uses of the term.

Other discussions on this topic can be seen at the following locations:

• Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (names and titles)
• Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom

I look forward to hearing everybody's input. Jagislaqroo (talk) 08:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

This would be a good excellent idea. This should solve many issues. If the Thai and Japanese monarchs can have it this way, then so should all the other monarchs, especially ones who reign/reigned over more than one independent country equally. If there are more than one monarchs with the same name & regnal number and are also equally well known, then only should a country name be included in the article name. So, anyone have any ideas on how the addition to the naming conventions should be formally worded? --~Knowzilla 09:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Strongly agreed. Specific naming conventions should be strictly subordinate to the generic guideline which says that articles should be titled by their most common names. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

While I have been quite vocal in my view that WP:COMMONNAME should be stronger than it currently is, that view has recently been rejected (see Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions/Archive_13), so specific naming conventions still override the "rule of the common name". However, I still certainly support changing the specific guidelines so that the common name, when one clearly exists, is used. So I would support this change to the names and titles guideline.--Aervanath (talk) 16:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

That archived thread is depressing. It still appears that, as here, we're supporting a position where individual WikiProjects own their domains by default, whereas IMO WikiProjects should do their very best to coordinate themselves with the encyclopedia as a whole. Every high-profile example I've seen of WP:COMMONNAME being ignored in favour of a more project-specific rule has been the wrong decision. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I actually support the case to move "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom" to "Elizabeth II", but I disagree with some of the arguments being bandied around here. Every British monarch since around the Glorious Revolution and certainly after the Hanoverian Succession was monarch of an empire stretching among territories much larger than the British Isles, including the Thirteen Colonies, what would be Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, Pakistan, Burma, South Africa and so on. Yes, Elizabeth II was crowned monarch independently of each of the Commonwealth Realms at the time of her succession, but then Victoria, Edward VII, George V, Edward VIII and George VI were crowned Emperor/Empress of India and George III and others were crowned King/Queen of Ireland (now Northern Ireland and the Republic).

But the thing here is that back then, all of the states were either colonies of the British Empire or had legal ties to the British parliament that really limited the independence of those countries. Today, the 16 realms are much more advanced and the monarchy has since developed into 16 unique institutions. Jagislaqroo (talk) 19:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

If we're going to make a new policy, we're going to have to remember that while some monarchs (Queen Elizabeth II for example) have a name and ordinal that are almost always used to refer to one monarch, many earlier ones (particuarly the Georges and William IV) have names and ordinals used by a large number of European monarchs, while they themselves were king or queen of a much greater territory than that of the current Commonwealth Realms. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 19:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense. We just need a way to find out which ones are better known, and act accordingly with a disambiguation page or a multiple use blurb at the top of the article. Jagislaqroo (talk) 19:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, but for articles like the one of Queen Elizabeth II, it's obviously fine to have at Elizabeth II, as people would know straight away who that is. For those monarchs who have had their name used several times by monarchs who are equally well known, then we can disambiguate. --~Knowzilla 19:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like consensus-building to me! Jagislaqroo (talk) 19:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. After much thought, I prefer the monarch articles to remain as is. Furthermore, the Thai & Japanese monarch articles need to be brought into consistancy (should be 'Akihito of Japan' & 'Bhumobal Adulej of Thailand'. GoodDay (talk) 20:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any rationale for your position? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Yep, there's historically several monarchs of different countries with the same name/numeral. James, Henry, John etc. GoodDay (talk) 22:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support. It makes sense to make these determinations on a case by case basis, and to have a naming convention that provides that flexibility. I'm not sure that I necessarily believe that Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom needs a new title, but I do acknowledge that she is the head of state of a number of independent countries, and as such the arguments for renaming are quite valid and strong. As such, I believe that the naming convention should not be an obstacle to that debate. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Contrary to what's being asserted here, Elizabeth II is far from unique as a monarch who has held multiple crowns simultaneously. Personal unions have been common throughout history - the crowns that eventually merged to form the UK have at one time or another been in union with Hannover, the Netherlands, Denmark, France, numerous Commonwealth realms and so forth. The Danish crown has also been in personal union with various other Scandinavian crowns over time. Austria-Hungary was a dual monarchy with the two components having separate thrones. And so many more. And not all personal union monarchs had the same number - e.g. Henry IV of France was also Henry III of Navarre. The present arrangement is the least worst option as it has limited umpteen edit wars over how a particular monarch is best known - there's also the problem of nicknames. This has nothing to do with whether nations are developed or not or whether empires still exist but with providing a consistent format that makes it easy for readers to locate the articles and have location stability. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

  How does this in any way refute the other argument presented above, that where there is an obvious primary subject for a given name+nominal that there is no reason to prematurely disambiguate? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• Supportbut I suggest that the new convention only apply to monarchs that are simultaneously sovereigns of several independent states. This ensures coherence with NPOV. QEII is unique in this regard so no previous UK monarchs would have to be changed. In the case of other monarchs not many are in a similar position - usually one of their realms was pre-eminent or else the realms were very closely linked e.g. Austro-Hungary so it shouldn't mean wholesale changes to existing articles. 78.86.226.253 (talk) 22:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose for the following reasons:
  1. First, let's propose this change (as previously suggested) where it belongs: at Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (names and titles), so that those who are knowledgeable about or interested in monarchs' titulature in particular are more likely to see the discussion & be heard on its implications beyond the "Elizabeth II (EIIR)" issue. Moreover, section 4:38:1 of this project page specifically refers us to that discussion page (rather than this one) regarding naming articles on monarchs & nobles.
  2. Also, so that the many previous discussions on monarchical titulature can be reviewed and considered (e.g. here and here under "Monarchical titles").
  3. Again, this seems a rush to judgment, with some people in the discussion above and at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom feeling that because those participating at that early moment were in agreement, and because some find the current location objectionable, that there was both urgency and consensus in making this change, when there is neither. Yet only 11 hours after 4 attempts to move EIIR failed this month, it's being claimed that a consensus to make that move is already building here! Let's slow down.
  4. Encyclopedic consistency is a legitimate concern, and titles of other monarchs of all or part of the realms ruled by EIIR should be coherent with whatever rationale is used to decide this case. But how would that apply to disambiguating Kings John of England, George II of Great Britain, and William IV of the United Kingdom (who was also King "William I of Hanover"}? And what about the many realms ruled by other monarchs, e.g. Henry IV of France was simultaneously Henry III of Navarre, and Emperor Pedro I of Brazil was also "King Pedro IV of Portugal and of the Algarves". If predominant association has become so politically incorrect, substitute realm of main residence.
  5. The rule that monarchical article titles reflect the realm most widely associated in English with that sovereign was adopted after weighing the objections that a monarch's subjects of differing nationalities may make, versus the need to disambiguate monarchs with the same name & numeral, versus resolving the issue that many monarchs have ruled more than one realm during their lives but it's impractical to indicate that in an article's name. As Timrollpickering notes, it's still the best compromise for Wiki -- though regrettably not for many of EIIR's subjects.
  6. Finally, the claim that any usage of Firstname of Realm is unacceptably POV with respect to any other realms of which s/he was sovereign is a red herring, because that principle applies to neutrality between conflicting allegations within articles -- yet no one disputes that EIIR is queen of both Canada and of the UK (whereas "Elizabeth II of England" would be inaccurate), as her article explains: But it is not a legitimate purpose of Misplaced Pages to name articles so as to change the public's perception of a monarch's associations, rather it is to reflect prevalent terminology for ease-of-search purposes (I strongly support efforts to promote public awareness of EIIR as monarch equally of all her realms -- just not through Misplaced Pages's naming practices). Further, NPOV means that we assign proportionate weight to competing claims with respect to articles, rather than equal weight: Does anyone claim that Elizabeth II is equally associated with the UK and any of her other realms in the general public's view? Lethiere (talk) 23:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support The current monarch naming convention is an early compromise of WP:COMMONNAME and is arguably the cause of a lot of similarly flawed "exceptions". Let's bring some overall consistency to Misplaced Pages naming. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• Compromise with what? Accuracy? Reality? The real world is messy and can betricky to categorise. Imposing a one size fits all rule isn't going to change that. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• No one is suggesting what you're talking about. I'm just saying that when the most common name for the topic of a given article can be used as the title, it should be. When an exception needs to be made for good reason for a particular article, fine, but I see no reason to make every instance of a given category (be it U.S. city names, TV episode names, monarch names, Russian submarine names, plant names, etc.) an exception to that rule just because it's a member of one of those categories. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment if this change is made how do we deal with names like Philip II -- I have deliberately chosen a name of a none British monarch, so that familiarity is less of an issue, but where a man like Philip II of Spain ruled half of Europe in a personal union. I have done a lot of work on the treaties of 1815 and it is clear that Monarchs swapped titles like playing cards in a game. For example take s:Final Act of the Congress of Vienna/General Treaty#ART.XVI "The provinces and districts of the kingdom of Saxony, which are transferred to the dominion of his Majesty the King of Prussia, shall be distinguished by the name of the duchy of Saxony, and his Majesty shall add to his titles those of duke of Saxony, Landgrave of Thuringia, Margrave of the two Lusatias, and count of Henneberg." If we do not use the current guideline, how would we decide on the name to use for someone like the King of Prussia or should that be "Margrave of the two Lusatias"? --PBS (talk) 00:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I suggest we use whatever is the name most commonly used to refer to him in reliable/verifiable sources, probably Philip II, disambiguated with appropriate distinquishing information in parentheses as necessary, per WP:D. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

What I am suggesting in the next few sentence is a supposition I have not done a Google search. What happens if Philip II of Spain is either commonly called "Philip II", or "Philip of Naples", then as "Philip II" is a dab page, do we go with the second most common name which is "Philip of Naples", although far less common than "Philip II" as is the most common name which does not involve disambiguation? PBS (talk) 00:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

A further problem is that someone like James II of England was known by another title for most of his life including the Civil War, the Interregnum and the Restoration, how do we decide what is the most common name? Duke of York or James II, if he was usually known as Duke of York then do we use that title? If so then do we name him James Stuart, Duke of York? A better example is probably William II of the Netherlands in most English language sources he is better known as the Prince of Orange who fought at the Battle of Waterloo (the rest of his life is a footnote as far a most military histories are concerned) so how would he be named? --PBS (talk) 00:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

If Philip II is most commonly called Philip II but Philip II is a dab page, and this Philip II is not the primary topic, then I think the title should be Philip II (dab info). Alternatively, it should be dabbed per the monarch naming conventions, but only if dabbing is required.

If the most common name is "Philip of Naples" then that should be the title, but if it's a far second than it should not be the title.

As you know, this is all carefully laid out at WP:NC, and, with relatively minor changes, has remained fairly stable for years. I've never understood why articles about monarchs or any other category of topics should be exceptions to this very reasonable and universally applicable fundamental naming policy. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The major reason for the development of the guideline, was because, a lot of the developments took place before this policy had an addition of "Misplaced Pages determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject." (added about a year ago). The guideline was very useful to solve 4 problems where

• (1) the common name on the net (eg "Bloody Mary") was not the same as that used in reliable sources,
• (2) the name is common so "disambiguation" is needed. For many cases such as Philip II there will always be a need to add additional information to the name of the article for disambiguation purposes and whether it is done as Philip II of Spain Philip II, of Spain or Philip II (Spain) does not really matter, and the current dab extension of including "of state" at least complies with "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." which it could be argued Philip II (Spain) does not. There is also an argument to be made that if you are not a Misplaced Pages expert, and you have found Charles X of Sweden through to Charles XI of Sweden, it appears very odd to have the last in the series at Charles XII.
• (3) The name is so obscure, there are few to no English language sources easily available to Misplaced Pages editors to make a decision on what is the common name in reliable sources is. If we start to use the name in foreign sources, they may not use a naming sequence which is familiar to most English readers making it hard to find a linage.
• (4)What do we do about a person who is famous in English for something the did before they were King such as William II of the Netherlands who in most English language sources is better known as the Prince of Orange who fought at the Battle of Waterloo (the rest of his life if mentioned at all is as a footnote in most military histories).

Also I think there is a cultural problem here, When "of England" or "of the French" is used, these are shortening of the full title, and I think that whether they are aware of it or not, thanks to the provisions Art.I.IX in the US constitution, there is an cultural bias in the States against using titles, because titles are frowned upon, and people should be identified by name and not title (to do so is to break the rules like an actor saying Macbeth rather than the Scottish play). The suggestion that Philip II of Spain should be Philip II (Spain), is like saying that William (McKinley) and William (Taft) should be used for disambiguation purposes. --PBS (talk) 08:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• (ec)Comment Both sides of the discussion sound like good ideas but they looking at to big a picture. Lets return to QEII, as she is head of many states would it not be more prudent to consider separate articles for each state, sources permitting. This is the real heart of the issue so why not have a basic article QEII on the monarch that covers persons physical/private life, then have daughter articles on the titles which cover in detail the specifics of the title ie QEII of the UK, QEII of Canada, QEII of Australia etc. Taking what I know personally a QEII of Australia article would cover her corination, visits, how she is represented in Aust, republican debate, and possibly events like the Whitlam dismissal all of which a single article about the person trying to cover 16 different realms equally with as much detail just wouldnt be practicable. This applies equally to other monarchs like Phillip II. Gnangarra 01:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  • This is totally insane. It is not Misplaced Pages custom to have multiple articles about the same person. john k (talk) 22:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Frankly, as long as the articles in question have qualifying statements in their introduction, then this issue should be of no matter. In the case QEII that is simply stating the country from which she reigns as monarch, this has little consequence. However if article titles are changed then the impact and content of the article will not be altered; it will then make these arguments null and will give the opposition to this no motivation for changing it back to its now current format. Outback the koala (talk) 01:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Well, that's just the old "the title doesn't really matter" argument, the extreme of which is "let's just use randomly selected strings for titles". I think article titles do matter, in that they proclaim what WP editors have determined to be the most commonly used name in reliable/verifiable English sources to refer to the topic of that article (disambiguated as necessary). That is, the title conveys this information - its most commonly used name - about the topic in and of itself. You can verify how well this work by clicking on WP:RANDOM a few times. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• The people who have opposed this seem to have the idea that this proposal is specifically because of the need to move QEII's article. No, if you read the first few comments, you'll see that we have thought of a way do deal with Monarchs who've had their names used several times by other monarchs. Only for articles such as QEII, where it's clearly that person who is by far best known by that title, then shall we move them to an article title without a specific country included in the name. When it's disputable which monarch is best known by a particular title, then we can have a country name included in the title. Also, for article's such as the one of QEII, look at common use, what do hear/read more? Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom or Elizabeth II? About 99.9999% of the people who would search for Elizabeth II is looking for information on The Queen, not any other person. --~Knowzilla 07:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - I see no benefit to this. Since we already have redirects where appropriate, it would be a lot of work for no useful return. Deb (talk) 11:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The benefits would be more article names in a NPOV and it would stop the issue of renaming coming up from so many people again and again so many times for articles like Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, so we can focus more on the content of the article rather than it's name, if the issues with it's name stops, as many feel the article should be at Elizabeth II and that issue keeps on coming back. --~Knowzilla 12:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Most especially in the case of Queen Elizabeth II, this is quite sensible. In the case where there is no clear default target for the article, such as Phillip II (mentioned above), the dismbiguation page is of course appropriate. The issue of what to call the articles that are being disambiguated to is necessarily solved by the fact that there is no default to land at; again, see Phillip II, where the eventual targets do mention the realm. Queen Elizabeth II of <insert one of 16 realms here> should then redirect to Queen Elizabeth II, which can have links to any others, or to a disambiguation page if there are too many.  Frank  |  talk  15:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

  I think you misunderstand Phillip II of Spain probably held a many titles a Betty, and many other kings listed under Philip II would have held other titles than those listed on the dab page. All that is listed on the dab page is their main realm. --PBS (talk) 16:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

  I misunderstand how this shows any misunderstanding on my part... ;-)  Frank  |  talk  18:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support - anything that imposes something as artificial as E2 of the UK must be in need of a change. (We do realize, I presume, that she is not the second Queen Elizabeth of the UK, which is possibly a reason why we never hear her called that.)--Kotniski (talk) 15:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support, since this has become a !vote; there's only a need to add the "of country" suffix if the name and regnal number isn't enough to disambiguate. Should disambiguation be necessary, I would prefer the "of country" method over the standard parentheticals in this case.--Aervanath (talk) 15:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per Lethiere. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support The proposed naming method conforms more with WP:NPOV than the present naming guidelines do. However, that said, I wouldn't go so far as to rename all monarchical biography articles. Many monarchs did reign over only one country, so it is not a violation of WP:NPOV to include that one country in the article title. It is only when we get to monarchs who were the fulcrum of a personal union that the issue of one country being picked out over all the others - i.e. POV - comes up. So, I would say that the naming guidelines should be amended to include a special provision specifically for sovereigns of more than one independent state, and that provision should be that no one country should be mentioned in the article title. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

  So what about the change from Lord of Ireland to King of Ireland do those who were only Lord of Ireland get known as King "of England" but Henry VIII and after is not known as of England? Or do we not use of England for any king after 1171? See my comment above about titles and playing cards, your suggestion would mean that many many monarchs who are primarily associated with a kingdom would not if we were to use your suggestion. Out would go Elizabeth I of England presumably with her "stomach of a king, and of a King of England too" --PBS (talk) 16:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• If a monarch reigned over more than one independent state, no state is named in the article title. "Primarily associated" will always be a matter of POV, so it remains my belief that it should be avoided all-together. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Many naming issues are "POV", and rightly so, since we want the most natural name for English speakers, not the name spewed out by an algorithm. The reason E2 of the UK is wrong for me is not the fact that she's queen of other countries (though that might sometimes be a factor), but that she's never normally called that - she's known as E2, and is the primary topic for that name, so no disambiguation is needed. Plus the fact that the number 2 is wrong for the UK anyway.--Kotniski (talk) 17:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean "Plus the fact that the number 2 is wrong for the UK anyway", Whether one looks at it as a point of law or as a common name II is the correct ordinal for Betty. Or are you suggesting that the ordinal for George IV should be changed to George II? --PBS (talk) 13:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Whatever the law may say, she's not the second queen Elizabeth of the United Kingdom. And as a common name, of course she should have the numeral II (and George the numeral IV), but it's the tag "of the UK" that offends grossly against the common-name principle.--Kotniski (talk) 08:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

She's not the second Queen Elizabeth of the United Kingdom. And Victor Emmanuel II was not the second King Victor Emmanuel of Italy. More to the point, Charles VII of Sweden was the first King Karl of Sweden. Pope John XXIII was only the twenty-first (I believe) pope named John. So what? She is titled "Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland," and she uses the regnal name "Elizabeth II." Whether that is strictly accurate or not is completely irrelevant. john k (talk) 22:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Pope John XXIII was definitely not the 23rd Pope John. The confusion started with Antipope John XVI, whose Antipope status was not recognised at the time and so the next John took the numbers XVII instead of reusing the XVI number, and two more Johns followed suit with XVIII and XIX over the next thirty years. Then there were no more Pope Johns for two and a half centuries, during which time poor transmission of a document led historians to assume that there were two Pope John XIVs, one who reigned for eight months, another for four. (Actually the four months was referring to John XIV's imprisonment by Antipope Boniface VII.) Historians began "correcting" the numbering to reflect this and consequently Pedro Julião followed this received wisdom and so ratified this "correction" by becoming Pope John XXI. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

This is also completely insane. Charles II of England and Charles II of Spain both reigned over multiple independent states (in the former case, England, Scotland, and Ireland; in the latter, Castile, Aragon, Valencia, Catalonia, Sardinia, Naples, Sicily, Milan, the Franche Comté, and the Spanish Netherlands). So apparently we have no disambiguation we can use for either of them. It's almost always easy enough to determine what country someone is primarily associated with based on factors like "where they lived." john k (talk) 22:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Just making this clear, I didn't say this outright before, as I wasn't expecting this to turn into another support/oppose game, I was expecting helpful suggestions for the proposed amendment, not some unhelpful opposes. I've made most of my points clear above. --~Knowzilla 16:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support "If a monarch reigned over more than one independent state, no state is named in the article title." Now we just need to rewrite the convention! Jagislaqroo (talk) 18:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Looks clear, but how does one apply it to the articles currently entitled James I of England and Charles XV of Sweden, just to take two examples of differing numerals? —JAO • T • C 19:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
    • How about we allow it when theres enough reliable sources to have both regnal numbers, I know for sure that a lot of reliable sources have called James I of England James VI and I. If the common use is that (this is an example) James VI and I is used more than James I of England, it can be moved, if not, no. Something like that? --~Knowzilla 19:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• There seems to be a good consensus to amend the conventions, now for the official wording, hows about: If a monarch reigned/reigns over more than one independent state, no state is named in the article title (For example: Elizabeth II, not Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom or Elizabeth II of Canada). If there are conflicting article names of equally well known monarchs, then a country may be included in the title. For where a Monarch has reigned over more than one country with different regnal numbers, if both regnal numbers are mentioned together in enough reliable sources, it may be used for the article (For example James VI and I). That ok with everyone, or would someone like to make a change to the wording? --~Knowzilla 20:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I've no issue with drafting up some wording, but shouldn't we also have some input from WP:NCNT participants? That guideline is the one most directly affected by what we're proposing here. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I mentioned on the talk page over there that a discussion is going on here to amend the conventions. So, they probably did see. We could notify them again. --~Knowzilla 06:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• That sounds pretty good! I'm sure that those words can be the basis for an all-encompassing and rational rewrite. I'm just sorry that I won't be able to see the finished project, as per my impending road-trip of death. I'm so glad WP is moving on this! Jagislaqroo (talk) 20:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• I'm fine with the wording, but wish it would go further. This is a Band Aid for a particular problem - I would rather address the more general problem.

  The particular problem being addressed by the above proposed wording is limited to the particular case of when "a monarch reigned/reigns over more than one independent state". The more general problem is specifying the state any time disambiguation is not necessary.

  If the most common name for a monarch has no conflicts with others uses, or that monarch is the primary use of that name, that name should be used for the title of the article, in order to be consistent with Misplaced Pages article naming in general. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yeah, sure. Why not? That would mean articles like John Carlos I of Spain can be moved to John Carlos I. Sounds good. --~Knowzilla 06:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• There certainly does not seem to be a consensus! john k (talk) 22:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• Alright, I will be amending WP:NCNT soon. Can I have approval from some of you for the final wording: If the most common name for a said monarch does not conflict with other article names, that name should be used for the title of the article, especially if the said monarch reigned/reigns over more than one independent country (Example: Elizabeth II, not Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom). If there are conflicting article names, disambiguate. For where a Monarch has reigned over more than one country with different regnal numbers, if both regnal numbers are mentioned together in enough reliable sources, it may be used for the article name (For example James VI and I). This wording would mean that even articles such as John Carlos I of Spain may be moved to John Carlos I if wanted. Is that good, or would anyone like to make any changes to that wording? I'll wait for some replies before adding this to WP:NCNT. --~Knowzilla 07:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me, except I would say something about primary topics. I.e. there might well be another Liz II of somewhere, but that needn't automatically mean that the well-known one can't be called just by that name (on the same principle that we use for WP:PRIMARYTOPICs in general). --Kotniski (talk) 09:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. There is obviously no consensus for such a thing. john k (talk) 22:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. For several reasons. It is not clear to me that there is a consensus for either change, with less for the second one (James I IV) which has hardly been addressed at all in this conversation or the ramification for it. I think this needs far more discussion than has taken place so far. How widely has this discussion been advertised? I for example have have raised several points that have not been addressed. This change seems to be being pressed with unseemly hast. Why? --PBS (talk) 10:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Alright then, we can leave the James VI and I one out. Most of your points have been answered to, what else are you unsure about? Ask, and I'll try and answer your issues. This change is not being pressed with unseemly haste, how else would you want it to go? --~Knowzilla 10:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose for now, per PBS. This proposal has wide ranging implications and has had only a small input, without much wider advertising, particularly on the relevant talkpage. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going to give it more time. Since there is good support for this convention to be amended at least, I guess we should start a section on the talk page of WP:NCNT. Exactly how much input do you feel is necessary for this to go ahead? --~Knowzilla 10:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I think we've had quite enough input already, but sure, it should really be being discussed at NCNT. A minimum change which I think the vast majority of people would agree with is that the convention should state that is does not necessarily override COMMONNAME where there's another good name for which the monarch is clearly the primary topic. That way we could get rid of absurdities like Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom and Victoria of the United Kingdom (-> Queen Victoria, how hard is that?) without necessarily starting a mass rename of monarch articles.--Kotniski (talk) 15:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - there is no consensus for change. Deb (talk) 18:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

You have already indicated your opposition above (so I have struckout your second "oppose"). By the use of "oppose" here, I assume what you are saying is that you disagree with the suggestion that consensus has been achieved. Fair enough. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I was opposing what appeared to be a second proposal - a proposed wording which was apparently being proposed on the false premise that consensus existed. Deb (talk) 20:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. There are two proposals here. One would remove {name of country} from all monarchs. That will not work. To pick a not-so-random example, Charles III is any of a dozen rulers, including five kings; at least three of them are normally called (when disambiguation is not necessary) Charles III. We must disambiguate them somehow; any other method would present the same questions, and probably be clumsier.

The other would leave almost all monarchs where they are, and disambiguate a handful which seem to be primary usage. I oppose this because it is a difficulty for readers and editors alike to figure out which those are. We can tell now where Charles X of France is. Is Charles X ambiguous? Have we chosen to ignore some Swedish or Silesian prince of that number? Why should the reader have to figure this out?

This is a temporary solution (where do we put Charles III when he reigns, if Charles III of the United Kingdom is unacceptable?) to an almost entirely imaginary problem. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Why is it difficult to determine primary usage for monarchs, when we are able to do it quite successfully for almost everything else we have articles about? --Kotniski (talk) 14:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I did not say that it could not be done, but that there was no reason to expect every reader or editor to do it. This is our common practice in fields where the most common names tend to be massively ambiguous, like peerage titles (every Duke of Devonshire - with one possible exception - is best known as "the Duke of Devonshire", but we disambiguate them all by name and number) or American municipalities (Every Springfield in the US is called Springfield most often; but we call them all by their State, instead of deciding whether Springfield, Illinois is primary usage). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, very often we do decide that one represents primary usage. London, for example. The present rule about monarchs is even worse then you make out, because it forbids using the most common name not just when it's the primary topic among several, but even when it's not ambiguous at all. I don't know what you mean about every reader and editor. Do you really think "Victoria of the United Kingdom" is the name a sane reader or editor would expect to find Queen Victoria's article under? --Kotniski (talk) 16:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Type "Victoria" into the search box; you will have the choice of Victoria (Australia), Victoria, British Columbia, Victorian era, Victoria of the United Kingdom.... I have no trouble telling which of these is Her Late Majesty; where's the insanity? (And this is one reason consistency is useful: if I've just been looking at Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, I will know where her predecessor is, and I will continue to know even after Victoria of Sweden is added to that list). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

And it's interesting to note that all of those places are all named after Queen Victoria anyway... --~Knowzilla 07:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't propose "Victoria" as a title; I propose Queen Victoria, which is what she's called in real English (you usually support calling things by their common English names; I'm surprised to see you on the other side of the fence on this one). And hmm, United Kingdom changes to Great Britain changes to England at various points along the line, so no, you don't always know where people's predecessors are located.--Kotniski (talk) 16:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Queen Victoria may reasonably be expected to be ambiguous in the near future; what then? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

No matter; the other one would still be the primary topic. To be honest, I think pretty much all the kings and queens to have reigned in England since the Conquest can be regarded as primary topics in the English language, so we could drop all the "of England", "of Great Britain", "of the United Kingdom" tags (and add "King.." or "Queen.." where there's no numeral). But certainly the quite unnatural "of the United Kingdom" is to be avoided, particularly when it produces numerical inaccuracy as in the case of the present queen.--Kotniski (talk) 08:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

That's a red herring to this. Umpteen monarchs have had numbers that aren't "accurate" - Frederick III, German Emperor (only the second German Emperor), Victor Emmanuel II of Italy (the first king of the country), or umpteen Spanish monarchs - Philip II of Spain, Ferdinand VI of Spain, Isabella II of Spain and Alfonso XII of Spain are all the first rulers "of Spain" with their names. Do people dispute using a location on those articles because of "numeric inaccuracy"? If the next monarch decides to be "Rameses Niblick III Kerplunk Kerplunk Whoops Where's My Thribble" they will be "Rameses Niblick III" regardless of there having been no previous monarchs called "Rameses Niblick III". Timrollpickering (talk) 10:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

(unindent)For me, it's what people normally call them that matters - and if we have to disambiguate by using a rarely used or made-up name, then that name should at least be accurate. So if Philip II of Spain is so known, then let's call him that too. But in my experience, Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom is virtually never called that in the real world (I'm prepared to be proved wrong on that), so that title is inappropriate for WP first and foremost because the artificial disambiguation is unnecessary (it's a primary topic), secondly because as a constucted name, it's misleading (she isn't the 2nd E of the UK), and thirdly (though for others apparently firstly) because she isn't queen only of the UK. --Kotniski (talk) 12:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Your second point isn't really relevant to the discussion as you're treading on a general objection going back many years. Regardless of her not being the second Elizabeth of the UK, that is the number she has chosen, and the right of the monarch to determine the number has been held up in court. It is no more misleading than many other cases such as those cited above, which have generated far less discussion (most none at all). II is the number used for her and that ain't going to change regardless of the fact that she isn't the second Elizabeth for any of her thrones.

In terms of how she's usually called it is "the Queen", which is okay for most conversations at hand but useless for an encyclopaedia, or "the Queen of England", which is inaccurate, or any number of nicknames or artificial constructs ("Brenda", "Elizabeth Windsor" and so forth). That's fine for conversation but not for an encyclopedia (just as we don't have Barack Obama at "American President").

The basic rule is "what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." Having a consistent format makes for easy linking and second nature, whilst the name is what would be most easily recognised, whereas anything based on her position is more of a mess. It is not a surprise for readers to find monarchs at the form "Name Number of Country" and it conveys the information clearly in a way that contracted shortforms do not. I just don't see the multiple thrones as an issue that sufficiently overrides this, because for many, many monarchs with multiple thrones it's not workable to list them all and that brings up to how we pick a unique name. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

It was a huge surprise to me (as a reader) when I first saw "Victoria of the United Kingdom" - I'm sure many must do at least a double-take before they realize who is being referred to. And "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom" conveys as much false as true information (readers will think either that it's her usual name, or that there was an Elizabeth I of the UK). Dropping the suffix (in line with general WP naming principles, which is a more valuable consistency) seems a completely obvious solution. --Kotniski (talk) 07:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The "false information" thing is, once again, nonsense, as has already been pointed out. King Victor Emmanuel II of Italy was the first King Victor Emmanuel of Italy. Pope John XXI was the nineteenth pope named John. Charles VII was the first king Charles of Sweden, and Eric VI was the first king Eric. Closer to home, William IV was the first King William of the United Kingdom, and the only King William of Hanover. George III, for that matter, was the first King George of the United Kingdom, and Edward VII the first king Edward. In most modern cases, monarchical numbering isn't a historian's attempt to describe the monarch's antecedents. It is a name that the monarch herself takes up. So she is Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, notwithstanding the fact that there was never a Queen Elizabeth I of the United Kingdom. British monarchs have chosen to continue the numbering of English monarchs. Your proposal has absolutely no answer for what we do about William IV, whose title is just as "inaccurate" as QEII's. William IV, you'll note, includes about a dozen other rulers, including a well-known eighteenth century prince of Orange and a well-known twentieth century grand duke of Luxembourg. And what would you have us do about Frederick III, German Emperor? Frederick III is obviously an unacceptable title, given the severe level of ambiguity. But the current title is obviously conveying "as much false as true information (readers will think that there was a Frederick II who was German Emperor)". But yet he was called Frederick III. This is a plan for a gigantic mess and you simply haven't thought about it enough, or aren't familiar enough with the ramifications of it, to realize what a mess your proposal would be. john k (talk) 13:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

"but we call them all by their State, instead of deciding whether Springfield, Illinois is primary usage". Unfortunately. What a terrible and inconsistent precedent that has set. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

'Pmanderson', Prince Charles might decide to go by George VII, he need not go by Charles III'. Besides, we need not worry about the distant future already. You say "almost entirely imaginary problem?", the talk page archives of QEII's article says otherwise. --~Knowzilla 14:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

No, the talk page of her article says that there are a lot of imaginative Canadians. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

That's offensive - which is exactly why the convention needs to be changed. 78.86.226.253 (talk) 22:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

'Pmanderson', how can you tell they are all Canadians? You can't. It seems you are opposing this proposal not out of good reason, but out of your own political POV. That was a very rude statement. -~Knowzilla 07:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

All Canadians? I never said that. That many are Canadians is obvious; do you deny it? I am not a citizen of any Commonwealth country, and how Canada chooses her Head of State is not my business; my PoV is to wish them a better system and better batting average than we have had.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 12:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I think Mr Anderson you are confusing the Canadian with the Australians when you talk about batting averages :-) -- PBS (talk) 21:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Once you comment on it, you have made it your business. As such, you should familiarize yourself with the facts before deeming "many Canadians" on Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom to be "imaginative", which, in this case, is a word you have employed merely as a euphemism for "crazy". --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

No, Sir. The Government of Canada is determined by its citizens, not by Misplaced Pages. Most of the nationalists we have to block think that if Misplaced Pages can only be coerced to state The Real Truth, the world will magically follow; I disagree. My concern is with what Misplaced Pages does; if Canada changes its Head of State, or her style, we should report that, no more. In the meantime, we should call Queen Elizabeth by the name most convenient for our readers and editors, which I hold to be the systematic name, like all other royalties not known primarily by nicknames. Get everybody to call her Good Queen Liz, and WP will follow; I will support that move, under those conditions. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

This imaginative Canadian dreams of a Canadian republic. GoodDay (talk) 22:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Ahem, we seem to be straying ever so slightly from the topic... Is anyone planning to make a proposal at the names and titles page, as was suggested somewhere above?--Kotniski (talk) 15:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm probably going to, but lets give it a little rest, in a day or two maybe? Need to think of better way to get started with that, so it can actually be successful. --~Knowzilla 15:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Getting things changed at the 'names & titles page' to accomadate 1 article is ambitious. Oh well, let's commence. GoodDay (talk) 16:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is a seriously half-baked proposal, and is based on a number of fallacious premises, most of which have been pointed out by others above. There is no explanation given here of what we should do when disambiguation is required (which it is for the vast majority of monarchs). The Elizabeth II issue is only controversial because a small number of Canadian monarchists have made it their mission to constantly dispute the common sense idea that Elizabeth II is most closely associated with the country in which she actually lives. I would be amenable to discuss a broader modification of the "always disambiguate" rule - we have discussed it in the past. But the new system would have to be clearly worked out in a sensible manner before I'd be willing to support anything. john k (talk) 22:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Erm, excuse me, there are those of us who oppose the present name for Her Maj's article (and those of her predecessors) for reasons that have nothing to do with Canadians.--Kotniski (talk) 07:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sure. Didn't meant to imply otherwise. But the Elizabeth II issue keeps getting brought up again and again by Canadian monarchists, which is why you can point to it and say "Look at all the controversy." At any rate, only a small number of articles cause controversy - Elizabeth II's and James I's, primarily. There are dozens of articles which have exactly the same "problems", but which nobody seems to care about. Charles I was not merely king of England, but of the equal and independent kingdom of Scotland as well - and of the neither equal nor particularly independent kingdom of Ireland, if you like, too. The proposal leaves us with no way to title his article. Charles I is obviously massively ambiguous, but Charles I of England is apparently "POV". So what are we supposed to call him? Philip II of Spain is a misnomer and, in your view "conveys as much false information as true" - he was not the second King Philip of Spain. Furthermore, he didn't even have the title of "King of Spain" at all. But Philip II is highly ambiguous and Philip II of Castile is both a weird and unfamiliar form and would also be "POV" in elevating Castile above his other realms. I could keep coming up with examples all day. And this proposal has nothing in it which gives any guidance for how to deal with any of these issues. The comments you and others have made indicate that you don't even seem to understand that these issues exist, much less have any kind of plan for dealing with them. You are single-mindedly focused on coming up with a plan that will allow us to move the current queen's article to Elizabeth II, and you haven't even considered the broader ramifications of it. Until you do so, this is a terrible idea. john k (talk) 13:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

All right, calm down, it's not like anyone's pushing any specific proposal uncompromisingly - the present system has at least as much bad about it as the other ideas you're calling "terrible". 99.9% of articles on Misplaced Pages are named in accordance with the principle I'm suggesting be applied here, and it works very well. We call things by the names by which they are best known, with accurate disambiguation as necessary. Another WP principle is that rules have exceptions: we can keep the existing system for the great majority of monarch articles, where it gives good results, but should be prepared to make exceptions where there is a clearly better alternative. At the very least, Elizabeth II and Queen Victoria surely fall into this category.--Kotniski (talk) 13:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Surely there is much to be said for consistency. Queen Victoria, in particular, is a title which would be deeply inconsistent with every other article about a monarch on Misplaced Pages. Oughtn't this be considered? Also, you are basically confirming what I said - that you want a massive change in a naming convention which has worked well for many years in order to accommodate your dislike of two specific article titles which follow that convention. I agree that Victoria of the United Kingdom is a somewhat awkward title. I just think the alternative proposed is much worse. Any formulation of policy really needs to consider the broader implications. The question is not just "would this proposed change get the articles whose titles I don't like to places I like better?" It's also "what would be the consequences of the proposed change on the project as a whole?" You can say "Most articles stay where they are" all you like, but all the principles which have been proposed to move the two articles you don't like the titles of have much broader implications, and that can't be ignored. If you want to bring about a change like this, it behooves you to actually study up on the issue so that you understand what's in question, and figure out the implications of it. Almost all of the arguments that have been presented for why Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom and Victoria of the United Kingdom are bad are ones that would apply to tons of other articles, and the solutions proposed are impossible to scale to all those other articles. john k (talk) 14:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

We should keep the status-quo. Someday we may have another monarch named Victoria, Victoria of Sweden. GoodDay (talk) 22:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

It still won't matter there, Queen Victoria and not Victoria of Sweden will be the primary topic even then. --~Knowzilla 05:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, as has already been pointed out (this conversation is going round in circles, so this will be my last contribution to it for now). To sum up my position, I believe consistency with common sense, the real world and Misplaced Pages's overall naming principles (and the even more fundamental principle that rules are expected to have exceptions) is far more valuable than consistency with an arbitrary artificial rule. I would be happy either to see the rule reworded to admit the possibility of exceptions (which should be understood, but unfortunately isn't), or to see it altered to make an explicit exception for (at least) the United Kingdom monarchs.--Kotniski (talk) 08:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, the point isn't consistency with an arbitrary rule, but consistency between articles on comparable topics. Secondly, the basic problem here is that those of you proposing the change haven't thought through what exactly you want to propose, how it would be worded, or what the justification for it would be. Continuing to throw out half-thought out new ideas for how to change the convention doesn't help. john k (talk) 14:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose -- The present convention is clear and unambiguous. In the case of Elizabeth II and Victoria the use a simpler name is certainly attractive, but this is at the expense of consistency. However, we cannot do the same with kings called Philip, Francis, George, Edward, William, etc without grave ambiguity. In the case of Elizabeth II, her chosen title is soemthing like "... of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of her other realms and dominions"; is that not a good enough reason to keep the present form? Peterkingiron (talk) 17:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

No you are wrong. Her style is different in each country she is sovereign of, e.g. in Oz she is know as "QEII of the Commonwealth of Australia and of her other realms & dominions." The page title is POV which is why the convention needs to be changed. 78.86.14.169 (talk) 03:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

You are indeed wrong, her chosen style is not "of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of her other realms and dominions". She has a style for each independent country over which she reigns. Examples: In the UK it is: "Elizabeth the Second, By the Grace of God, Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her Other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith", in Australia it is: "Elizabeth the Second, By the Grace of God, Queen of Australia and of Her Other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth", in New Zealand it is: "Elizabeth the Second, By the Grace of God, Queen of New Zealand and of Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith". Realms refer to the other independent nations over which she reigns and Territories refer to the territories of the countries over which she reigns, in each of her styles, respectively. --~Knowzilla 13:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Except that the article is about a person, not a symbol of the state, and that person has spent the vast majority of the last 57 years in the United Kingdom, acting as Queen of the United Kingdom, and has probably spent no more than, what, a few hundred hours all told actually doing things for any of her other realms? Why so many problems with this, and none with Oscar I of Sweden? In Sweden he was called "King of Sweden and Norway," and in Norway he was called "King of Norway and Sweden." We put him under Sweden because he lived in Stockholm, and because he is most closely associated with Sweden. The same applies to Elizabeth II. john k (talk) 01:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Ha! So it should stay where it is because of your POV that it is the most appropriate. So your value judgement of which realm is more important decides. Interesting. 78.86.226.253 (talk) 12:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Use Common Names works fine almost everywhere else; where there is any ambiguity, we can easily fall back to the current guidelines. Powers 12:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support -- Misplaced Pages's general approach of using the most common name seems entirely appropriate here - the current convention means that we end up using names that are inaccurate and never used outside of Misplaced Pages. --rossb (talk) 23:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
• Strong oppose because, per other opponents' points, this is complete tosh of the lowest order DBD
• Oppose The current system works, is effective and there is no consensus for a change. Could not agree with DBD more. In my view the proposed change would mark a decline to rank amateurism. FearÉIREANN\ 23:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

You obviously have no concept of NPOV then. This insistence on "QEII of the UK" is rank amateurism. 78.86.226.253 (talk) 12:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Precisely. Professional encyclopedias don't make up names and pass them off as genuine, which is what the current system has us do.--Kotniski (talk) 12:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - Current structure of monarch's names seems to the best solution to me. - fchd (talk) 12:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

For any particular reason? Surely you can see that the current system is producing confusing, invented names, against all Misplaced Pages principles and common sense, when the natural names would serve perfectly well as they do everywhere else on the encyclopedia? --Kotniski (talk) 12:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I think this is another case of trying to modify a universal guideline for the wrong reasons. (see below). If Queen Elizabeth II presents special problems, that is a good reason for an exception to be made in that specific case. (And of James 1 and VI), However removing the country designations of all monarchs is a recipe for anarchy. King Philip IV of France is a well accepted and well-understood usage, it is not particularly outlandish. Having to guess which William III is meant out of the many that exist, would be extremely confusing. Xandar 00:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Naming convention for Burmese geographical names

A discussion has started about the lack of a clear guideline on Burmese geographical names here. Any input is welcome. Skinsmoke (talk) 01:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Italic title

Should this be used for articles of works of fiction, like films, video games, albums, novels...? The only mention of its use that I can use is for binomial nomenclature. BOVINEBOY2008 03:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• It is discussed above and at Template talk:Italic title. At present there is no consensus for anything other than binomials. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there consensus for this or not?

All right, this again. This is what it currently says at the WP:Naming conflict guideline:

Where any persons or groups (organizations, cities, political parties, fringe movements) have chosen to refer to themselves by a certain name, the titles of the articles that cover them should use that name, even if they do not have a right to use that name. This standard ensures that Misplaced Pages remains neutral in political naming disputes. Misplaced Pages is descriptive, not prescriptive. We cannot declare what a name should be, only what it is.

The city formerly called Bombay now calls itself Mumbai; the man formerly known as Cassius Clay now calls himself Muhammad Ali. Where self-identifying names are in use, they should be used within articles.

This seems to be in conflict with what we currently say on this page, which puts the common name principle first. This text can't be right in one place and wrong in another - either it's the rule or it isn't. So if people are happy for it to be on the other page, I propose - for consistency, even though I personally disagree with it - putting it on this page as well, and at the top, since it is worded as a rule that takes precedence over all others. But it isn't to be on this page, then surely we should modify it on the other page to make it clear that it isn't our overriding principle in such cases (as someone on the other talk page seems to think).--Kotniski (talk) 10:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

It should not be on this page. Mumbai has more to do with National verities of English and usage by reliable sources like the BBC. We can not have the Government of the Union of Myanmar dictating what Burma should be called. --PBS (talk) 11:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Our priority should be the name which is most useful to our readers. The names which people choose for themselves are not necessarily the best because they have a conflict-of-interest and so may choose names which mislead or promote. For example, Cassius Clay also called himself The Greatest. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

That's what I would have thought. But in that case, surely it shouldn't be on the other guideline page either? Or if it is, it should be heavily modified?--Kotniski (talk) 12:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe that (English equivalents/translations of) self-identifying names should be used as article titles (especially, in those which refer to names of states and nations, since (at least, in my opinion) using the most "common name" (especially, if it is controversial) is not always "neutral point of view" in such cases), however, if the same (self-identifying) name is also used by other self-identifying entities (or it has another important use), I believe disambiguations in parentheses should be added to such article titles (or if necessary, alternative self-identifying names (at least, if there are any) should be used for the article titles of all the self-identifying entities that claim the same title), Misplaced Pages should not pretend that a name used by multiple entities can be used only by one entity, and avoid giving the impression that a self-identifying entity has more right than other self-identifying entities to that name, that would be subjective criteria. (For example, the title "Catholic Church" is used by multiple Churches, as shown here, also the descriptive "catholic Church" is an important concept for many Churches, and that title cannot make distinction between the title "Catholic Church" (which is claimed by multiple self-identifying entities) and the important descriptive concept "catholic Church".) In my opinion, these things should be explained more clearer in this policy and also in the WP:NCON guideline. Cody7777777 (talk) 08:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I too agree that preferred names are not overriding. I question the need for a 'naming conflicts' page - that's the role of this page, to help resolve common naming disagreements. Also, I only cleaned up one section in Conflicts, but 80% of that section was bloated and unneeded.    M   16:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Naming conflict has existed for quite some time, and I think for good reason. It's asking to much to make this one page answer every question about naming. The role of the Naming conflict page is to handle cases when the usual conventions do not yield a clear choice of names; that's likely way too much to cram into this page. So I think Naming Conflict is entirely necessary, though it may need to be cleaned up. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 17:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

That paragraph is entirely incompatible with WP:UE, WP:OFFICIALNAMES and WP:COMMONNAMES, and should be removed. Knepflerle (talk) 21:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Could you elaborate? I don't see how there is any incompatibility. UE allows for other naming conventions, officialnames is an essay, and commonnames is not being contradicted at all. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 22:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be an attempt to change this long-standing policy surreptitiously by Kotniski and a couple of his friends. Having failed to gain consensus for a change on the article talk page, they have now moved the discussion here, without informing the original participants. This policy has stood since 2005, and is used by most Misplaced Pages articles. This is because it is clear. And resolves disputes on self-identifying names quickly.

In fact the policy as repeated above is not the longstanding polkcy. It was an attempted compromise with M and Kotniski. Since that compromise has been broken by coming here, and completely reveresing the policy unilaterally. The ORIGINAL longstanding policy has been reverted. Xandar 23:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow, this is just irresponsible. If one does not like the application of a policy we just change the policy? Cody's statement that there are other real world entities that carry the name "Catholic Church" is simply false. Every other entity bears some kind of modifier to distinguish itself from the Catholic Church. So there is no confusion, no injustice. Now there is a theological concept, catholic church, or church catholic. But, there can be no confusion between these two. The church catholic has no body of teaching, no membership, no leadership, no physical address, no 1.14 billion members. It is a theological term used most commonly by specialists. No one answers the question, Where is the Catholic Church? with do you mean Anglican, Orthodox or Methodist? Anyway, the attempt to change WP policy in order to shoehorn in a POV name of a particular article gets the entire purpose of policy backwards. Furthermore, it forces the idea that WP editors should be the judge of what entities should be called which is truly ridiculous.--EastmeetsWest (talk) 15:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

This could be off-topic, but regarding the claim that there are multiple Churches claiming the title "Catholic Church", there were enough sources shown both here and also in a longer discussion here about this, please check those earlier discussions, at least if you have time. (Also, as far as I know, the Vatican also used "Roman Catholic Church" when distinguishing itself from other Churches.) Cody7777777 (talk) 18:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Cody, that discussion is germane to the article(s) in question and it has been answered several times; NONE of the other chuches use Catholic Church as its name and all of them prefer to use other names. There is no confusion and you continue to struggle on forcing a name to be exclusive and absolute, which in the case of a church name, specifically Catholic, it is not and never has been.

More to the topic, there is only one entity capable of identifying itself and that is the entitiy itself. It is silly to assume that editors should ignore an entity's perogative, and call it by another title other than the one used by the group itself. The example given above of Cassius Clay and "the Greatest" is without merit. His name was not the greatest; he only used two names during his lifetime: Cassius Clay and Muhammad Ali. The current policy adequately, efficiently directs editors how best to handle naming conventions.--Rider 19:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say this, but as far as I see, the claim "NONE of the other chuches use Catholic Church as its name" is clearly Original Research, since there were no sources shown supporting such a claim, and there was enough evidence shown in earlier discussions that there are more Churches claiming the title "Catholic Church" (I assume it is not necessary to re-post all of the things from those earlier comments again here, since I would prefer to not bring all of that discussion here). Cody7777777 (talk) 20:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

There is certainly no need to bring all of that discussion here, although that may be necessary if you are going to pick out certain parts of it and present them out of context. The months of discussions, RfCs, reviews, etc. on that issue ended with consensus that Catholic Church was the appropriate title for the article. Minority views were expressed, and concerns addressed through a note, a disambiguation page, etc. It is not original research to say none of the other churches use CC as its name. There is no ambiguity or confusion, other that that created by editors who don't agree with hard-fought and well-crafted consensus that complies with WP policies. This is taking forum-shopping to a new level. --anietor (talk) 20:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The claim that "none of the other churches use CC as its name" is not sourced as far as I see (this means it is an assumption, and it can be considered Original Research). Regarding ambiguity, the page Catholic Church (disambiguation) (and also the article Catholicism) alone prove, that this term has multiple meanings. And, regarding WP policy and guidelines, at least in my opinion, this part of WP:NCON, "A name used by one entity may well clash with a name used by another entity. Disambiguation and expansion can resolve overlapping names.", and also the WP:NCDAB, "When there is another term (such as Pocket billiards instead of Pool) or more complete name (such as Delta rocket instead of Delta) that is equally clear and unambiguous, that should be used", were largely ignored, although they were mentioned as far as I know, during the last phase of the mediation (respectively, the "Community consultation"). Cody7777777 (talk) 11:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Cody, it's the same old argument with some new makeup. You need to read about what a disambiguation page is, and what it's not. It is NOT proof of ambiguity, so the fact that CC has a disambiguation page does not support your position. "When there is a well-known primary topic for an ambiguous term, name or phrase, much more used than any other topic covered in Misplaced Pages to which the same word(s) may also refer, then that term or phrase should either be used for the title of the article on that topic or redirect to that article." Beyond that, it's time you dropped the stick and moved away from this dead horse.--anietor (talk) 14:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

As far as I see, according to WP:Disambiguation, disambiguation pages are done for ambiguous article titles. The article Catholicism also explains different meanings of "Catholic Church", and even the note in the lead of the current wiki article Catholic Church, states "There is some ambiguity about the title "Catholic Church", since the Church is not the only institution to claim catholicity", and there is also a here which claims that the both the titles "Catholic Church" and "Orthodox Church" are "potentially misleading". As far as I see, there is enough evidence that "Catholic Church" is ambiguous as an article title. Also, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC does not clearly state (at least, as it is now) that we are forced to use that title as an article title since it states "that term or phrase should either be used for the title of the article on that topic or redirect to that article", this means that we could also use it as a redirect, however, the WP:NCDAB is clear enough in stating that "When there is another term (such as Pocket billiards instead of Pool) or more complete name (such as Delta rocket instead of Delta) that is equally clear and unambiguous, that should be used". (The reason these things were repeated, is because, at least as far as I see, they were ignored, and maybe you could also "drop the stick".) Cody7777777 (talk) 06:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Original Policy from Misplaced Pages Naming Coinflict

This is the ORIOGINAL LONGSTANDING POLICY on Self-identifying names which was wrongfully altered by M, Knepferle and Kontiski WITHOUT CONSENSUS or discussion.

Types of entities

A distinction should be drawn between a self-identifying entity and an inanimate or non-human entity. An inanimate geographical feature such as a sea or mountain, or a non-human entity such as an animal, does not have a name for itself. Thus the English name Mount Everest is just as arbitrary as the local name, Qomolangma. The use of "Mount Everest" as the definitive term in Misplaced Pages is simply a matter of convenience, as the mountain is far more widely known by the English name than by its native Tibetan one. Similarly, the English name cobra for a type of snake is just as arbitrary as the Indonesian name "ular tedung", but the English name is used in the English Misplaced Pages because it is the standard name in the English language.

A city, country, people or person by contrast, is a self-identifying entity: it has a preferred name for itself. The city formerly called Danzig now calls itself Gdańsk; the man formerly known as Cassius Clay now calls himself Muhammad Ali. These names are not simply arbitrary terms but are key statements of an entity's own identity. This should always be borne in mind when dealing with controversies involving self-identifying names.

Dealing with self-identifying terms

Where self-identifying names are in use, they should be used within articles. Misplaced Pages does not take any position on whether a self-identifying entity has any right to use a name; this encyclopedia merely notes the fact that they do use that name.

Commonly used English translations of self-identifying terms are usually preferred per Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (use English) guideline. For example: "Japanese" and not Nihon-jin.

Where a name includes geographical directions such as North, East, South or West (in a local language), the full name should be translated into English: hence East Timor, not Timor-Leste; South Ossetia, not Yuzhnaya Osetiya; West Java, not Jawa Barat.

Bear in mind that Misplaced Pages is descriptive, not prescriptive. We cannot declare what a name should be, only what it is.

Example

Suppose that the people of the fictional country of Maputa oppose the use of the term "Cabindan" as a self-identification by another ethnic group. The Maputans oppose this usage because they believe that the Cabindans have no moral or historical right to use the term.

Misplaced Pages should not attempt to say which side is right or wrong. However, the fact that the Cabindans call themselves Cabindans is objectively true – both sides can agree that this does in fact happen. By contrast, the claim that the Cabindans have no moral right to that name is purely subjective. It is not a question that Misplaced Pages can, or should, decide.

In this instance, therefore, using the term "Cabindans" does not conflict with the NPOV policy. It would be a purely objective description of what the Cabindans call themselves. On the other hand, not using the term because of Maputan objections would not conform with a NPOV, as it would defer to the subjective Maputan POV.

In other words, Wikipedians should describe, not prescribe.

This should not be read to mean that subjective POVs should never be reflected in an article. If the term "Cabindan" is used in an article where the Maputan-Cabindan controversy is relevant, then the use of the term should be explained and clarified, with both sides' case being summarised.

The above policy has been re-instated in the guidance, since there has been NO CONSENSUS for its removal and reversion. Xandar 23:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

If three editors disagree with it (and more do, including myself), there is a prima facie case that it is not consensus. It is also largely moot, since the specifics of the "Cabinda" example make plain that it is a regle de clef for the Macedonia disaster - now largely settled by WP:MOSMAC2, which does not rely upon self-identifying names. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 12:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

You think it's moot because one of dozens of such international naming conflicts has been settled? SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

If it addressed international conflicts in general, it would not be moot - but it hypothesized a highly specific set of facts, not true (to pick a random example) of the two entities which call themselves the government of China. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Continued discussion

Basically those wanting to change the existing guidance seem to be quarrelling with the policy that the names chosen by self-identifying entities to identify themselves should be followed by Misplaced Pages. The alternative would be for Misplaced Pages to decide what these entities names SHOULD be, even if those entities dislike or reject those names. That is a lot more than just the trimming, or shortening of the guidance that was initially claimed by those wanting the change. It would be a major change of policy that would re-start a hundred now-dormant naming conflicts across Misplaced Pages. Mormom-Latter Day Saints, Macedonia-Greece, Clay-Ali, Catholic-Roman Catholic, Orthodox-Eastern Orthodox, Coptic-Ethiopian Orthodox etc. etc. Basically I think the established guidance adopts the correct principle of WP editors not overruling people, cities or organisations as to what their name is. This guideline exists to supplement WP:NC. It is to help solve problems - which it does by being CLEAR. Kotniski seems to want to make the guidance less clear and more ambiguous. That will help no-one. Xandar 23:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It would be an extraordinarily bad idea to alter the guideline along the lines that Xandar mentions above. The entire point of the guideline is to establish an objective, descriptive standard for disputed names. Getting rid of that would revert us to the bad old days when the name of a place or thing was at the mercy of any partisan who objected to an existing name (remember the row over whether Gdansk should be called Danzig?). I strongly suspect that this attempt to overturn a long-standing, stable guideline is being pursued in an attempt to gain advantage in some naming dispute in which this guideline has been invoked. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

" I strongly suspect that this attempt to overturn a long-standing, stable guideline is being pursued in an attempt to gain advantage in some naming dispute in which this guideline has been invoked. - you suspect wrong. Knepflerle (talk) 09:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The principle that "where self-identifying names are in use, they should be used within articles" has been a valuable guide for settling naming disputes. I agree with Xandar And ChrisO that we cannot simply, on a whim, change a long-standing guideline. Sunray (talk) 01:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The use in article text as stated in the guideline is not disputed or threatened with change, on "a whim" or otherwise. Please examine the edits more closely. Knepflerle (talk) 09:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I also agree that changing the long-standing guideline would be inappropriate, for the reasons stated. It has been an extremely helpful tool is resolving naming disputes. Changing it would be a mistake, and lead to subjective and arbitrary application of article name approaches. There is NO consensus for this proposed change...which may explain why its proponents are trying to forum shop instead of accepting established consensus. --anietor (talk) 02:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

"Changing it would be a mistake, and lead to subjective and arbitrary application of article name approaches" - the principle of using WP:NAME is not subjective or arbitrary, and has served very well for thousands of instances. A newly-introduced sentence which contradicted its principles was what I removed.

"its proponents are trying to forum shop instead of accepting established consensus." - I did not take part in the discussion above, and have not forum shopped. However, neutral notification of guideline discussions at relevant policy pages is encouraged. Knepflerle (talk) 09:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Also agree. If I ran the zoo, self-identified names for entities that can self-identify would be allowed to take precedence over the much-harder-to-pin down guide of most common name, except in cases where the entities self-identified name is so uncommonly used in English as to be unrecognizable to most speakers. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Now that as you know would be a fundamental change to long-standing Misplaced Pages principle, and would require a deep centralised discussion. It was precisely this, however, that the new compromise wording implied, and so I removed it. Knepflerle (talk) 09:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Not so much a fundamental change to a long-standing Misplaced Pages principle as a hierarchifying (word?) of existing principles. Self-identifying names is a long-standing Misplaced Pages principle; so is common English name. Trying to figure out what to use when the two are perceived to be in conflict has been problematic, and thus I've long suggested prioritizing the one that's objective: self-identification. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 16:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

With respect, those who claim that it is people like me who are trying to "change the long-standing guideline" are missing the point. There are two long-standing guidelines (well, one of them is marked as policy) - WP:NC and (the disputed section of) WP:Naming conflict - and they contradict each other. Whatever position we take on common vs. self-selected names, this can't be right. We have to amend and least one (probably both) of them to eliminate the contradiction. Since policy is generally thought to take precedence over guidelines, I guess the status quo is best preserved by amending the guideline to accord with the policy. But if there's consensus for a different solution, then let's do it. But the current situation is logically absurd.--Kotniski (talk) 09:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

If any of you commenting above had actually looked at the edit I made, you will see that I took it closer to the 2005 original by removing a section introduced only days ago which was incompatible with any of our other naming conventions. But instead, we get replies here based on a biased and incorrect characterisation left on your talk-pages.

This is precisely why WP:CANVASS exists. Next time you get a rousing battle-cry on your talk-pages, take the moment to verify the facts for yourself. Knepflerle (talk) 09:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

No one has proved that wp Naming Conflict and WP:NC contradict each other. In fact they complement each other and have been linked since 2005. The existing policy has worked well and has settled many disputes cleanly and quickly. It has been stable for four years with no major demands for change. As such, I think the adage "If it aint broke, don't "fix" it" applies here. The change made by knepferle would have effectively reversed the long-standing existing policy on self-identifying names, and would be a recipe for unending conflict. For example it would mean that Kolkata would have to be renamed Calcutta, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints would have to be renamed "Mormon Church" and Xinjiang would have to become "Sinkiang", and Szczecin should become the better known "Stettin." There are hundreds of other examples. Xandar 11:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

No it would not. Kolkata is an WP:ENGVAR matter, being the most-common name in Indian English. Szczecin is more common in contemporary English - if you look through Talk:Szczecin you can see the evidence I presented to an anonymous editor. Xinjiang is demonstrably more common than Sinkiang (105,000 / 7,490 on Google Scholar, Xinjiang primary in Britannica, Encarta and Columbia). If you have hundreds of other examples, they'd better be better than those, because every one is incorrect.

The primary naming convention on this project is use of the most common name. It was editing this guideline to say otherwise which was the breaking that needed fixing. Knepflerle (talk) 12:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

That is nonsense. WP:ENGVAR is not about article naming, or changing the names of cities. On Google Scholar Calcutta is demonstrably more common than Kolkata (431,000 / 70,100). The same applies to Bombay over Mumbai. Yet the less common terms are used in Misplaced Pages. The same applies with Guangzhou and Canton, China, where the Guangzhou form, used by Misplaced Pages in line with the self-identifying terms guidance, is far less common. The same goes for Qing Dynasty, instead of the more common Ching Dynasty, and the common usage of Mormon, rather than LDS, and many other titles. Usage of the "common name" is not the guideline for self-identifying entities. Xandar 01:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

user:Xandar Did you seem my earlier comment on Mumbai and National verities of English and usage by reliable sources like the BBC.? --PBS (talk) 20:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It's hardly necessary to "prove" that they contradict each other, it's immediately obvious - one says "use the most common name", the other (as you interpret it) says "use the self-chosen name". Whatever the community's position is on this matter, it needs to be stated in the same way in both places. --Kotniski (talk) 11:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

You lost me there. Both the policy and the guideline state that the most common name is the one to be used. The guideline offers additional guidance regarding self identifying names. Are you saying that this should be in the policy as well - i.e., as an additional naming convention? Sunray (talk) 16:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

If it has the support of consensus, then yes. If not, then no - and it shouldn't be in the other place either. But the guideline (the bit of it we're talking about) is not worded as "additional guidance" - it states (at least, it is interpreted by its supporters as stating) that the self-identifying name (so potentially not the most common name) is the one to be used. Which is especially bizarre since this page (the policy) makes no mention of self-identifying names at all.--Kotniski (talk) 16:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

If we're editing the naming policies here, I think we should also consider the sections on article naming from Misplaced Pages:Disambiguation#Naming the specific topic articles and Misplaced Pages:NPOV#Article naming (if necessary, changes could also be done there), to avoid contradictions of wiki policy and guidelines. (As I said before, in my opinion, I believe self-identifying names should be used as article titles (especially, if the "most common name" happens to be controversial), but the disambiguation policy should not be ignored, espeicially, if a self-identifying name is used by multiple self-identifying entities, or if it has some other important meanings, I believe such cases could be solved by adding disambiguations in parentheses to such article titles, or using alternative self-identifying terms.) Cody7777777 (talk) 18:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

If the most common name is controversial and the self-identifying name differs from it, the self-identifying name is very likely to be controversial and tendentious; that's usually why (in such situations) it's not often used.

WP:NPOV should certainly be considered in any revision of this, but I would not read it as addressing this situation at all; it seems to be talking about descriptive names, not a conflict of proper names. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with efforts here to change the naming policy. I have read them and do not consider them to be a better option than what we currently have already. NancyHeise 19:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Note that it's a guideline, not a policy, and that it seems to conflict with policy.    M   20:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

To once and for all get shot of this rubbish about the policies and guidelines "conflicting". This is a direct quote from WP:Naming Conventions

Use common names of persons and things WP:COMMONNAME Convention: Except where other accepted Misplaced Pages naming conventions give a different indication, title an article using the most common name of the person or thing that is the subject of the article (making the title unique when necessary as described in the following section and in the disambiguation guideline). The WP:Naming conflict guideline may help resolve disagreements over the right name to use. Where articles have descriptive names, the given name must be neutrally worded.

Far from there being a conflict, the policy states that the most common name should be used EXCEPT where another naming convention applies. It then goes on to specifically name "Naming conflict" the guideline some here want to eviscerate, as the place to go to see how to do this. Another statement on exceptions to the "common name" policy is at Misplaced Pages:Naming_conventions_(common_names)#Exceptions So the only conflict seems to be in the minds of those wanting to change the guidance.

Again, people have posted that there are no other policies that back up the self-identifying bodies, guidance in WP:Naming conflicts. This is not true either since the Misplaced Pages Manual of Style at MOS:IDENTITY states clearly When there is no dispute, the term most commonly used for a person will be the one that person uses for himself or herself, and the most common terms for a group will be those that the group most commonly uses for itself. Misplaced Pages should use them too. This lines up completely with the guidance that certain persons want to reverse. As I have said, nothing is broken. The guidance works well. Let's not mess with it and cause mayhem across Misplaced Pages. Xandar 01:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

While that is a stupid stub of a deservedly reduced page, written (like most of MOS) by a handful of bullies to get their way, it still does not support Xandar's position. When there is no dispute is the key phrase; when there is no dispute, the self-identifying term (or its translation) will almost certainly be English usage. For the same reason, when there is no dispute, there is no resort to Misplaced Pages space either; there is no dispute about the self-identifying names of France and Germany, so we use the loan-word France and the customary translation of Deutschland - both being English usage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• Nor is it policy; MoS is also a guideline. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I suspect any changes may lead to re-hashing of old arguments already settled across WP. It is better to leave well enough alone. Do we really want to shake the jar? add to chaos?--EastmeetsWest (talk) 06:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

If arguments have been settled, I suspect it's in spite of the naming conventions as currently written, not because of them. They're one big mess, where anyone can find something that apparently supports the view they currently want to push, which is probably why it's so hard to change them - there is always a hardcore of editors "attached" to the views expressed in a particular place. I'm not interested in tilting any particular naming dispute - but we should document things properly so that the people these pages are actually intended for - new editors trying to find out how things are done around here - get accurate and easy-to-find information.--Kotniski (talk) 09:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I have in the past suggested that we rename this page to "Naming policy" or Naming conventions", because the current name causes confusion for those who do not realise that this is a policy page and the guidelines are not conventions but guidance on the conventions (this page). At the moment some people commenting in this section seem to be confused over this. The relationship between policy and guidelines are described succinctly in WP:Policies and guidelines).

It would be a very big move from Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions#Use the most easily recognized name to use the name an organisation would prefer to be known as. --PBS (talk) 20:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

PBS. Have you actually read the naming conventions? It doesn't sound like it from your post. I know you were involved in a naming dispute which has now been decided against you. But it is quite clear from established and unchallenged guidance that there are multiple exceptions from "Use the most easily recognised name." Many of these are listed on this main policy page. Others include the MOS section MOS:IDENTITY I linked to above, another is the guidance with reference to naming disputes, linked from the main policy page, which certain people now suddenly want to reverse. The question has to be asked why certain people now seem to want to remove the long-standing and highly workable exceptions to "Use the most easily recognised name", and try to turn that into an iron rule? The exceptions have been developed and bedded in over time to deal with situations where "the most easily recognised name" is either ambiguous, in dispute, or would result in organisations or individuals being identified by Misplaced Pages in ways they would find false or offensive. Kontiski claims that the guidance hasn't solved any problems. Yet he has no evidence at all for this, as opposed to the ample evidence to the contrary. The proposers of this radical change seem to be trying to solve a problem that there is absolutely no evidence exists. Where are the problems that these guidelines have caused? Nowhere. Where are the problems that they have easily resolved? Everywhere, including examples already given. One must wonder then why exactly there is such anxiety to overturn these well-functioning policies? Xandar 21:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

"PBS. Have you actually read the naming conventions?" Yes. For verification please see the archives of this page and the edit history of the page. --PBS (talk) 08:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

a) They are not policies, b) because they are contradictory and confusingly written. We don't need more of that sort of rubbish in our already bloated pages.    M   02:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Precisely. And no "radical change" is being proposed - all that's being done at the moment is tidying up a poorly written guideline page that misrepresents current practice. As often happens, a huge unnecessary fuss is being made about some simple improvements to the presentation and accuracy of policy/guidelines.--Kotniski (talk) 08:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the page is poorly written, nor has any proof been given that it misrepresents current practice. What is proposed is a major change, that would cause widespread disruption, and to quote user John k, on another proposal backed by Kotniski, in a section above: "This is a plan for a gigantic mess and you simply haven't thought about it enough, or aren't familiar enough with the ramifications of it, to realize what a mess your proposal would be." Xandar 11:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Both you and John K (in the two different contexts) fail to provide the remotest justification for this scaremongering. How would changing a little-read guideline page cause "widespread disruption"? It wouldn't, of course, any more than changing the titles of articles on a few monarchs to match what the rest of the world calls them could cause widespread disruption. Can we please discuss this rationally and honestly instead of inventing things?--Kotniski (talk) 11:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

There seem to be conflict of interest motives at work here, which are probably not best to have when proposing changes to fundamental Misplaced Pages policy. When people are changing policy they shouldn't be doing so on the basis that they failed to gain a consensus on an article and wish to "get around it" another way. In the sense that Cody is aruging here in relation to the Catholic Church/Easter Orthodox sour grapes issue. - Yorkshirian (talk) 22:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I see the proposers of this have AGAIN moved discussion back to Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conflict. AGAIN without informing participants here, and they have also attempted to vandalise and remove part of the stable guidance AGAIN without any consensus. This is disruptive editing. Similarly some of the participants, such as Septentrionalis, are disruptively trying to hold another vote on the Catholic-Roman Catholic issue well within the six month limitation. We are beginning to see what is lying behind this sudden attempt to disrupt a stable and long-standing guidline. Xandar 00:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

It was quite stable before you changed it back to an old version, apparently because of your own interest in the Catholic Church article. When I changed it before (and no-one objected for months) it was nothing to do with that article - I had no idea of that dispute, and would probably be on your side in it anyway. As far as I can tell, almost everyone who's commented who isn't involved in the Catholic Church thing agrees that the old version of the guideline misrepresented WP practice. It's those who seek to restore it who have a conflict of interest.--Kotniski (talk) 08:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The version I restored was the original version that has stood and worked well without controversy since 2005. Kotniski changed that version on his own determinition, after placing one comment on an unvisited talk page, making an edit summary which did not disclose the extent of the alteration. I noticed the change when referring back to the guidance and reverted, objecting to the substantive change made by one person without community involvement. There was a debate in which there was no consensus for Kotniski's changes, but an attempt was made to build a new consensus around Kotniski's declared aim of shortening the guidance while maintaining its integrity. In the midst of this process Kotniski and others decided to abandon that attempt at a new consensus and to unilaterally alter the guidance in a manner that made it say the opposite of what it previously said! That, and continued attempts by certain people (some involved in a naming dispute) to radically alter the guidance without consensus, are what has brought us here and to the current disoute at Misplaced Pages naming conflict. One of the editors involved in making these changes has been suspended before for such disruptive behaviour, and is currently the subject of complaints from other editors for his actions on the Manual of Style page. Xandar 11:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't know what you mean about abandoning the attempt at a new consensus or making something say the opposite. Talking about other editors' behaviour (particularly when your own has been less than exemplary - you fail to admit that you and all(?) those who agree with you are involved in that same naming dispute) isn't going to solve the problem of what the pages should say. Neutral opinion (from outside the Church debate) is that the guidance you keep restoring is not an accurate statement of WP practice, so all you are doing by restoring it is making the page misleading for any poor editor who migh have the mischance to read it and think it means anything.--Kotniski (talk) 12:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

This is getting hard to keep track of. Who exactly supports the position that the preferred name overrules the most common name? Is it only Xandar? I oppose it.    M   23:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

So do I (though that's not to say that a preferred name isn't a strong factor to be considered when it's not obvious what the common name is). In fact the disputed guidance at the other page doesn't even say what Xandar thinks it says - it just says that self-names should be used within articles - but it's a long stream of guff that could be interpreted differently for many purposes. Since it ostensibly doesn't deal with article naming, it should probably be moved from that page (which is avowedly about how to choose the right names for articles) and made into a separate essay (not a guideline, since it still runs counter to consensus).--Kotniski (talk) 08:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Macau

I am reverting this revert (Revision as of 16:01, 14 August 2009), because we do not as part of policy demand consistency across the names of articles, although it may be put forward as desirable as a suggestion in a guideline. So I suggest that if it is to be be added it be added as a guideline to Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (geographic names) --PBS (talk) 11:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh well others had revised it after what I thought was the last revision to Macau, but I still maintain this is something for placement in the Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (geographic names) if anywhere, so I have removed it from this policy page. --PBS (talk) 11:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

That would be a fine place, I was trying to figure it out. There are a lot of other country/regional/geographic names in this list... SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Or Talk:Macau. I tend to agree; it's policy that one article name does not force another. On the other hand, consistency is a minor good, and should not be dismissed out of hand. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I've hardly looked, but are we taking positions on individual cases in these docs? This should be left to RfCs and summarized discussions, or some sort of list of these.    M   15:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Shortest reasonable name

Can we expand #Name construction to recommend against unnecessarily long names, specifically for unnecessary 'disambiguation' purposes? For example, it's Paris, not ], or Swine flu, not ].

This has been a problem with several education-related articles this summer. Generally, it's a newbie editor and a poorly developed article: the newbie looks at it, sees that the only country mentioned by name is the US, and demands that the article be re-titled as ], despite the fact that either (1) the topic only exists in the US (making the disambiguation entirely pointless) or (2) the US is mentioned only in passing, in an article that obviously applies to the entire world (e.g., the article about the general concept of educating students with disabilities).

If allowed, such renamings would have the obviously undesirable effect of making readers think that we have a heirarchy of articles on the general subject. I think that some of these inexperienced editors believe that the page name should be as specific and descriptive as possible, instead of being as specific as necessary -- so it's a good faith error -- but it would be helpful to me if this were directly addressed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

In the cases you present in your second paragraph, I think that current policy ought to provide sufficient reason to oppose the kind of things you're upset about - especially argument 2, which is obviously silly. john k (talk) 02:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

In the WP:NC#Be precise when necessary section, it says "...avoid over-precision". Perhaps that needs to be expanded on somewhat (although it doubtless is at the dedicated guideline page).--Kotniski (talk) 12:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll remember the "avoid over-precision" for the next round. Yes, John, it's kind of silly, once you're used to Misplaced Pages's conventions, but an inexperienced editor won't know that. Having to explain the same point repeatedly is time-consuming and boring. Being able to point to a specific line in a policy or guideline is more efficient (for me). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)