Talk:Elizabeth II/Article title

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this request for comment is that the article is to be moved to the title "Elizabeth II", essentially for the reasons advanced by DrKiernan in their statement. I find that there is consensus to do so for the following reasons:

36 editors agree with DrKiernan's statement, while 14 oppose it. This supermajority is substantial enough to represent a consensus under most circumstances. However, since Wikipedia is not a democracy, consensus is not established by numbers alone, but also by strength of argument. In that respect also, the arguments of the editors proposing the move are better - not in the sense that I agree with them more, but in the sense that they are better supported by applicable Wikipedia policies and practices.

The arguments advanced by DrKiernan (and endorsed by those agreeing with them) are logically consistent, arguing essentially that the "most common name" rule, a policy, and the neutral point of view rule, a core policy, are sufficient grounds to make an exception from the naming conventions guideline in this instance; and that the "of the United Kingdom" suffix serves no disambiguative purpose. The arguments opposed to this view are less convincing from the point of view of policy and practice, as is highlighted in part in the section entitled "Motion to close":

In particular, several people simply oppose without giving a reason why, which mistakes the discussion for a poll.
Others are opposed to the RfC as such because they consider that the issue has already been discussed enough; this, however does not take into account that consensus can change.
Yet others claim that the current title is the most descriptive because this monarch is perceived as principally British; this is a valid argument but the NPOV concerns with respect to her being also the queen of several other places are equally valid.
Finally, many believe that the naming convention should simply be applied without exception for the sake of consistency. That argument is also valid, since consistency is indeed an objective of article naming per WP:AT, but it is not persuasive, because it does not address how the longer title conforms with the other four stated objectives of the naming policy: recognizability, ease of finding, preciseness and conciseness. In particular, the editors who are of this view do not generally address the strong empirical evidence that "Elizabeth II" is very likely the most recognizable name as envisaged by WP:AT, which as a policy takes precedence over a guideline-level naming convention. Also, this position does not take into account that occasional exceptions may apply to guidelines, per WP:GUIDES, and indeed they generally do not address at all under which circumstances an exception would be appropriate, thereby in effect treating the naming convention as a policy, which it is not.

Insofar as I am concerned, this RfC is exclusively about whether an exception should be made to the naming convention in this case, and does not represent consensus for any change in the guideline itself or a similar exception in other cases; that would need separate discussions on the respective talk pages. Sandstein 16:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

Should the page "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom" be moved to "Elizabeth II"? DrKiernan (talk) 08:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussions

Statement by DrKiernan

The page should be moved to "Elizabeth II".

Supporting arguments

Per policy at Wikipedia:Article titles#Common names: it is the commonest unambiguous name used in most english-language reliable sources.
In the case of Elizabeth II, disambiguation from other monarchs or articles by adding "of a Country" is unnecessary: Elizabeth II is the prime use of that term, and the suggested location is a redirect to the current title.
Uniquely, Elizabeth II has been Head of State of 32 independent countries. No other person in history has ever held the office in so many separate nations. The current article title chooses one of these in preference to the others. Some editors perceive this as non-neutral. Per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Article titles where disputes arise over the neutrality of article titles, "the common English language name as found in verifiable reliable sources" should be used.
In 1953, separate titles were adopted for each of the Queen's realms, so she is "of Australia" in Australia, "of Canada" in Canada, etc. The article titles relating to British monarchs already reflect changes in the styles of the monarch. Prior to the Union of the Crowns, monarchs are "of Scotland" or "of England". After the Act of Union 1707, monarchs are "of Great Britain". After the Act of Union 1800, monarchs are "of the United Kingdom". There is no inconsistency if article titles also reflect changes in the styles of the monarch since 1953.
The main argument against the move is adherence to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Sovereigns guideline, but the guideline is advisory only and supports exclusions where necessary or appropriate, such as the List of rulers of Lithuania, List of Polish monarchs, and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)#Single name.

Supporting evidence

Survey of reliable sources

Media

Canada

Ireland

Irish Times: Elizabeth II 438, Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom 0

United Kingdom

United States

Encyclopaedias

International organisations

Users who endorse this statement

DrKiernan (talk) 08:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kittybrewster ☎ 09:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
dramatic (talk) 09:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Common name – common sense. —what a crazy random happenstance 09:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Darwinek (talk) 09:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's get this done then sort out a naming policy - D B D 09:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's get this over with. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 11:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly support. Add disambiguation if necessary AJRG (talk) 11:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A sensible move. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Johnbod (talk) 12:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed; "Elizabeth II" is not only the most common name, but it corrects the WP:NPOV breach of the present title. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another reason is that she is the only Elizabeth II with an article, hence similar to the case of rulers of Lithuania. Would reconsider if another prominent Elizabeth becomes monarch of another country. Obviously, this reason would not necessarily apply to her successors, and so this can of worms may have to be reopened in the future, but it applies to her, and hence I support. Rlendog (talk) 15:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds good, the Australians, Canadians etc. aren't part of the UK so the current title is actually misleading. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This situation is utterly ridiculous. This isn't even the worst offender as regards nobility articles retaining absurd quasi-"official" titles in the face of WP:NAME, but hopefully overturning it will go some way to breaking the precedent set by said absurdity and lead to re-evaluation of other titles along the same vein. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's get the move over and done with. Currently it's nowhere near the common name, and the title isn't that correct anyway. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 19:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Having joined late in the conversation but after reading a good chunk of the backlogs, I have to say I would agree with this and don't quite understand the objection. The Article isn't about ERII as a "private person" as much as it is about her *AS* Queen. The crown and person is shared equally among 16 nations. As a Canadian, I can easily see the sense in the rename. Dphilp75 (talk) 20:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Eraserhead. Xandar 20:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, this has been under debate for far to many years now Brian | (Talk) 21:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are no other "Elisabeth II"s to disambiguate from and "Elisabeth II" is much more common than "Elisabeth II of the United Kingdom" as proved above (and should be self-evident). Plus, she's monarch of more than just the UK. It seems completely natural that the article should be at Elisabeth II. Guidelines are supposed to reflect practice, so change the practice first and then update the guideline if necessary. Don't wikilawyer about it not following the guideline as if the guideline were Lord. Clearly in this case the majority believe that the guideline is flawed and article should be moved. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 23:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rrius (talk) 00:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the purpose of the more commonly used name. Ottawa4ever (talk) 09:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
endorse the basic premise of this, for detailed clarity see my statement below. Gnan garra 15:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quantpole (talk) 15:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The present title is simply not correct in that it implies that Elizabeth II is only queen of the UK, which is of course incorrect, and that it implies that she is Queen of Canada, etc, simply by virtue of being queen of the UK, which is also incorrect. I support this change, and would also suggest that a similar situation be instituted for other monarchs. Even so, the case of Elizabeth II is unique by the sheer number of countries where she is head of state, so, to me, it seems quite obvious that an exception be made to any conventions until they are changed. Jagislaqroo (talk) 19:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the reasons I have stated in previous discussions, and many of the reasons others have stated here and elsewhere, I support this move. Alkari (?), 19 March 2010, 22:35 UTC
Per the common name argument. But per also the argument that each Realm should be treated equal - I think that this is in WP:NPOV territory. As well, I can understand the argument for the status quo, however I believe that someone below stated the there would be no 'President Barack Obama' page because it is an office holder's title; similarly, the 'of the United Kingdom' part of the page title is also an office holder's title. It should not be included in the title Q.E.D. Outback the koala (talk) 06:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For reasons set out in "Comments" (below), this proposal could go ahead, because no potential ambiguity arises. It should not become a precedent for other monarchs, if there is in fact a likely ambiguity, particularly where the primary usage can be disputed. If there is a clear primary usage, but some significnat secondary one a dab capnote would be the answer, but even that is not needed here. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Both per common name argument and because (no matter how much as some editors would like the fact not to be mentioned) she is queen of more countries than just the UK. Varsovian (talk) 14:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Convincing enough. -- œ ^™ 01:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree per comments by Jagislaqroo (number 24 above). I live in the USA and we most commonly refer to her as QEII, never QEII of UK. NancyHeise ^talk 08:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Melissa8421 (talk) 22:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Both unnecessary disambiguation in this case as well as inaccurate over-precision. older ≠ wiser 14:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record - though I've made my own statement below - I also support this move.--Kotniski (talk) 15:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DrKiernan is convincing. (at first I thought EII of the Cth. realms would work, but this seems impossible from the past discussions.) Roke (talk) 09:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that this renaming is actually required by WP:NOR, which is a central Wikipedia policy. Our current royalty naming guidelines (WP:NCROY) require the concoction of original titles that are not used by a majority of reliable sources, and thus not only violate the more general WP:COMMONNAME rule, but also violate our policy against original research. *** Crotalus *** 16:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Users who oppose this statement

A completely unnecessary and inappropriate proposal. Deb (talk) 12:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We've done this at least twice before so why are doing it again? Absolutly no need as 2 previous votes have gone against it so I say leave sleeping dogs lie. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 15:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus can change. And by the looks of things it never existed here in the first place. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 23:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned nothing about consensus in that last comment, what I said was leave it alone as 2 previous votes went against it so theres no need to try "third time lucky". The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 13:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The 2 previous votes went against it? Interesting how you word it that way when the last one had two thirds of participants in favor of the move, and the one before had an about an equal number of participants in favor and not. The last one was also closed as unsuccessful by a biased party. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 13:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because the core policies of Wikipedia say that non neutral content - including article titles, must not be allowed to remain in the the encyclopedia. Someone has to fight to maintain standards. dramatic (talk) 23:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep trying till you get enough votes (note I didn't say !votes) for your point of view, eh? Inappropriate move as contrary to the standards used for all other monarchs. Keep where it was. And voting is evil, and Wikipedia is not a democracy, and all of that. Woogee (talk) 17:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose and ignore the reflexes of Canadian nationalism. We have a naming practice; we even have a naming policy. The present title is indicated by practice; it is supported by policy. Leave well enough alone. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no policy (only guideline) and the practice is only maintained by the stubbornness of the few opposers here. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 23:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, also, Pmanderson seems to have something against Canada as I can make out from several such statements he/she has made. There are many people who are feeling insulted here not just Canadians. Many people from across the Commonwealth realms would not like the title where it is now and some may find it even offensive. And even some British Wikipedians agree that the article should be moved. Once again: IT IS NOT SUPPORTED BY POLICY! It is opposed by policy: This article title is a violation of NPOV! Furthermore the guideline, not policy, allows for exceptions, and in fact says that it is best to use the most common English name of the entity at hand, and only to use the guidelines if that does not work. Common name works perfectly in this case.. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 12:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The usual cry of a nationalist is "You're against my country"; I'm not; I oppose nationalism, Macedonian, Greek, Turkish, Polish, German, American and Canadian alike. Capitals do not make a falsehood into a truth; the present phrasing of WP:AT is intended - and I was one of those who wrote it - to permit such systematic titles. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well I guess I can't be one of those nationalists your talking about here. I'm not Canadian, nor a citizen of any of the other Commonwealth realms. I can therefore tell from quite a neutral point of view that this article's present title is a bad one. As for your "Capitals do not a make a falsehood into a truth", show me which policy supports this present article title. I know two (NPOV and OR) which oppose the present title of this article. And, also, do you not agree that common name can work perfectly in this case? The subject's most common name is 'Elizabeth II' or 'Queen Elizabeth II', not the made up 'Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom'. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 11:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weren't you once opposed to all efforts to impose uniformity on Wikipedia? What changed? AJRG (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do not support, as "EII" is not the most common name used; that would be "the Queen" or, possibly, "Queen Elizabeth". Since those are both ambiguous, the current title is appropriate. I notice that someone, lower down the page, mentions the recent change of William I of England; the methodology seems to be similar: Propose, if it fails propose again, repeat until you get what you want. I do, however, endorse GoodDay's recommendation of a year off, if this proposal justly fails. Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 21:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But that page is at William the Conqueror, providing further evidence that the guideline does not reflect practice. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 23:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That page was just recently moved to William the Conqueror without consensus, precisely reflecting the practise i'm commenting on, of asking and asking and asking till you get what you want. Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 07:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the "asking and asking" goes on because, as noted below, the responses always stonewall change by directing the askers in circles. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If the naming conventions are wrong then discuss that centrally rather than trying to create a change here. Also bringing a subject up again again and in the hope of wearing other editors down is bad practice. --Snowded ^TALK 22:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's been tried. When this issue is raised individually, we're told to raise it collectively. When it's raised collectively, we're pointed towards the failure of the individual move proposal as evidence of a fictitious consensus. Just because you don't think this individual move is particularly significant on its own doesn't mean others agree, and to oppose on principle without even taking into account any aspect of the actual debate is childish at best. Reminds me of the people who voted to keep slavery "on principle" rather than opposing it based on reality. —what a crazy random happenstance 03:18, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide the link to where it was raised collectively. The comparison with slavery is arrant nonsense, a naming convention in wikipedia is an argument about precedence. Suggesting that such an argument is childish, if you really think that then I suggest a moment of reflection followed by study of WP:AGF --Snowded ^TALK 07:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(royalty_and_nobility)/Archive_20#This_.22guideline.22_contradicts_policy & Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)/Poll. You're telling me to AGF? How about you re-read the comment you placed next to your vote - "bringing a subject up again again and in the hope of wearing other editors down is bad practice" - one of the most blatant bad faith assumptions/accusations I've ever seen on Wikipedia. I reiterate, your point is petty, childish and invalid and your attempts to defend it pitiful. —what a crazy random happenstance 05:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to change the collective policy, because the collective policy says "Where the name by itself is unambiguous or primary usage, it is pedantry to insist on this form against usage: Marie Antoinette, not Marie Antoinette of Austria." dramatic (talk) 23:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with (6).--Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 23:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per Snowded. Why on earth are we having this discussion again? It's an abuse to raise the same issue again and again. We have naming guidelines for a reason; if you want to change them, that's where to go. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The naming guidelines say that using the most common name of the subject is the best thing to do, and to use the guidelines only if that does not work. Again: Common name can work perfectly in this case. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 12:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At no point in my statement on this page have I recommended a change to the naming conventions. In fact, I've said it's within them. DrKiernan (talk) 09:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per my remarks below. I strongly oppose having a special exception for one individual on the basis of specious factual claims and an absurd understanding of NPOV. john k (talk) 00:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As an Australian I am not in the least offended by the current article title. She may be Queen of Australia, but her title, nationality, residence and job are all about the UK; that's why we (and Canada) have a GG and the UK doesn't. I definitely support the current article title as being descriptive, informative, accurate and consistent, and do not support the proposed move. FiggyBee (talk) 06:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If she chose to reside in Australia, she likely would not need a GG there, and would need a GG in the UK. What makes either realm better than the other? Outback the koala (talk) 06:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this argument makes no sense. The point of changing the title is so that people actually learn that she's not just queen of the UK. Jagislaqroo (talk) 15:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How can one say she has the title "Queen of Australia" immediately before saying her "title is all about the UK."?? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I also strongly oppose as per Sam Black and Snow. Off2riorob (talk) 20:38, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose - Dear God in Heaven. This place is like Groundhog day. Go away from this place for a couple of months and then come back and the same ridiculous arguments have started again for the 400th time: Does the British Isles include Ireland? Move Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom to Elizabeth II? Undeleted the redeleted previous undeletes, etc. It is headwrecking. The facts are perfectly simple:
1. Monarchs are put in using the qualification 'of <country>' to clarify separate monarchs for each other. With women monarchs there are also complexities between queens regnant and queens consort, queen mothers, dowager queen mothers etc, who may have similar names. So the rules are simple: use the country for clarity, use the ordinal only for regnants, use the maiden name/title for consorts. When different rules existed the entire thing became a god-awful mess that made the site a laughing stock and got us (well deserved) nasty press and academic critism.

2. Where a monarch is monarch of multiple states, the most commonly recognised one is used, whether redirects for the others.

3. Always used correct official titles.
The most common name is NOT (repeat NOT) used for royalty because most of the commonly known names for royalty and factually wrong. There is, for example, no such person as "Prince Charles" and has not been since 1952 when he became Duke of Cornwall. There is "The Prince Charles" in Scotland, but not in England, Wales or Northern Ireland. But that doesn't stop millions referring to some person called "Prince Charles". Neither was there ever ever a person called "Princess Diana". There was a woman called Diana who was married to the Prince of Wales and as a result had the title "Princess of Wales". But she was never created a princess. She was a princess-by-marriage, not a personal princess. She used to get fed up with people calling her "Princess Diana" when that was a made-up media name.

This endless "lets move this page to Elizabeth II is getting tedious. It is factually wrong, breaches naming policy, contradicts all the rules used everywhere (not just here) and is frankly just dumbing down to use a makey-up reference. What next? Name the Diana Spencer article (so named as that is her maiden name) by the non-existent name "Princess Diana" because The Sun uses it? Have an article on "the Queen Mum". Call the article on the last King of Greece "the former" because that is his nickname according to some Greek usage? Because millions call Tony Blair "BLiar" do we call the article by that name? The article belongs, like all other articles on sovereign regnants, in the form <name> <ordinal> of <country/most commonly used country in the case of multiple countries>. It is depressing that yet again we are debating whether the British queen's article should break all the rules on naming and be dumbed down and tabloidised. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 02:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I was initially in the support camp, b/c I felt she should be referred to by her most common name, but a quick review of other pages for monarchs revealed that what FearÉIREANN says re ‘’’“Monarchs are put in using the qualification 'of <country>' to clarify separate monarchs for each other”’’’ to be true. There appears to be a convention here. Let’s stick with it. NickCT (talk) 05:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But there are no other monarchs named "Elizabeth II" to differentiate this one from. Rlendog (talk) 21:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are there other monarch named Juan Carlos? No, but the title of the article is still Juan Carlos I of Spain. It is a standard naming convention for ALL monarchs. I don't see why Elizabeth should be different. NickCT (talk) 15:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The standard naming convension guideline for monarchs is, as a guideline, explicitly subject to exceptions. Some exceptions are even given in the guideline. And the guideline proposes this particular naming convension due to monarchs of several countries sharing a common namestock, which hardly makes the convension essential for names that are unique. It is fine to follow the convention for Juan Carlos: I'm not aware of any reason to do otherwise. But that doesn't mean exceptions can't be made for others when there are reasons to, as I believe there are for EII. Rlendog (talk) 15:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps because she is Queen of more than just the United Kingdom? --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 15:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure this is a good argument. Lots of monarchs technically have territorial possessions that recognize them as head-of-state (e.g. does Greenland recognize the Danish monarch?). Are we to go to ALL such monarch's articles and adjust them? I say no. Stick with convention. NickCT (talk) 16:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Greenland is not a sovereign independent country. Canada, Australia, etc are all independent countries which have Queen Elizabeth II as head of state and are not territorial possessions of a foreign power. Well? --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 16:43, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, let me get this straight. Your argument is the EII should be treated differently b/c she is the only monarch who is the symbolic head-of-state in a country other than her own? NickCT (talk) 17:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Look, she is monarch of multiple realms -is the key word- completely separate and unincorporated realms. Outback the Koala (talk) 21:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You could make this argument for a whole range of current and historic monarchs. I'm not sure I find it a convincing reason to abandon the standard convention. NickCT (talk) 21:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Really? A whole range? Yes their have been a few that have held one or two crowns at once... But EII hold 16 crowns as head of 16 realms separately. The question is whether we should favour one realm over another. In the case of the UK, she resides there, but I question whether thats significant enough to ignore the other 15. This is a side from the common name argument. Outback the Koala (talk) 22:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm... Outback - Your argument seems to presuppose that manner in which EII "holds the crown" in the UK is equivalent to how she "holds the crown" in, say, Australia. Would I be correct in saying so?

If so, is this not a tenuous argument? My feeling would be that EII's head-of-state status in Australia is more symbolic than in it is in the UK (though it's largely symbolic in the UK too). EII is entitled to a different degree of power & priviledge in the UK than Australia. In that sense, is not more the Queen of the UK than her other so-called realms?NickCT (talk) 22:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see what you mean - and its for sure a valid point, but I would say that depend on your view point of the convention in which she uses the powers available to her. And they defer greatly in each country; in Canada , for example, the laws are so codified that although she's never used, say, Disallowance and reservation, she could legally and get away with this; compared with UK law where, at least in my understanding, convention is akin to law; And in New Zealand, comparatively, its a mix of the two extremes.

It really comes down to your opinion, I would really challenge that she could be more the Queen in any of the realms; its her Royal Prerogative what she powers exercises, or where she chooses to reside (I mean; she could in theory decide to reside in Australia, and prefer to have a governor general for the UK - its up to her). Outback the Koala (talk) 22:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In 1975, Elizabeth II asked her Governor-General in Australia, Sir John Kerr, to dismiss Gough Whitlam's government. It caused a right royal row, but she had the power to do it. She hasn't yet done that in the UK, but you never know... AJRG (talk) 22:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@AJRG - Really? So, you'd support the idea that the Queen is just as important in Australia as in the UK..... (stunned silence).... I begining to wonder whether this rename attempt is an effort by a bunch of anachronistic royalists to make a point.

@Outback - I appreciate your point, but I think your opinion is too esoteric to be relevant here. I mean, is it really important that the title of this article reflect some pretty obscure political intricacies? Balance that against some pretty well defined naming convention. NickCT (talk) 22:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we will have to agree to disagree. :) Happy Easter. Outback the Koala (talk) 10:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ad hominem attacks dont add substance to your case. See Commonwealth realm for an explanation. AJRG (talk) 23:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@AJRG Your point about the Whitlam Dismissal is completely inaccurate. The decision was taken entirely without reference to the Queen (she declined requests made during the election campaign for her to immediately sack Kerr and reinstate Whitlam) and was made by Kerr. It wasn't the arbitrary decision you imply but was done because Whitlam's government couldn't get Supply through parliament, albeit with the complication that the blockage was in the upper rather than the lower house where governments are normally made & unmade. The Queen couldn't do such a thing in the UK because the lower house has supreme power over Supply. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to suggest that the decision was arbitrary. Officially, you're entirely correct - the Queen of Australia was, as always, paying close attention. AJRG (talk) 23:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here are what I see as the main arguments in this debate

For current titleThe widely accepted convention for naming monarchs on Wikipedia is "(First Name) the (Numerial) of (Nation)"

For new title The current title is misleading as EII is in fact Queen of multiple nations and not just the UK.

After great consideration I conclude for the current title for the following reasons
1) The convention for the naming is very strong here and applies to nearly every monarch on wikipedia. I think there would have to be an overwhelming reason to break with tradition.

2) I'd agree that EII is technically (and perhaps in practice) the Queen of multiple nations. I think we can all agree though that she is traditionally thought of as queen on the UK, and that her power & influence is probably most concentrated in the UK.

3) If we were the break with convention on this point, there would be a series of other monarchs who we would have to change. These include (but aren't limited) -
Edward VIII of the United Kingdom

George VI of the United Kingdom

Beatrix of the Netherlands

Napoleon III of France

Margrethe II of Denmark

Frederick IX of Denmark

Is anyones really willing to go through and change ALL of these? I mean REALLY?

Let's cease this debate, and leave the title well enough alone! NickCT (talk) 19:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The Four Deuces (talk) 03:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Any reasons? This is not a vote you know. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 06:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on DrKiernan's statement

I thought we had already been through this on the page and there was no consensus. Why are we polling again? Why is only one side being presented? What is going on? --Snowded ^TALK 10:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I assume anyone else can present their own proposals here. Peter jackson (talk) 10:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. DrKiernan (talk) 10:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are polling on this again because

There has never been consensus to change this, as the number of discussions above show.
There is no consensus to change it now.
A handful of ideologues cannot stand (2). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 10:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When about two-thirds of participating editors support the move and the arguements are favour are much more than those against, the article should stay where the minority prefers it to be? --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 11:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Without (yet) getting into the larger question, I want to dispute DrKiernan's point 3. It is untrue that the number of places of which Elizabeth II has been head of state is somehow unique. A number of early modern rulers have had comparable number of realms they ruled - Philip II of Spain, for instance, or Emperor Charles VI. Even beyond that, I'm not really clear on what the argument is here. It's okay to have Charles III of Spain because he "only" ruled two other kingdoms (Naples and Sicily) and a duchy (Parma & Piacenza) before inheriting Spain, but it's not okay to have Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom because she has been queen (in a much less meaningful way) of many more countries? What kind of argument is that? john k (talk) 12:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's not unique, but absolutely no one, no monarch in history, has reigned over the amount of countries which Queen Elizabeth II reigned/reigns over. Also, what do you mean by "in a less meaningful way"? --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 13:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why discussion about this article's title always gets bogged down with tangential debate on other article titles. The naming conventions have serious issues, and there is some overlap, but the two topics should be kept separate. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because the argument for the present title is consistency, just as the argument against it is ill-informed Canadian monarchism. Knowzilla's claim that no monarch has ever ruled over sixteen countries is utter nonsense; the Renaissance Kings of Spain, the Austro-Hungarian King-Emperors, the Czars of Russia had many more (indeed, so did the Kings of Prussia, before the Napoleonic-era unification of the country: Brandenburg, Magdeburg, the Prussian realms, Julich, Mark, Berg...) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem, how about 32 countries? That was what I meant. Name me one monarch who has simultaneously reigned over 32 independent countries at one point in their lives as Queen Elizabeth II has. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 12:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ironic that your claim about "ill-informed Canadian monarchism" is itself ill informed. Are you resorting to unfounded and petulant attacks in defence of yourself because you've no substantial argument to do the job? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not true, though. Philip II or Charles VI or any of a number of other early modern rulers reigned over comparable numbers of territories, particularly if you exclude the transitioning to independence places where Elizabeth was queen for a year or two from her count. As for "a less meaningful way," even in the United Kingdom Elizabeth II's role is very limited in terms of practical politics. In the Commonwealth Realms it is practically non-existent - virtually all of the time all of her functions are performed by the governors-general. How many actions has she ever taken as Queen of Tuvalu or Belize? Carlos III, on the other hand, was the principal political figure in the small Duchy of Parma from 1731 to 1735. Then he was the principal political figure in Naples and Sicily for almost a quarter century, before becoming king of Spain. Charles III undisputedly played a far more important role in Naples from 1735 to 1759 than Elizabeth II has in all of the commonwealth realms for the whole of her reign. The definition of NPOV employed by the advocates of a change here seem to be based on the idea that we must take legal fictions as absolute truth and ignore every other way of evaluating things. john k (talk) 00:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And what was that but an essay supporting your POV? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a statement of some facts which the petulant Canadian monarchists, who have never had consensus for this move, are choosing to ignore. Let anyone who doubts this characterization read the discussions linked to above; then judge whether Miesianiacal has come there and here to make nationalistic points about the Queen of Canada. 03:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

And perhaps, after reading those discussions, they could decipher exactly why you're here at all, if not to enflame; it sure beats me. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:18, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm here to prevent, if I can, POV-pushers from misrepresenting what our policies mean. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, we have a common goal. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may not have read my statement carefully enough. I did not say it was non-neutral: I said some editors think it is non-neutral. Some editors think it is neutral, and others don't. I don't believe I've ever expressed an opinion either way. I've simply pointed out that there is a dispute, and that dispute can be assuaged by the removal of 4 words which are unnecessary and redundant anyway. In your other examples of Spain and the Holy Roman Empire, there is no perception of bias, so there is no need to resolve a dispute, and besides those monarchs' names are ambiguous, and so must be disambiguated in some fashion.

Septentrionalis' examples of Austria and Russia are not comparable, as in those cases the minor kingdoms were clearly subordinate to the imperial crown. That is not true in Elizabeth's case where the other realms are not subordinate to the UK. DrKiernan (talk) 08:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many of our article titles have some Cause which thinks the title is non-neutral; one notorious example is the good people who sincerely think that Republic of Macedonia is non-neutral, an offense to millions of northern Greeks. Another lot think Persian Gulf is non-neutral; most of them even manage to think that Arabian Gulf would be neutral. We do not "assuage" such disputes by giving in; if necessary, we settle them by getting rid of the editors. Oddly encough, this rarely has an adverse effect on the quality of the encyclopedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly right. Sept, I know you, and I can see the signs. You're not really helping your cause here, as you've (most likely inadvertently) veered into becoming an ideological demagogue on this question. We do disagree of course, but I'm perfectly willing to switch my view on this matter if there is a good reason to do so. Flinging around accusations of nationalist POV pushing, and comparing supporters to those involved in other, more deeply entrenched, nationalism driven disputes is hardly fair, and is certainly not constructive.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps surprisingly Elizabeth II is not ambiguous. We have the convention of the format, Henry IV of England. A vote here is not the right place to change that, but it does not mean that it has to be followed in every single case, particularly where there is in fact no ambiguity. We could adopt the format Henry IV, King of England, which would match that for UK peerages. Indeed, I think we came near doing that on a discussion elsewhere, but no admin was willing to close the discussion and implement the 100s or even 1000s of consequential changes. Returning to the queen, her official title is Elizabeth II, Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of her other realms and dominions, Head of the Commonwealth. Accordingly, Elizabeth II, Queen of the United Kingdom would be acceptable and reflect a short form of her title, in the way that the present Elizabeth II of United Kingdom does not precisely. Nevertheless, Elizabeth II turns out to be unambiguous, so I see no reason why the proposal should not go ahead. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

but Elizabeth II, Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of her other realms and dominions, Head of the Commonwealth is only her official title in the UK, in Australia its Elizabeth II, Queen of Australia, and of her other realms and dominions, Head of the Commonwealth, in Canada it Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, and of her other realms and dominions, Head of the Commonwealth even these are shortened from [[Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas Queen, Defender of the Faith, Duchess of Edinburgh, Countess of Merioneth, Baroness Greenwich, Duke of Lancaster, Lord of Mann, Duke of Normandy, Sovereign of the Most Honourable Order of the Garter, Sovereign of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, Sovereign of the Most Ancient and Most Noble Order of the Thistle, Sovereign of the Most Illustrious Order of Saint Patrick, Sovereign of the Most Distinguished Order of Saint Michael and Saint George, Sovereign of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire, Sovereign of the Distinguished Service Order, Sovereign of the Imperial Service Order, Sovereign of the Most Exalted Order of the Star of India, Sovereign of the Most Eminent Order of the Indian Empire, Sovereign of the Order of British India, Sovereign of the Indian Order of Merit, Sovereign of the Order of Burma, Sovereign of the Royal Order of Victoria and Albert, Sovereign of the Royal Family Order of King Edward VII, Sovereign of the Order of Merit, Sovereign of the Order of the Companions of Honour, Sovereign of the Royal Victorian Order, Sovereign of the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem]] but since 1953 HM has 16 different titles though similar to this each specific to the realm Gnan garra 12:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Arctic Gnome

Monarchs should use the same disambiguation system as the rest of Wikipedia and ALL monarchs should be moved to "Name #" by default and to "Name # (Country)" when disambiguation is needed.

Users who endorse this statement

I have not seen enough evidence to make me think that monarchs need their very own method of disambiguation apart from the rest of the encyclopedia. Under this system, Elizabeth II would be moved, but I would only want to see her article moved if they all were to maintain consistency. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 14:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As this was my concept. GoodDay (talk) 15:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, though Queen Anne (Great Britain) rather than Anne I (Great Britain) where the name is unique. AJRG (talk) 15:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Under this proposal, she'd merely be Anne. The current disambiguation page would be moved to Anne (disambiguation). GoodDay (talk) 15:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A single forename might be too concise to be encyclopaedic. AJRG (talk) 16:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Septentrionalis

The reason for the present article title is threefold:

Most European monarchs have a most common name which is profoundly ambiguous. See Henry IV for a standard example: a King of England, a King of France, a Holy Roman Emperor, and a dozen lesser princes are all called Henry IV. None of them are primary usage, so they are disambiguated: Henry IV of England, Henry IV of France, Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor....
The result of this is a de facto naming convention, which applies, and must apply, to 95% of Western European monarchs.
By WP:Article titles, one of major our objectives in titling articles is consistency: there is no reason for readers and editors to wonder why the monarchs since the Act of Union change from George I of the United Kingdom to Elizabeth II. Since this title is equally precise, equally recognizable (no one has ever contended that there is any doubt who the subject of this article is), and so on, we use it.

This is disruptive fulmination, by those who had no consensus last month, to have a discussion away from the regular channels of WP:RM. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 10:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on Septentrionalis' statement

It was ArbCom that suggested moving to an RfC and away from RM.[1] DrKiernan (talk) 11:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is a double falsehood, as that diff makes clear. An RfC is a proper proceedure; but it was suggested by Bobby Tables, not by ArbCom. Nobody, furthermore, suggested an RfC in a walled garden, where nobody but a preselected handful would find it.

If this is merged to Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom - and the assumption that WP:Common names is the whole of our title policy is dropped - I will consider this as though it had been proposed in good faith. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 11:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Click on "What links here". The page is extensively linked from elsewhere and is listed in all the appropriate locations. Your personal attack is unwarranted. DrKiernan (talk) 11:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where things are ambiguous, we disambiguate. We don't pre-emptively disambiguate for the sake of convention. WP:AT has five criteria to choose from, of which Elizabeth II is better than the current title for four of those criteria. Quantpole (talk) 13:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Naming conventions are constantly put forward as justification for the present title as though "convention" was somehow a synonym for "irrefutable policy from God himself". The only unquestionable policy involved here is WP:NPOV, which trumps WP:NCROY, a mere convention. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

clarifying the last discussion was closed on 17 March not last month[2] while the person closing said no concensus the majority(63%) supported the move this was a change from the first discussion in 2005 where 92% opposed the move, clearly concensus has shifted significantly on the issue. An rfc was suggested when the issue was raised at ARBCOM during the last discussion and given that the no-concensus closurer is disputable this is the next step the dispute resolution..Gnan garra 15:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We've already got 2 articles (recently) moved from Mary I of Scotland to Mary, Queen of Scots & William I of England to William the Conquerer. Also, parenthesis can be used for disambiguations. GoodDay (talk) 15:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to Elizabeth II (United Kingdom) if disambiguation becomes necessary. AJRG (talk) 16:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article's name is fine the way it is, so why change it?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name of the subject of the article. AJRG (talk) 17:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except when they aren't; as here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A concise title is preferred. You have to justify the need for disambiguation. AJRG (talk) 21:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So is a consistent title: one that follows the same pattern as those of other similar articles. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However, it may be necessary to trade off two or more of the criteria against one another; in such situations, article titles are determined by consensus, usually guided by the usage in reliable sources. The present title doesn't reflect usage in reliable sources. AJRG (talk) 11:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nor does it conform to either WP:NCCN or WP:NPOV. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The argument that the present title is due to a "de facto" precedent is flat-out false. Nobility articles on Wikipedia follow the de jure naming conventions cooked up by a subset of editors who daubed their names on a particular WikiProject list and codified by said editors at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility), and has been enforced as such ever since. The present situation (questioned and contended on a weekly basis) is as such due to bloody-minded opposition to the general naming guidelines. This isn't the only such sitation on Wikipedia, before anyone goes citing examples of other WikiProjects which fight to enforce absurdly stringent naming conventions on articles under their purview, but it is one of the ones most often challenged. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In short, there was agreement to use systematic and pre-emptive disambiguation for royalty, long before I, or Chris Cunningham, began to edit Wikipedia. This systematic approach is fully consistent with WP:Article titles, which was in part written to explain and jusrify such subject matter systems. Please cite what wording appears to you to say otherwise; I will change it to say more clearly what those of us who wrote that policy intended to say. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So can you change WP:OR so that it says that it's perfectly all right to make stuff up if a group of WP editors a long time ago decided that it should be so made up?--Kotniski (talk) 06:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see all the red herrings are to be dragged out. This makes nothing up; she is Elizabeth II and she is of the United Kingdom. No OR; as the quotations have shown, no synthesis; merely a choice: the same choice as we make for her predecessors. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No synthesis?? You've just shown exactly how this "name" has been synthesized. It isn't a real name (though it's doubtless a string of word that has occasionally been used elsewhere) - Wikipedians effectively made it up, as you well know.--Kotniski (talk) 05:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But it's not synthetic; it's natural English, one choice among many; we no more mad it up than we made up Henry IV of England. A cause which needs to be defended by such arguments must be very weak. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Examination of those hits for EII of the UK will show just how "natural English" it isn't - almost all of them are actually part of a longer name (at least involving the word "Queen", whose addition would be enough for me to accept the current title as merely inferior, as opposed to plain wrong). (Interestingly, you get more hits if you substitute "England" for the UK in your search.)--Kotniski (talk) 09:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and if we put the "Queen of" after a comma (and followed that pattern elsewhere), then we actually would have consistency - at the moment the guideline insists on being inconsistent between kings/queens/emperors (except German/Holy Roman ones) and the rest.--Kotniski (talk) 09:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At last he finally admits that the present title is an amalgam of choices, one obviously being to mention the United Kingdom to the exclusion of 15 other states that are otherwise, outside of Wikipedia, equal in every way to the UK. Of course, I'm sure he'll retort that such is not a breach of WP:NPOV - "she is through and through a British woman, you damn colonials!" is the usual response (best read with the pompous accent of a Gilbert and Sullivan Royal Navy officer and strains of Rule Britannia coming to crescendo in the background). However, such a preferential selection of one out of many equals is blatantly at odds with the policy that says "encyclopedic [sic] article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality." --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 12:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of having a naming convention is to deal with issues of ambiguity. In the case of Elizabeth II, there is no ambiguity. How to deal with other queens regnant need not affect the outcome here. I hope that some one will in fact close this debate, as a clear majority seems to be emerging. We can debate the article name for other monarchs separately, probably as requested moves. Since they will be controversial, they should be debated (like AFD and CFD), not merely done. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of having a naming convention is to deal with issues of ambiguity Now that is not policy. Read One purpose and there would be no problem, and no argument. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
About two billion people refer to Elizabeth II as Head of the Commonwealth. Less than half her subjects know her as Queen of the United Kingdom. So while Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom is formally correct (though hardly used) in the UK, it gives undue weight to a minority point of view contrary to WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. AJRG (talk) 09:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And there's 4 billion people who don't live in the Commonwealth at all, and presumably associate her with the UK. What's your point? These arguments from numbers are absurd - as far as I can gather, even the majority of Canadians, Australians, and so forth, think of her more as the Queen of the UK than as the Queen of Canada or what not. The idea that we cannot distinguish the UK as being more closely associated with her than her other realms is being pushed by a tiny minority with ulterior motives (who are, indeed, just as ridiculous and nationalistic as those of any nationalist POV pusher in Wikipedia, and only tolerated because they are more adept with the English language than your typical POV pushers. There are decent reasons for moving to Elizabeth II; this is not one of them. john k (talk) 13:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is OR unless you can evidence it from reliable English language sources. Even then, you would have to demonstrate that the majority of reliable sources support you. AJRG (talk) 14:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once more into the breach dear friends

I will reply to Dr Kiernan's point in turn:

1. "Common name" is not at all the same as "most common unambiguous name", there are numerous people where the two are not identical, e.g. Nelson, Marlborough, Montrose, Prince Andrew. I would be prepared to bet you money that her common name in UK media sources is "the Queen", and quite possibly "the present Queen" and "Queen Elizabeth" are more common than "Elizabeth II" or "Queen Elizabeth II".

2. The logic of that argument could be to remove the pre-emptive disambiguation "of Country" from all monarchs where this is unnecessary. Are you proposing this, if so this should be raised at WP:NCROY, and if not why not? Such a proposal is not unworkable, although on balance I would be against it, for reasons I could go into.

3. We have a well-established naming convention that in cases of monarchs of multiple countries they are named after the country which they are most closely associated with. This applies to several monarchs, there is nothing historically unique about the situation with the Commonwealth Realms at present, if you look at recent discussions at WP:NCROY Talk page you will see that this idea was basically shot down in flames, the number of countries is beside the point. Are you proposing a coherent alternative naming convention here, if so it should be raised at WP:NCROY, and what is it?

4. This begs the question of how you propose to refer to British monarchs between the Union of the Crowns in 1603 and the Union of the Parliaments in 1707, at present they are at "of England".

5. Lithuania is a special case because, as the naming convention makes clear, its monarchs have a different namestock from other European countries. In my view the naming of Polish monarchs is a mess, and most of these articles should be brought into line with the standard naming convention. PatGallacher (talk) 11:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say that I agree that Polish monarchs are a mess and should not be used as an example in this discussion. I was actually going to propose a mass move of these articles, but I decided that it's better to wait until this discussion is settled. And it may turn out that the entire guidline will be changed or even scrapped, so I suppose there's no need for rush here. — Kpalion^(talk) 15:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. Those alternatives are ambiguous, and hence unsuitable.

2–5. I think changes to other pages should be discussed at those pages. DrKiernan (talk) 12:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the biggest argument against this proposal I think. I've been saying for a while now that I'd be up for a general proposal to changing the naming guidelines for all monarchs to remove pre-emptive disambiguation. I'm not up for carving out a special exception for Elizabeth II, and I'm particularly opposed to doing so based on a premise (that it is somehow POV to single out the UK) that I reject. john k (talk) 12:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NCROY is effective in all cases except this one why change the guideline to suit the exception. As I asked during the last discussion justify moving the opposite way...Gnan garra 13:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, there seem to be plenty of other cases where we do not have the obvious common name such as Queen Victoria, Peter the Great and Louis XIV. We also have articles which do already have the sensible common name such as Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a view on where this page should be, but I will just point out that in Britain, in general parlance and reference, The Queen (note uppercase T and Q)) is the correct way to refer to HM. HM (never "she") will only be referred to as Queen Elizabeth or QE2 when she either addicates or dies. The Queen is only referred to with all titles in the most solemn and serious documents,and then it is dressed up in very flowery and legal terms - calling for the Grace of God and dominions and whatnot - Wikipedia has to decide how formal it wants to be, because the present page's title is incorrect - it's not inclusive enough - So long as the Brits don't feel that "Queen Elizabeth II" is disrespectful and the Australians and Canadians omitted, I would opt for that as the simplest solution. To have the page called Elizabeth II, without the pre-fix of "Queen" is plain wrong. That's my 10 cents - take it or leave it. Fascinatingy and for your amusement, as I'm sure Kittybrewster will confirm, if in conversation with a Royal, one refers to a long dead sovereigh as Victoria, George V, Henry III, one is politely and firmly corrected in the reply, with an emphasis on King as in my "My grandfather, King George V always thought....". so one knows which way HM would vote on this. ref Giano 14:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have never spoken to HM nor she with me. But I am sure Giano is right. I think Queen Elizabeth II would be best. - Kittybrewster ☎ 10:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After thirty days of discussion and no consensus and there have been previous discussion, continued discussion seems pointy and verging on obsessive to me. Is the title of the article so bothersome and worthy of such excessive effort to alter it? No it's not. Off2riorob (talk) 16:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Encyclopedia Britannica does have her at Elizabeth II of England/the U.K., and gives her full official title as "Elizabeth II by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of her other realms and territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith." Game, set and match?

I am also seriously considering proposing a block move of several Polish monarchs, but maybe we should wait for a bit more discussion.

I think DrKiernan's comment could be an example of why some admins rejected this move, effectively proposing that we abandon any attempt to have consistent Wikipedia naming conventions, but not raising this in a sensible way at the appropriate point in Wikipedia, but instead adopting a strategy of "guerrilla warfare" against the current naming conventions. PatGallacher (talk) 19:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is appropriate to discuss an article's title on that article's talk page. The Britannica article is linked above; the title is "Elizabeth II". DrKiernan (talk) 19:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This online Britannica is not easy to access, runs very slowly, which makes it difficult to establish what naming convention they are following, but the full title of this article appears to be "Elizabeth II (queen of the United Kingdom)". The paper Britannica, which is more important, clearly lists her as a monarch of the UK. PatGallacher (talk) 20:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that she's monarch of the UK isn't in question. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Britannica has:

Elizabeth II

in full Elizabeth Alexandra Mary , officially Elizabeth II, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of her other realms and territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith

In other words, they have "Elizabeth II" as the primary title which is exactly what is proposed. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the paper Britannica properly, she has "England and the United Kingdom" at the head of her column. They do this with most monarchs, put their country name at the head of the column rather than the start of their own article. So effectively they do have her at "Elizabeth II of the UK". PatGallacher (talk) 23:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The version that I simulate above comes from the online Britannica in which it is the heading of Page 1 of 1 - a distinct and separate article which is directly equivalent to our own. Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to confuse things further, if you look at the beginning of the printed edition you'll find her listed as joint dedicatee along with the US president. I don't know what form it uses there. Peter jackson (talk) 11:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Checked now. It's at the beginning of the Propædia, which seems to be treated as a sort of Volume 0. It has "Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II". Peter jackson (talk) 16:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GoodDay

We must all agree, if the discussion ends in 'no consensus' for change (again)? a 1-year break on this topic should occur. A 2-yr break was impossed on the naming issue of the articles Republic of Ireland, Ireland & Ireland (disambiguation). PS: Even the Quebec seperatists have chosen to take a break from pushing for another independance referendum. GoodDay (talk) 18:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User who support this statement

A 1-year hiatus will do this discussioin a world of good. Thankfully, nobody has gotten into RM warring. GoodDay (talk) 15:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the editors of this article focused on the article content instead of the name this would like be an FA by now, instead its a failed GA. Time to get your heads out of the sand.--Labattblueboy (talk) 12:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Users who oppose this statement

It is for the community to decide. At this time I would oppose, even though there have been extensive discussions in the past, I feel like a continued dialogue could still possibly bring about some type of resolution or compromise. Even if it is a long, drawn-out discussion, this may be what is best for the project's naming of this highly visible, high traffic article. Outback the koala (talk) 06:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In reply to Labattblueboy, the article failed GA and will fail FA because it does not meet either the neutrality or prose criteria. Even in the title, let alone the content. If you want to work the article towards FA quality then the title will have to change so that it meets the criteria: it needs to be succinct so it meets the prose criterion and it needs to be perceived as non-neutral so that it meets the neutrality criterion. Cutting off discussion will prevent article improvement by preventing the adoption of a title that meets these two criteria. DrKiernan (talk) 13:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on GoodDay's statement

In the case of the Ireland articles, the majority view was imposed. DrKiernan (talk) 18:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rightly so, I may add. GoodDay (talk) 18:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see no indication that the status quo would be challenged to anywhere near the degree that it currently is were it to be changed as a result of this RfC. That does not apply to the Ireland articles where the naming issue is to a great degree an issue of nationalism and not process. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about others, but after this RfC is complete, I plan to take a 'year' off, from this topic. The discussions of this article's name, are becoming repetative & thus boring. GoodDay (talk) 19:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

fully agreeOttawa4ever (talk) 09:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A sensible follow-on from this would be to strike down WP:NCROY which seems to be the source of this and other similar disputes. It seems clear that this guideline does not have consensus support and is not followed in important cases such as this. Per our policy WP:NOTLAW, it should go. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but that should be a separate proposal rather than an off-handed comment. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kotniski

If the recent discussion has proved anything, it's that neither the current title of this article nor the current naming convention for monarchs is supported by anything resembling consensus. The only way forward I can see is a carefully prepared and well-publicized poll on the whole issue, as I was previously trying to do at WP:NCROYPOLL (unfortunately the "carefully prepared" part proved to be a stumbling block, but we could revive it or start over). Either that or simply move the article to the title that most people (and Wikipedia policy) support.--Kotniski (talk) 19:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What policy supports Elizabeth II? Before you cite it, please check the edit history; I would regret it if careless phrasing on my part should lend support to a result never intended by those who wrote it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What policy supports Elizabeth II of United Kingdom? I know I am being a bit technical, but WP:NCROY is a guideline, not a policy. And, as it says on the page, "This guideline documents an English Wikipedia naming convention. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page." Treating it with common sense and dealing with an occasional exception that may (and I think should) apply is what we are dealing with here. Rlendog (talk) 22:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AT#Deciding an an article title: the ideal title is Consistent – Using names and terms that follow the same pattern as those of other similar articles. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However, it may be necessary to trade off two or more of the criteria against one another; in such situations, article titles are determined by consensus, usually guided by the usage in reliable sources. The present title doesn't reflect usage in reliable sources. AJRG (talk) 11:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly what I have been trying to get people to do, put forward coherent alternative proposals at WP:NCROY. PatGallacher (talk) 20:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've done that. For monarchs the title should be George VI or, if disambiguation is required, George VI (United Kingdom) with the name of the state at the time they were monarch in parentheses. AJRG (talk) 21:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except that raises problems when they were monarch of more than one country. That is one of the issues raised by DrKiernan in his rationale for moving Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. The parentheses are only there for disambiguation when needed, so the name of the principal or best known state of which they were monarch will suffice. The article itself will list all the states of which they were monarch, and appropriate redirects would be used for any popular but less common ways of naming them. AJRG (talk) 22:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Best known state" isn't universal. That is precisely why the titles of articles on monarchs who reigned over more than one state are contentious; I'm sure many in Scotland would say that country was the "best known" under James VI, yet, there is his article with the title James I of England. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He's best known as James the Sixth and First, so James VI (Scotland) and James I (England) would be redirects. AJRG (talk) 11:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, James the Sixth and First, I agree. But how does that translate into a Wikipedia article title under your proposal, which calls for use of the "best known state"? Which of the two states is best known depends on who you ask. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 12:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He's a very notable exception, like Mary, Queen of Scots and William the Conquerer. AJRG (talk) 13:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And Elizabeth II, and George VI, and Edward VIII, and George V. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth II, George VI (United Kingdom), Edward VII, George V (United Kingdom). Disambiguation only where necessary. AJRG (talk) 14:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But why is James VI & I a "very notable exception" except for his having been sovereign of two countries simultaneously? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's the normal usage in reliable sources. AJRG (talk) 16:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we agree on what makes him exceptional. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He's an exception because James the Sixth and First doesn't fit any of the naming conventions but is the normal usage in reliable sources. AJRG (talk) 22:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I suspected that was your thinking. I believe he's an exception because he reigned over more than one state; I believe all monarchs who did the same are exceptions to the general rule, and the naming conventions should accomodate them without the bias they currently support. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would that result in George VI (British Empire)? AJRG (talk) 16:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. The countries of which George VI was king were as independent as the ones now reigned over by his daughter. Ditto for those under Edward VIII and George V, back to 1931. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The British Empire was still in existence when George V was crowned and 1931 was only a beginning - Newfoundland never ratified the Statute of Westminster. So would we have George V (British Empire), Edward VII, George VI (British Commonwealth), Elizabeth II and when disambiguation is eventually required Elizabeth II (Commonwealth realms)? AJRG (talk) 18:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, and Canada, at least, were no longer part of the British Empire after 1931. "British Commonwealth" is a suitable disambiguator, in my mind, but is problematic with George V as the actual British Commonwealth emerged part way through his reign. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Australia ratified in 1942, New Zealand in 1947. AJRG (talk) 10:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Canada ratified in 1931; nevertheless English Canadians in 1939 has a distinct sense of national identity; they were nevertheless proud to be part of the British Empire... Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's tons of monarchs who ruled over more than one state, as I have pointed out repeatedly. Probably more European monarchs have ruled over multiple states than have ruled over only one. AJRG is absolutely right that the reason to make an exception for James VI&I (if we are to make one - I am ambivalent about this) is that this is what he is called in (many) reliable sources. john k (talk) 13:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What policy supports "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom"? Easy - "Where a monarch has reigned over a number of states, use the most commonly associated ordinal and state. For example, Charles II of England, not Charles II of England, Scotland and Ireland; Philip II of Spain, not Philip I of Portugal, although there should be redirects from these locations." john k (talk) 13:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But that's not from a policy is it? That's from a mere guideline. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 14:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also not happy with listing supporters of the opponents of the move, so I am declining to join this, I prefer resting on the strength of the arguments. PatGallacher (talk) 23:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About two billion people refer to Elizabeth II as Head of the Commonwealth. Less than half her subjects know her as Queen of the United Kingdom. It's arguable that "most commonly associated state" would be "Commonwealth realms" rather than "United Kingdom". AJRG (talk) 10:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this is that it creates spurious titles. George VI was never George VI of the United Kingdom. The words "of the" are unnecessary anyway since parentheses are normal practice for disambiguation, if (and only if) it is required. AJRG (talk) 00:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you qouote is a guideline, not a policy. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy with something like your proposal. What really irks me is the idea that Elizabeth II is a special case; she isn't. Arguably Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom is a better title than George VI of the United Kingdom, which nobody cares a lick about. If we want to do something about the broader naming guideline, I'm happy to do so - I don't really like the "Walter I of Boravia" format. I'd tend to prefer having "Walter I" if unambiguous, and "Walter I, King of Boravia" if necessary to disambiguate. But I don't buy that there's any good arguments for a special exception for Elizabeth II. john k (talk) 00:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd been harping for Name # (country) for disambiguos pages & just Name # for ambigous pages, at the guidelines page. But my proposal wasn't adopted. GoodDay (talk) 00:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming you mean "Name #" for unambiguous pages, and "Name # (country)" for ambiguous ones? I like it, it's my favourite proposal by far. If this debate results in a poll, I'd like to see this option on it. —what a crazy random happenstance 02:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In short, that we should replace Henry IV of France by Henry IV (France) and so on, for several hundred or thousand cases. This is to take the natural form, which fits into running text, and replace it by a clumsy parenthesis, which will need editing to explain which Henry we mean in most of the links it forms. I fail to see the benefit to the encyclopedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our article titles are not based on the links they form. "Clumsy parenthesis" are universally used for disambiguation on-wiki, are you suggesting we move Georgia (country) to That other Georgia? Mormons, but not the main ones, that off-shoot sect who all lived on that compound with all those kids? The funny Josh Thomas? Needless to say, that would be ridiculous. None of the Josh Thomases are funny. —what a crazy random happenstance 03:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the heart of this disagreement is a simple question: do editors support the current conventions for biographical articles about royals and nobles? Specifically, do they agree that preemptive disambiguation is necessary or appropriate and do they agree that a significantly different rule should be used for royals and nobles? That is, why 'Name, Title of Place for some, but Name of Place for others? Incidentally, why Henri, Grand Duke of Luxembourg rather than Henri of Luxembourg? He is a sovereign, is he not? Ditto Albert II, Prince of Monaco.

Anyway, perhaps we could try to ascertain whether there is sufficient support for changing (or deleting) the current conventions to justify attempting to settle on a solution? -Rrius (talk) 01:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because they are monarchs, but not royalty; since we are not bound to the present day, we need a convention which applies clearly and decisively to mediatized princes. This is not, at the moment, very strongly supported, but there seems no good reason to change it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved your comments out from the middle of mine. Your first comment is non-responsive. The policy applies to "sovereigns". Are those two sovereigns or not? As to your second, that is your opinion and would be welcome at a discussion of the issue. What I am proposing is ascertaining whether there is sufficient support for even taking the step of looking into replacement policies. You clearly think preemptive disambiguation and Name of Place are great and have consensus. You would be welcome to express your views (hopefully taking some actual effort to explain why you think those policies make sense) in such a discussion, but your opinion is not dispositive as such. -Rrius (talk) 03:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments above. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One reason for the names of sub-king monarchs is that it avoids ambiguity in a few cases. For example, Maximilian I of Bavaria could potentially refer to Maximilian I, King of Bavaria or to Maximilian I, Elector of Bavaria. Frederick Augustus III of Saxony could refer to Frederick Augustus III, Elector of Saxony or Frederick Augustus III, King of Saxony. Keeping the kings at the basic format and moving the sub-kings to another one seemed like the easiest way forward back when we were designing the guidelines. john k (talk) 13:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James VI & I isn't particularly exceptional in himself. Quite apart from his descendants James VII & II & William III & II, there's also, for example, Eric XIII, VII & III, King of Sweden, Denmark & Norway.

Another distinction to remember is that, while Ireland was a separate kingdom for a time, its English/British monarchs were never separately numbered. They always used their English numbers, from Henry VIII on. The same applies to the Commonwealth realms, except of course that they use their British numbering, which for a hypothetical future monarch with larger English than Scottish numbering, would probably be the latter. Peter jackson (talk) 16:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Gnangarra

There are two primary issues here,

is the article name Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom or should it be Elizabeth II.
is the guideline WP:NCROY.

For the first point the issue is

WP:NPOV vs WP:NCROY requirement for pre-emptive disambiguation.
format of a pre-emptive disambigution vs common name
that all realms should be treated equally
what constitutes concensus in the discussion

For the second

can a guideline have exceptions.
should WP:NCROY be rewritten inlight of this discussion.
does the guideline comply with policies like WP:NPOV, WP:V

I believe that we need to resolve the two primary issues separately, starting with the articles name. If we resolve via concensus to retain the current format then the guideline WP:NCROY has no reason to be altered. If the resolution is to change the article title then the question is is this an exception to the guide? to that end does the agruements raised for the change apply to a sufficient amount of articles to warrant examination of WP:NCROY?

Alternatively if we start by addressing the guideline firstly need to address whether the guideline can have exceptions, what constitues an exception. What format the guide will take, will it prescribe a pre-emptive disambiguation if so what format. All this needs to be done with consideration as to the effect it will have on all articles. What ever the conclusion we still then need to resolve the naming issue here, all we would have achieved is a lot discussion and be back where we are now.

From all of this I propose we focus only on the title of this article, then editors can take away from this result a starting point for any discussion over at WP:NCROY. WP:NCROY like all guidelines should be relfective of editing practices rather then prescriptive. What I see is that WP:NCROY is reflective of practices and appropriate for most(99%) circumstance. Because this article is the 1% it doesnt necessarliy mean we should be rewriting the guideline, being consistant is a good thing.Gnan garra 05:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse Gnangarra's statement

I agree that the two issues are separate. The guideline should be discussed elsewhere, and the article title for this article only should be discussed here. DrKiernan (talk) 09:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

side issue

Elizabeth II of Australia should an article about HM within the context of her role and actions as Head of state for Australia (this is different from Monarchy of Australia which is about the role) it should not be a redirect to Elizabeth II of United Kingdom or Elizabeth II of Canada or any other realm as these article should be about the subject in the context of the realm. If I was to delete the redirect and start an article I'd be referring to a main article on the person(why duplicate bio information) but the referral would make it appear as if the Australian realm is subserviant to the United Kingdom which it isnt by law in the UK and every other realm. To conincide with that point why should the article about the realm of the United Kingdom be filled information that isnt about the United Kingdom. This subject has so much available information that cant be including one single article and much of the various daughter articles that exists we dont have sufficient space within the current article to even entice readers to learn more. As I see it we can build a grand oak tree befitting the person or we can have a scramble of eggs perched on a piece of toast with small pieces just thrown where they land. Gnan garra 05:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this article, which covers the life of Elizabeth II the person in all her realms, should have a title which matches the article's contents. Having said that, perhaps articles about Elizabeth II in specific countries should be at titles like "Reign of Elizabeth II in Australia"? DrKiernan (talk) 09:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To echo DrK, maybe something like; "Period of Rule over [Country] by Elizabeth II"? That being said, this sounds like a separate issue altogether. Outback the koala (talk)

Comments

or should it be Queen Elizabeth II? - Kittybrewster ☎ 10:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An ordinal after the name conventionally denotes a monarch, so Henry VIII is more concise than King Henry VIII. Where there is no ordinal, King John, Queen Anne and Queen Victoria seem necessary to denote their status as monarchs. AJRG (talk) 17:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to play the Devil's Advocate, a mere ordinal also means the unfortunate woman could just as easily be a spacecraft or a rich American. Giano 18:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! The ordinal is conventionally expressed in Roman numerals (excludes Apollo 4) and a monarch doesn't use a surname (excludes John D. Rockefeller III). AJRG (talk) 20:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am inclined to think it should be, for consistency with cases like Queen Victoria which do need the title, but either Elizabeth II or Queen Elizabeth II would be a great improvement on the present state of affairs. Alkari (?), 19 March 2010, 22:39 UTC

For the record, a couple of TIME Magazine covers here and here. Note the generic use of Queen Elizabeth II but also the use of just Elizabeth II as well as the description Canada's Queen. For good measure here's Forbes, Hello! and The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. AJRG (talk) 14:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Elizabeth II won't do, for the same reason President Barack Obama wouldn't do. Queen (and President) are offices, not names. GoodDay (talk) 22:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite the same, GoodDay, one of those offices is bestowed by God and the other by some people in Idaho. Giano 10:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the law somewhat leaves it to god; but not completely. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What? George Burns bestowed the title of Queen on Elizabeth II? GoodDay (talk) 16:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it's true. As I said I am only here with a little cynical amusement, and am not bothered what she is called - but it does seem strange that as God, the World, its wife, some people in Idaho even Kittybrewster and me (in agreement for the first time ever) all refer to her as Queen Elizabeth II yet the good folk of Wikipedia all wish to refer to her as something other. Most curious. Giano 18:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To steal a catchphrase from Walter Cronkite, "That's the way it is". GoodDay (talk) 22:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with GoodDay. Adding the title Queen to Elizabeth II is a wee bit superfluous; and somehow I don't think readers will confuse her with a spacecraft or an American millionaire, whereas with Queen attached to the name, she just might get mistaken for a transatlantic luxury liner.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Poll proposal

I don't think anything's going to be achieved by keep arguing in the same circles as we've begun doing (we know the two positions by now anyway: the present title is uncommon and un-neutral; the favoured new title is unlike the titles of other monarch articles). Thinking again about what questions could be put to the community in a poll (previous aborted attempt: WP:NCROYPOLL) I guess it could be reduced to three:

When a monarch's common name is Name + Numeral, under what circumstances do we disambiguate using the realm? (possible answers: always, only when it's not the primary topic, only when it's not unique,...)
In those cases where we do disambiguate using the realm, what form should the title take? (possible answers: Henry I of France, Henry I, King of France, Henry I (king of France), ....)
What do we do about cases where there is no numeral? (possible answers: Victoria of the UK/Anne of GB, Queen Victoria of the UK/Queen Anne of GB, Queen Victoria/Queen Anne of GB, Victoria, Queen of the UK/Anne, Queen of GB,...)

I'm not claiming that this is clearly worded or that the lists of possible answers are complete, but what do people think about the general idea of such a poll and this set of questions? (To reduce the effects of bickering, perhaps we could try to find an experienced neutral mediator to run the poll.)--Kotniski (talk) 14:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A key fourth one is what to do when there are multiple realms which one to use - e.g. Charles I of England also being Charles I of Scotland and also Charles I of Ireland, Henry IV of France also being Henry III of Navarre, or Charles V Holy Roman Emperor also being Charles I of Spain. This one had been overlooked in past proposals and the result has been a proposed system that wouldn't allow any title for some monarchs. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any realistic answer to that other than the one we use at the moment (the realm they are primarily associated with, or words to that effect)?--Kotniski (talk) 16:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A case could be made for Elizabeth II (Commonwealth of Nations), though there is currently no need to disambiguate. AJRG (talk) 17:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be "Elizabeth II (Commonwealth realms)". --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Better. AJRG (talk) 22:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So do we have a specific question and a finite set of alternative answers?--Kotniski (talk) 10:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is actually one of the better suggestions in what is turning into an incredibly confused and convoluted discussion. As a constructive suggestion, I suggest you try to conduct a poll on these issues one at a time. Although I disagree with the first proposal, it could be the one with the greatest support, so maybe take it first. PatGallacher (talk) 23:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure - strictly speaking it would be more logical to address the issues one at a time (because there's a certain amount of interdependency - people's view on how to treat Victoria might be affected by what the decision is on Liz II, and so on), but on the other hand, people are going to suffer from poll fatigue if we keep asking them to come back and vote on very similar issues again and again.--Kotniski (talk) 10:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me as if a majority is arising on this debate 27:9 for a move, as I write. This is surely a consensus for a move, in this case. We can deal with (1) Anne, Victoria, etc in separate debates, preferably as contentious requested moves (which will get closed after a week), unlike this debate which has gone on endlessly for months. Anne will be a difficult case because her formal title presumably changed with the Act of Union 1707. (2) How to disambiguate monarchs such as Henry IV, where there is ambiguity is again a separate issue. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It does look that way but the discussion has only be going for two days(start 18 March) normally we let the discussion continue for 7 days to enable all editors to have an input as not everyone edits daily and not all resource to argue a particular position are readily accessible. I suggest we wait for a little longer if the momentum is as describe then a few more days isnt going to change that. Gnan garra 12:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, that's 75% in favor of the move, well over an average supermajority, if is stays at that at the end of the debate, then it's definitely enough to move the article. But, as Gnangarra says, let's wait until about 7 days are up to see how it goes. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 13:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Consensus is fickle and not poll related. It's the arguments the closing admin takes into consideration. I've seen an AfD where 18 voted Keep with 7 Delete and the article was deleted for lack of argument on the part of the keeps. Outback the koala (talk) 06:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - (ec)Not really, 27 editors wanting to change one article is not really enough to change a common policy that stands over many articles. ALL other female monarchs of the United Kingdom or England have the "of the ..." addition, not to mention the male ones I have checked. That is compounded by the recent discussion on the talk page "The result of the move request was: no concensus in 30 days of much discussion." (Closing admin in 17th March only a few days ago). Failing to achieve consensus in one place and immediately starting all over again is very poor behaviour. As far as I am concerned any move gets reverted without considerably wider participation.--Snowded ^TALK 07:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - "of the" is a form of disambiguation that creates spurious titles. George VI of the United Kingdom is just OR. In the case of Victoria, her "most commonly associated state" was the British Empire... AJRG (talk) 10:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Of course any change to a guideline or policy will need to be discussed at that page and advertised at WP:CENT, but the change to an article title can be discussed on that article's talk page. This page should be about discussing the article title, not about a change to another page elsewhere. That discussion should be shifted off to a more appropriate location. DrKiernan (talk) 08:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - You have not really answered the points (i) raising this subject again within a couple of days of the no-concensus ruling and (ii) making a change to this page in isolation from all other like changes. Its also not clear if you are supporting Knowzilla's belief that 27 editors is enough to change it.--Snowded ^TALK 09:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        (i) Yes, discussion should continue until the dispute is resolved. (ii) Yes, a change should be made to this page in isolation from all other changes: they should be discussed elsewhere. Yes, I do think the consensus on this particular page has changed and it should be moved. DrKiernan (talk) 09:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Ok thanks for the response on (ii). I disagree that a chance can/should be made here without a wider agreement. Any suggestions where that should take place as we don't want an edit war (so at least the idea of waiting 7 days should be abandoned). You have not answered on (i), the prior discussion was closed and you reopened it a couple of days later. How do you justify that? --Snowded ^TALK 11:27, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        To about two billion people Elizabeth II is Head of the Commonwealth. To perhaps 60 million she is Queen of the United Kingdom. The choice of article titles should put the interests of readers before those of editors, and those of a general audience before those of specialists. AJRG (talk) 11:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Of the commonwealth is an interesting idea that can be discussed, and it avoids LizII having her own name without any addition as is the norm with her predecessors (some at least as glorious or notorious depending on your perspective). That however is not the point. Reopening a discussion 2/3 days after it is closed following extensive discussion is an important issue for WIkipedia and I await DrKiernan's response.--Snowded ^TALK 11:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding, and one must realize that such changes are often reasonable. Thus, "according to consensus" and "violates consensus" are not valid rationales for accepting or rejecting proposals or actions. AJRG (talk) 12:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Re-opening three days after a close following weeks of discussion is the issue here. --Snowded ^TALK 12:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        The thing is the discussion that just closed had consensus(63%) for the move, the closure had no explanation as to why the decision to close as no consensus. The result of the move request was: no concensus in 30 days of much discussion. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC). During that 30 day discussion the matter was raised at arbcom from that came a recommendation for an RFC. Given that some editors see a COI in the closure, the matter could have been taken to WP:AN and we could be arguing there but be no further advanced in resolving the issues. Or as has occured the next logical next step in dispute rsolution is this RfC. To me it does look like we are getting to some consensus over the article and we are discussing the points of WP:NCROY both in relation to this issue, its overall format. Gnan garra 13:18, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        It should also be noted that the closing admin of the last move request was biased, as he expressed his opposition to a move of this article in the move request before the last one, and the decision is therefore disputable and was clearly biased. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 13:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may be that some people are not participating in this poll because they regard it as misconceived or illegitimate. "RfCs are not votes. Discussion controls the outcome; it is not a matter of counting up the number of votes." says the guideline. Also some people may be reluctant to come back because most of the arguments in favour of this move have been replied to, there's no point repeating themselves. We recently had someone claiming to know what God thinks on the issue, that is the sort of contribution which I hope carries little weight. PatGallacher (talk) 14:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The present title follows guidelines but fails policy. Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources. AJRG (talk) 15:07, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sceptical about whether the existing guideline does fail policy, but if you think it does then why not raise this at the talk page for the relevant guideline? PatGallacher (talk) 16:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I already did. The point here is that this application of the guideline fails policy. The present title is inconsistent with usage in reliable English-language sources. AJRG (talk) 16:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

63% is not sufficient for a move Knowzilla and accusing an admin of bias for a routine action is a bit much. AJRG, if anyone types in Elizabeth II they get to the page. --Snowded ^TALK 19:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not accusing. I have evidence. Please see the move request before the last one where the same closing admin expressed his opposition to the moving of article. Therefore he should not have closed the last one as he has a bias in regard to this issue. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 11:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On that argument, a page can be called anything at all as long as there's at least one sensible redirect. AJRG (talk) 22:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects do make almost all naming discussions, including this one, tempests in teapots. That is an argument for formal concerns, like consistency. Thank you. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And, of course, for informing readers as to what things are actually called.--Kotniski (talk) 05:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes; sometimes that function can best be served by text. But text explaining exactly how rare "Elizabeth II of Canada" is would not serve the particular Holy Cause being pushed by so many of these enthusiasts. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the definitive answer to Kotniski's original three questions here is that WP:NCROY should be rewritten to represent the actual consensus of the project, which it evidently does not do at that time. I would not for one moment suggest that this RfC should suffice for that purpose (although it should certainly get Elizabeth II moved as a start), but my initial thoughts are:

Only where the most common name is genuinely ambiguous (i.e. not Elizabeth II);
Use the least worst option as fits the case in particular (i.e. Henry I of France if that is indeed what he is referred to as by most English sources);
Use the least worst option as fits the case in particular (i.e. Queen Victoria).

It is my opinion that the general issue of the naming of European nobility is too complex to impose the current level of consistency. Indeed, cases such as this and the continuing Lord Byron idiocy actively hurt the encyclopedia by undermining the GNG for the sake of an ill-advised consistency. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really strongly oppose any policy which allows use of "Queen" or "King" before a monarch's given name. No encyclopedia anywhere does this. john k (talk) 13:41, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And do you know another encyclopedia that does what this convention has us do at the moment? (Or do you strongly oppose that as well?)--Kotniski (talk) 14:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am mildly dissatisfied with the current guideline, but I think it is a minimally acceptable compromise between a bunch of different priorities. Other encyclopedias would use Henry IV as the title for all articles about kings or emperors or whatever named Henry IV, so they'd have no need for disambiguation. But we are not allowed to do this, so we need to come up with a name. The current form is inelegant, I think, but reasonable. Adding "King John" and such to names, would be weak. Other than that I think Chris Cunningham's proposal would be a reasonable starting point. john k (talk) 22:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where GNG comes in, but my views concur with yours. Perhaps the first question to ask is whether we want to have a naming convention for monarchs at all (basically your answers are the ones we would arrive at - on general principles - if we didn't). I've raised this possibility at WT:NCROY.--Kotniski (talk) 09:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Do India &c call her "Elizabeth II, Head of the Commonwealth"? If not, what do they call her? Peter jackson (talk) 11:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well the Indian government officially calls her that usually, but most Indian people would probably, just as most others, call her simply Queen Elizabeth II, Elizabeth II, or even simply 'the Queen'. Others may also incorrectly call her 'the Queen of England' in day to day conversation, as quite many people do across the world. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 11:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On a completely different issue, an example that wouldn't fit any consistent guideline is the Princes of Reuss. All male members of the family are named Henry & numbered in order of birth in each century. So you'd have to have Henry I of Reuss (19th century) or some such. Of course it may be that none of them are notable anyway. Peter jackson (talk) 16:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see on checking the link that that was the practice followed by the junior branch, while the elder branch restarted when they got to Henry C. Well, that's what it says in the WP article anyway, but that seems to contradict an old edition of the Guinness Book of Records, which said the largest number anyone ever used was Henry LXXV of Reuss. Peter jackson (talk) 16:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What we say is in the 1911 Britannica, which I would trust against Guinness. (Guinness may mean the younger branch, or may simply be wrong.) It has been repeated by innumerable genealogy texts; there appears to be a first-hand source in Bulow's memoirs; see these search results. In practice, most of the Reusses are younger sons of a very large family, not rulers and not notable; so Henry IV, Prince of Reuss is probably sufficient (and necessary) disambiguation for those which are notable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Reuss were counts until the late eighteenth century, so I think there's generally going to be only one prince with any particular ordinal. john k (talk) 13:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closing time

It's been some time since this discussion was started, isn't it about time to close it now? --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 07:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please someone find an admin and close the RfC - its been long enough - make the move. Outback the Koala (talk) 22:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to close

As no new statements have been made, and the number of comments has tailed off, perhaps we should consider how to close this RfC. There does not seem to be a formal means of doing so, other than by the consensus of the participants.

Of the seven proposals #Statement by DrKiernan is endorsed by the largest number of editors and is supported by a detailed rationale and supporting evidence from many sources spread worldwide. As of 12:00 28 March 2010, there are 32 editors supporting the move, in addition to a further 3 who support the similar Statements by Arctic Gnome and Kotniski.

If we analyse the arguments made by the 11 editors who oppose that statement (using the dispute resolution pyramid, which is often used during mediations), I would make the following observations:

Arguments presented by opposers 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 11 include a combination of (1) straw men and (2) ad hominem arguments. In other words, (1) they do not address the arguments presented in the statement, but instead address the related, and yet different, question over changes to WP:NCNT, which was not raised in the statement in the first place; and (2) are concerned by the behaviour of the proposer of the statement or whether the RfC process is an appropriate forum, rather than address the arguments presented in the statement.
Arguments presented by opposers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 10 are contradictions, which state a contrary position but without presenting a detailed counter-rationale or providing evidence that refutes the claims made in the statement.
Opposer 9, while opposing this particular move on its own, does however agree that "there are decent reasons for moving Elizabeth II"[3] and that pre-emptive disambiguation should be removed.[4]

Regardless of whether editors approve of the move or not, the proposal to move is supported by the greatest number of editors, and the arguments in favour of the move have not been refuted. Consensus is for the move. DrKiernan (talk) 13:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editors who endorse closure

DrKiernan (talk) 13:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, let's close this and move the article. The number of editors, the number of arguments (not to mention official Wikipedia policies), and the number of reliable sources in favour of moving the article are far greater in number than those against (and there's just about zero reliable sources which support the current article title). --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 15:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this isn't going anywhere further, let's move the page (at least for now) to where a clear majority of people want it, but perhaps more importantly, take the discussion back to WP:NCROY and try to work out a monarchs naming convention that really does have consensus support. The problems most of us can see with this article's title are by no means unique to this article, and there are other articles on which the convention imposes even worse titles.--Kotniski (talk) 15:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. AJRG (talk) 17:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- This vote page has been open 10 days, which is quite long enough. The underlying debate has been going on for several months. AFD and CFD debates are typically closed after a week. We need an ADMIN to take a broad (and dispassionate) view of the outcome of this debate, and then to move the article (if necessary) according to the outcome. If the outcome is "move", the wider question of whether there should be other renames should be dealt with by a vote at (or from) WP:NCROY. Whatever the outcome, the article should be move-protected for at least a year. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yet again, there's no consensus to move. Time to close & take a 1-year hiatus. GoodDay (talk) 17:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1. Yes, but... Just because you decide to take a '1-year hiatus' doesn't mean that new editors won't become involved in this issue. Jagislaqroo (talk) 18:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support—We have certainly seen a debate as lively as ever. I think the best thing to do at the present time is to make the move and see what, if any, commentary it brings. In time, however, I think we will see that the move is most appropriate. It can always be changed back, but I think it makes sense to try out 'Elizabeth II' for a while and see what happens. After all, it's not as if anybody typing in 'Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom' won't be able to find what they're looking for. Jagislaqroo (talk)
Support this discussion has halted over the naming issue, I see a consensus that WP:NCROY has a problem and that problem is the basis for continued issues with the articles title. I also see a consensus to the articles title, but there is no consensus for changes to WP:NCROY a discussion should be able to continue or started afresh at WT:NCROY over the guideline. Gnan garra 09:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editors who oppose closure

Oppose and dispute your closing rational, although why you think you should open, control and close this whole page is beyond me. Off2riorob (talk) 14:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't control the page. I believe the page can only be closed by the consensus of the participants, not by any one editor, including me. If you think it can be closed in another way, then present a case or propose one. BTW, your "oppose" is a contradiction without a supporting rationale or evidence. DrKiernan (talk) 14:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't regard as valid this exercise, which distorts and overwhelms the decision-making process on whether to drop "of the United Kingdom" from Elizabeth II's title by openly pushing to "resolve" a disagreement among editors by relentlessly pushing to compel a pre-chosen outcome, rather than seeking to build legitimate consensus in the spirit of Wikipedia editing. This drive attempts: to render off-topic and trivial the stated complaints about the misuse of process by which this vote is taking place; to forum-shop; to imbue the discussion with a drummed-up, un-Wiki urgency by moving immediately from the second failed article move attempt this year to rejected ArbCom, and now to this biased Rfc attempt to force the desired end by side-stepping normal discussion page move procedures; to craft the current discussion as if editors are compelled to address the matter from the one-sided and ersatz format invented for this page; to ignore the reason why, after the substantial dissent expressed in the last vote, those objecting voices are mostly absent in this go-round -- cogently noted early on by PatGallacher: "It may be that some people are not participating in this poll because they regard it as misconceived or illegitimate. 'RfCs are not votes. Discussion controls the outcome; it is not a matter of counting up the number of votes.' says the guideline. Also some people may be reluctant to come back because most of the arguments in favour of this move have been replied to, there's no point repeating themselves"; and to completely ignore substantive arguments offering a compromise while refuting the claims that NPOV is violated by the current name and that use most common name is available without abuse of process as grounds for moving this article despite the fact that the discussions have made it clear that it is largely being invoked to assuage (genuine but not germane) NPOV feelings as I have stated previously and now repeat, by reference, for the record, here. Does anyone doubt that if this try fails, another and another one will be promptly launched to force dissenters to yield to this agenda, in violation of the most basic spirit of consensus of compromise of Wikipedia? FactStraight (talk) 17:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you mentioned compromise; what do you have in mind?--Kotniski (talk) 17:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and also dispute your argument; i do not see straw men in the opposing arguments, but responses to the argument made. Nor would i accept that concern over the use or misuse of the process an ad hominem argument. Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 16:03, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would help if those who are "opposing closure" would say how long they think this should remain open for before being closed. (Or is it that they oppose DrKiernan's proposed manner of closure; in which case they should put forward and justify a different one.)--Kotniski (talk) 16:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And either way, consensus is to move the article. Keeping it open will only prolong the time when the move will occur, because there's no way that consensus will suddenly go against a move (and no way that more arguments against the move, and reliable sources supporting the current article title, just pop up). We should move the article and get it over with as soon as possible. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 16:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closure is used in the sense of WP:AFD and WP:CFD debates, that an admin takes a decision based on the consensus. This is a well established WP procedure. The page will continue to exist, but will be marked as not to be edited. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't, fully, oppose closure, at least not in sense that Peterkingiron uses it; my argument is with the process, the false representations of arguments, the continuing battering at a guideline or policy that is disagreed with, the possible lack of WP:AGF.... It just seems to be nonsense. I'd be happy to have closure, to stop discussion, although i think the process has been perverted; that's why i'm in the Oppose column ~ opposing the whole process, rather than closure. Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 18:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editors who think this discussion should be taking place at NCROY

Move -- This discussion has way too narrow a scope. Before we talk about whether ERII should be an exception to the rule, lets discuss whether the rule makes sense in the first place. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 02:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree That is exactly the point I have been driving at. If some people have a problem with the current naming conventions they should raise it at WP:NCROY instead of engaging in vague grumbling or guerrilla warfare against the existing naming conventions. I believe that the admins would be within their rights if they decided to discourage this sort of behaviour. PatGallacher (talk) 09:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My disagreements with WP:NCROY, which relate to the creation and misuse of spurious titles of honour, are largely irrelevant to this particular case. Elizabeth II is Head of the Commonwealth, an intergovernmental organisation of fifty-four independent member states comprising some two billion people. By any application of WP:DUE this carries more weight than the fact that she is also monarch, separately and independently, of sixteen Commonwealth members comprising some 134 million people, or the fact that she is specifically monarch of the United Kingdom, comprising some 62 million people. AJRG (talk) 09:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is an argument for moving the article to "Elizabeth Windsor". PatGallacher (talk) 10:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. Google Scholar returns about 25,200 entries for "elizabeth ii" but only 162 for "elizabeth windsor" - some of which refer to Elizabeth A.M. Windsor of the Department of Ophthalmology, University of Pennsylvania, some to Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother and some to the wife of George Puttenham, mediaeval author of The Art of English Poesy. AJRG (talk) 11:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is an absolutely ridiculous interpretation of WP:DUE. Elizabeth II is the actual effective head of state of the United Kingdom. She opens parliament every year and gives a speech outlining her government's priorities for that session, appoints and dismisses ministers, approves statutes, prorogues and dissolves parliament, receives diplomatic representatives, ratifies treaties, grants honors, and so forth. Most of this, admittedly, she does on the advice of her ministers, and she is not an effective political figure, but the woman's life is very largely spent undertaking activities in her role as Queen of the United Kingdom. On the other side, in fifteen other countries she is theoretically the head of state, but virtually never does anything at all. All the things which she does in the UK are, in the other 15 realms, performed 99.5% of the time by a governor-general whom she has no say in appointing. When she, very occasionally, visits one of the other realms, she theoretically undertakes the functions of governor-general, but my understanding is that effectively, she virtually never does much of anything in practice in any of the fifteen non-UK commonwealth realms. As far as being head of the Commonwealth, that is about as meaningless as her title as queen of the various realms. The Commonwealth itself is a mere NGO, and no matter what role she plays there, it is pretty clearly less important than being head of state of one of the world's most important countries. You are saying that because there are 2 billion people in the Commonwealth and only 60 million in the UK, that means her role in the Commonwealth is more important. That's basically the same as saying that Anders Fogh Rasmussen is more important than Barack Obama because NATO represents countries which, in total, have a larger population than the United States. john k (talk) 06:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your personal opinion of the relationship between Elizabeth II and the Commonwealth might be aided by this video. Two billion people produce a lot of newspapers, books and academic papers - many of which are reliable sources. Google Scholar returns about 25,200 entries for "elizabeth ii" but only 63 for "elizabeth ii of the united kingdom". Reliable sources don't need to disambiguate, so nor do we. AJRG (talk) 08:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But you're begging the question here. You simply assume that because there's 2 billion people in the Commonwealth, and EII is head of the commonwealth, that those 2 billion people primarily think of her as head of the commonwealth. You have to provide evidence of that, not just assert it. And there's a difference between "primarily seeing Elizabeth II as queen of the United Kingdom" and "primarily using the term 'Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom'." Obviously nobody does the latter (even Wikipedia only uses that as the article title), but demonstrating that doesn't disprove the former. john k (talk) 16:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at the survey of reliable sources at the top of this page... AJRG (talk) 17:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
oppose but kinda support, there are two distinct issues one is the article title, the other is the WP:NCROY guideline and the insistance that all articles(inc HRH) follow that guideline without question or deviation. The guideline has issues but this is one single article and WP:NC recognises that commonsense can and does have exceptions. Discussion of the WP:NCROY mandates should occur but that discussion shouldnt be used to halt this which has been ongoing since 2005 nor should it be used to stop editors following dispute resolution process. Gnan garra 09:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that misunderstands the issue. Nobody is arguing that guidelines must be followed without exception, the existing guideline does already allow exceptions for widely-used cognomens. In my view, the problem here is that some people have been arguing for this move using arguments which would have implications for several other monarchs e.g. abandoning pre-emptive disambiguation, or challenging how we deal with monarchs of multiple countries, without raising these issues sensibly. We should use our common sense, but this is sometimes open to interpretation. PatGallacher (talk) 10:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well actually [5], [6], [7],[8],[9],[10],[11] hmm nobody disputes based on guideline must be followed. Obviously these are arguements in error so they should be ignored in the consensus for a change of article title... noting thats these are the majority of opinions against the move. Discount them and it is very clear that 6/38(16%) people oppose the change of title, thats even giving equal weight to opposes that are "voting is evil", "too soon". Yeah its ironic that there is clear super majority for the change but that we are accepting and giving equal weight to erroronous opinions even then its only 13/45(28%) opposing. The point of this discussion is about the article title, even a change to the title of the article doesnt give rise to changing the guideline its just an exception, at sometime in the future Charles will become King(with some obvious asumptions) and his article will need to be disambiguated but its extremely unlikely that HRH will ever need disambiguation because there no likely hood of anyone with the same name ever having the influence the she has had over such a long period of time and across such a wide range of countries...There can never be a QEII of Commonwealth realms again, yes other countries could have a QEII but none have the wide ranging influence of that given by virtue of being head of the Commonwealth and 16 separate independent realms for over 50 years. HRH will always be the primary subject matter for EII, unlike Victoria, Mary, Henry, Charles there are no other people or places for which primary subject could be confused or argued as equally notable. Gnan garra 01:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She is HM (Her Majesty) not HRH (Her Royal Highness) which suggests that you don't have much idea what you are on about. Also, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, see WP:CRYSTAL. PatGallacher (talk) 08:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

come in spinner... yet another grab for irrelevant information, ignoring the facts maybe it because there is no disputing the fact that arguements against the move have nothing to do with what relaible sources use nor NPOV nor verifiability but are mearly following guideline because to do otherwise would be admitting the emperor is wearing no clothes. Gnan garra 14:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, I think if this article gets moved, it will actually strengthen the current guideline, since this seems to be the page that attracts people's ire; if it's renamed to a sensible title, most people will lose interest in the whole issue and there won't be so much clamour for a reform of the guideline. (Unfortunately.)--Kotniski (talk) 11:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this is true then it suggests a degree of un-seriousness about those who are trying to move the article. PatGallacher (talk) 23:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's plenty of discussion going on at WP:NCROY, so it doesn't seem to be turning out that way. AJRG (talk) 23:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- This debate has gone on long enough and should be CLOSED. Only then should we go back to WP:NCROY, for a vote on how we should apply the outcome here more widely. If the outcome here is move, we should also move to Henry VIII, Louis XVIII, Louis XIV, Louis IX, and Charles X, which should all be unambiguous without the country. As this subject is contentious, we will need to debate these, probably via a vote page like this one. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But my vote here depends on the NCROY decision. I think that this article should follow the standard, but I think the standard should be changed. So I'm currently opposed to a move even though I would like to see it moved after the NCROY talk. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 03:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments

I am declining to take part in this poll as I regard it as misconceived. I quote WP:RFC "RfCs that are listed by the RfC bot are also automatically ended by the RfC bot after thirty days. If consensus has been reached before then, the RfC nominator(s) can remove the RfC tag, and the bot will remove the discussion from the list on its next run." There is no mention of a "motion to close" here, there does not appear to be a consensus at present. I may respond to other points later. PatGallacher (talk) 19:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I disagree, I feel the RfC was conceived in proper fashion and in good faith, I must agree that there is no motion to close. An administrator should be contacted to review the discussion and see whether in his/her opinion there is consensus. Unfortunately, while I feel this does constitute a consensus, only they (the closing admin) can make the consensus call. Outback the koala (talk) 07:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Pat for pointing out that I as RfC nominator can close the discussion, but as I indicated to Off2riorob, I don't think I should control the page. I hoped that we could close the discussion by agreement, but that may not be possible, and as the discussion is going around in circles, it seems futile to continue it. In that case I do agree with Outback and Peterkingiron that we could ask an uninvolved admin to close the discussion with a determination of whether or not we have reached some form of consensus. DrKiernan (talk) 08:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a disgrace. You start off with a poll in which you only present one side of the case. You do this immediately after another discussion on the same subject has been closed without consensus. You now summarise the opposition so as to dismiss it. Sorry I'm not playing this game. The discussion should be taking place elsewhere. --Snowded ^TALK 08:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong in making a statement in an RfC, or in starting an RfC after another discussion has failed to reach consensus. It is entirely appropriate to discuss an article's title in that article's talk page space. DrKiernan (talk) 08:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We're voting on whether to close a previous vote now? This is getting pretty ridiculous. john k (talk) 22:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)You have consistently refused (other than asserting your right) to justify raising an issue a couple of days after the original one was closed. It comes across as "I didn't get my way so I am going to try again and again until you all give up and accept". I've been involved in other issues in the past and if there is a contentious subject then sensible editors seek to summarise BOTH perspectives before moving to a poll. This is also the first time I've seen the move within a couple of days. Even within contentious issues such as the Ireland Naming debate people behaved in an even handed way and showed proper respect of Wikipedia. This whole episode leaves a very sour taste and your response above is astonishing, the one sided nature of your summary is not even mentioned. You should have got a neutral admin in at the START, not at the end of what is a clear manipulation of process. --Snowded ^TALK 22:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I started a request for comment, and I made a statement in a request for comment. That is all. I have done absolutely nothing wrong. Your concern is unfounded, and has arisen because you are unfamiliar with the format: editors make statements putting forward their opinion, and other editors either endorse them or make their own statement. Ordinarily, there is no oppose section in any statement, and I did not start those sections. I did not start a poll: I have started requested move discussions and requests for comment only.

If a discussion in one format (requested move) does not generate consensus or resolve a dispute, there is nothing wrong in moving to a different format for discussion in the hope of generating consensus or resolving the dispute. Indeed, this course of action was recommended by arbitrators SirFozzie and Rlevse, who are both neutral administrators, when I requested guidance at the arbitration page. Clerk AGK and arbitrators Hersfold and Shell Kinney advised using the processes in the dispute resolution hierarchy, and as we'd already used the talk page, and third opinion doesn't apply, the next step was RfC. DrKiernan (talk) 07:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might be within the letter of law, but you are not within its spirt as far as I am concerned. Getting a few editors together from both sides, agreeing a neutral presentation of the facts etc. is good practice, this isn't. --Snowded ^TALK 08:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Snowed. I also find this process flawed. Circular discussion of limited consensus with editors objecting to the whole process. Off2riorob (talk) 00:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Her website

If you look at her website, linked from the article, it describes itself as the British monarch website. It states "The Queen is Head of State of the UK and 15 other Commonwealth realms" and in a few other ways gives the UK a degree of pre-eminence over her other realms. PatGallacher (talk) 10:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is a UK government website, if you mean the same one I'm looking at.--Kotniski (talk) 11:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Must be royal.gov.uk which, as Kotniski said, as a British government website, it would obviously give prominence to the UK. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 13:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Outback the koala (talk) 19:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, the fact that the UK is the only commonwealth realm to have a website maintained by people answering relatively directly to the monarch herself is completely irrelevant? As also the fact that that website spends a considerable time discussing the Queen's role in the various other commonwealth realms? The discussion of the monarchy in Canada comes on a subsection of the website of the Department of Canadian Heritage; I'm having trouble finding anything official on the monarchy from the Australian or New Zealand governments. I'm not going to bother with the rest, but I would be shocked if they have more than Australia does. The fact that royal.gov.uk is unduplicated in any other commonwealth realms is, in fact, evidence of Elizabeth II's primary association with the United Kingdom. john k (talk) 06:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the argument you're reduced to, john? Ridiculous. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 12:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to me to be a perfectly legitimate argument, that if the UK is the only one of her realms to have a website like this, then she is significantly more associated with the UK. PatGallacher (talk) 23:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even if disambiguation were necessary, you would need to build a stronger case. Have a look at thecommonwealth.org and search on "elizabeth ii" AJRG (talk) 23:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These arguments address whether the UK is the Queen's most closely associated realm, but my argument is whether that should be used as the disambiguator, not on what is or isn't the most closely associated realm. The discussion should focus on whether there should be a disambiguator rather than on what the disambiguator should be.

Somewhere above Off2riorob asked "Is the title of the article so bothersome and worthy of such excessive effort to alter it?" but is it worthy of such excessive effort to defend it? If someone somewhere is offended by something small that is easy to change and largely irrelevant, is it really so hard to say, "Oh, OK." DrKiernan (talk) 07:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now i may be wrong, but i don't think that WP is about trying not to offend anyone, even in titles. With the ease of redirects from any conceivable title, it doesn't seem that that is much of an argument for changing it ~ in fact, because of that ease, i find many RfM discussions a bit pointless: It really makes just a smidge of difference what the title is. Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 02:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the title is so unimportant, why do you defend the current one? DrKiernan (talk) 07:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For much the same reason you are tying to change it, despite its unimportance: Because, for one reason or another i feel it matters. You'll notice, however, that i'm not trying that hard to preserve the current, logical, correct-by-guidelines (whoops, my emotions slipped) title; i'm more upset about the distortion of process (nomination a couple of weeks after the previous one was closed, &c.) than i am about the move. How 'bout you? Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 17:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The immediately preceding requested move to this one was closed by someone who had voted in a previous request, and they closed it in favor of the view they had supported. You complain about this request being a distortion but not the immediately preceding one. Why? DrKiernan (talk) 20:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, actually, because i tend to spend more of my time in the Mediæval reaches of this project, or wikignoming around, and this is the first request i've come across. If it matters, the last one i commented on was this one which also resulted from a repetitive re-listing until, i reckon, the opponents of the move were worn down. Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 06:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closure request

Since this discussion has reached its natural conclusion, I've made a move request at the article talk page, effectively asking someone to come and close it.--Kotniski (talk) 11:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC has not yet run its full duration, therefore the move request is premature. I've therefore closed the move request, and I am copying that discussion below to keep all the comments in one place. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copy from Talk page of the premature closure request mentioned above

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Speedy close - RfC has not yet finished (30 days, started 18th March), let that process take it's course first - add comments to that page. I will copy this data there in a new section. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom → Elizabeth II — As supported by a clear majority at the RFC page, Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Article title. (In other words, this move request is actually a request for closure of that RFC.) Kotniski (talk) 11:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the article should be moved now, the supporting side has far more editors, arguments, and reliable sources. The RFC can be closed now, there is no longer any activity on it. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 13:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close on the grounds of clear abuse of procedure. A previous identical move request was closed as recently on 17 March with no consensus. There is currently an RFC on the article title, this should normally be allowed 30 days to run. Discussion has recently moved to the talk page for WP:NCROY, various views have been expressed, but there appears to be agreement that this has considerably wider implications for the naming of monarchs generally, I suggest that this should be allowed to run significantly longer before any controversial moves are made. PatGallacher (talk) 13:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close per above --Snowded ^TALK 13:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. First off, it should be Queen Elizabeth II, and second, I've never seen anything so bizarre as someone closing their own RFC!. If it's been closed and summarised by an uninvolved person, then I can't see it. Standard procedure for closure is to make a request at ANI for someone to review and close it. Maybe then you might or might not have just cause to make another move request. MickMacNee (talk) 13:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well effectively this move request is a request for someone to close the RfC. No point in doing it in two stages. No, no-one's closed and summarized it yet - hence this request. Sorry if it's confusing; maybe I should have just made a request at ANI first (if someone wants to do it that way, feel free to close this and make the AN request.)--Kotniski (talk) 14:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there is a point in doing it in two stages. For one, it is the standard procedure for any Rfc, and second, doing it in two stages would avoid the perception that the supporters of a move have pre-emptively decided what the Rfc says and think it justifies a move, and this request is just a matter of filling out the paperwork. I haven't read the Rfc in full, but I'm not going to support or oppose a move based on what someone who was heavily involved in it says what it means. MickMacNee (talk) 18:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, looking at the RFC, there hasn't been much activity over the past day and a half, but I see several comments dated 30 and 31 April, so it really is premature to say that this discussion has come to a close. The way some people are pursuing this issue is simply adding more heat than light to a complex issue, and as a result some Wikipedians are being forced to spend a significant amount of time and effort to procedural points, instead of thrashing out the serious issues associate with e.g. pre-emptive disambiguation, alleged "invented titles". PatGallacher (talk) 14:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The recent comments at the RFC (30 and 31 March, I presume) have themselves been off-topic or procedural points. I'm all for continuing discussion at NCROY, which is all the more reason to close and act on the concluded EII discussion so that it ceases to be a distraction.--Kotniski (talk) 14:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close, as there's been more then enough RMs held concerning this article's title. GoodDay (talk) 14:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close as the previous RM was far too recent. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you all mean by "speedy close" - if it means that the RfC should be closed now, then yes, that's the point - let's have an admin come and see what's been decided.--Kotniski (talk) 15:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday Kotniski put forward some proposed changes at the talk page for WP:NCROY, which would justify this move. It was pointed out that this was a far-reaching proposal which would probably mean moving the majority of monarch articles, and would need quite a bit of discussion, his response was: "Yes, I realise that, I'm not suggesting we just do this change today." I agree, so surely all controversial moves of monarch articles should be put on hold until this is thrashed out at WP:NCROY. PatGallacher (talk) 16:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very strongly oppose. A "clear majority" is not consensus, and we do not act by majority rule. Least of all do we do so when the majority consists largely of (1) a handful of Utopians who oppose the policy on which this rule is based and (2) some Canadian monarchists who would like to score obscure political points about Elizabeth being also Queen of Canada. One of the advantages of having a naming convention is that it scores nobody's political points. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and Close Not a-blooming-gain! We've been through this 3 times at least already and no consensus for a move was reached in any of them so I say leave sleeping dogs lie. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support 34 in favour of the move to 13 against seems decisive. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close Are you serious !?! Another one. This is what, the 6th move discussion(early July 09, late July 09, late July 09 again,Dec 09) with the last one concluding less than 2 weeks ago! This is excessive and entirely inappropriate.--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there was consensus to move! But this is not how to close an RfC!!! Get an administrator first! Outback the Koala (talk) 04:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SPEEDY MOVE This has been debated ad nauseam at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Article title. This has produced a clear consensus for a move (currently 35 votes for move to 13 against). Any one who disagrees should contribnute at that page NOT HERE. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Might I point to the discussion at Talk:Louis-Philippe I, King of the French for an example of how to have a sensible discussion about whether to move an article on a monarch? PatGallacher (talk) 19:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural speedy close clearly excessive renomination speed. Articles should not be renominated every fortnight. I also see nothing like consensus at the RFC. 65.94.253.16 (talk) 05:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we merge this discussion with the RfC. Requested moves for this page often last for 14 days, so this requested move is likely to fall due for closure at around the same time as the RfC, if that lasts for 30 days. I don't think asking for an administrator at WP:AN or WP:ANI will work: we did that before, e.g. 1, 2, and the requests were ignored.

Comments on the proposed move should be made at the sub-page and the move template in this section can remain as a marker for that discussion. DrKiernan (talk) 08:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Close. A requested move is not properly a vote, and an RFC is even less of one. The discussion on the RfC page swiftly moved away from the poll and moved on to more productive areas of how to resolve the dispute, and it follows that requesting a move on the basis of the poll on the RfC is procedurally flawed. Therefore the requested move should be closed. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Elizabeth the Second?

There is a further point in this discussion which, although not crucial, is worth noting. Nobody is proposing to stop calling her Elizabeth the Second. Why? She is not the second Elizabeth to rule most of her realms, not even Canada, the 2nd oldest. (There was no permanent English settlement in Canada before 1603, although a few explorers had been there.) I know that strictly speaking she is not the second Elizabeth to rule the UK, but she is the second to rule most of its territory. Most of her other realms are former British colonies or dependencies which kept her as Queen (plus a couple of former mandated territories). This is not the same as some other dual monarchies, which were seperate kingdoms which acquired the same monarch e.g. Scotland and England, France and Navarre.

The glib answer is "because that's her official title", but if even in Australia they call her Elizabeth II, it means that they tacitly suggest that her position as Queen of the UK has a certain priority. PatGallacher (talk) 19:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Equally, why Napoleon III? Out of respect... AJRG (talk) 19:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking into this further, English rule was proclaimed in Newfoundland near the end of Elizabeth I's reign, but she only reigned over a tiny part of what is now Canada, unlike the UK. We should refer to e.g. Napoleon III and Louis XVIII of France mainly because that's how they're officially and generally known. However they used these titles because they claimed that Napoleon II and Louis XVII of France were de jure monarchs, but nobody has claimed that Elizabeth I was de jure monarch of e.g. Australia. PatGallacher (talk) 20:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth II is how she's officially and generally known. Elizabeth I is so famous in the English speaking world that no one in the Commonwealth seems troubled by it. AJRG (talk) 22:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, as other multiple monarchs have used different regnal numbers during their multiple reigns; for example: Philip IV/III of Spain & Portugal, James II/VII of England, Ireland & Scotland. GoodDay (talk) 22:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first colonies, Newfoundland and the Virgin Islands, were established under Elizabeth I and the East India Company was also formed at the end of her reign, so she marks the beginning of what was to become the British Empire. AJRG (talk) 22:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, the practice of using just 1 regnal number, is likely gonna continue with Charles III & William V (assuming they'll use those names). GoodDay (talk) 22:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have quite a clear memory of being told when she was a young queen that some Scots (for whom she is also not the second Elizabeth) tried to give a gift to "Elizabeth I of Scotland" and were officially refused and rebuked. The implication i have always inferred is that she considers "EII" to be the title everywhere. I'm not sure that we could use that implication as PatGallacher suggests. Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 02:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth I of Scotland is the best (re)direct link on this. The issue wasn't exclusive to Scotland (as noted above; other examples can be found with Spanish, French, Italian and German monarchs) or new (several previous UK monarchs used the English numbering) but the growth of Scottish nationalism made it a controversy when it hadn't really been one before. Timrollpickering (talk) 08:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Elizabeth II was the title that she adopted on her accession. I think the consensus has been that the number should relate to the main (or largest or best known) realm, and England is a great deal bigger than Scotland. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was actually an post facto rationalisation because of the Scottish upcry. In actual fact it was quite common when states unified for monarchs to carry over the numbering from the dominant state - this is true of GB/UK, Italy and Germany and I think some others - regardless. It was only when there such an upcry in the 1950s that the "highest number in whatever realm" rule was drawn up for future monarchs. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Close as successful

It's been about a month now. The vast majority of editors and arguments are on the side for the move, as are 99% of all reliable sources, as well as two core Wikipedia policies. The article should be moved to Elizabeth II now. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 15:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still have reservations about making a move that flies so obviously in the face of long standing policy (i.e. WP:NCROY). I'm also a little concerned that the editors who supported this motion did so to make a point. That said, I acknowledge I'm in the minority here (though I think this RfC was setup in a slightly biased manner), and I also acknowledge that EII is slightly unique among present day monarchs, and hence an exception to naming conventions might be acceptable. To conclude - I dissent, but won't try to block a "close as successful".

A postscript question might be; by the reasoning we are using to make an exception here, who is going to go to all the other articles on monarchs that this reasoning could apply to, and make the changes there? NickCT (talk) 16:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GoodDay is big on consistency, so maybe him. -Rrius (talk) 16:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This should be considered very carefully by an uninvolved Admin or by a discussion at the Administrators noticeboard. I suggest opening a thread there to seek admin consenus for closure. Off2riorob (talk) 16:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC):[reply]

@Rrius - We'll see. There are so many monarch articles that would arguably have to be renamed (see my list above). This change really muddies the water. NickCT (talk) 16:45, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@off2/Znowzilla - You want me to find an uninvolved admin to close? NickCT (talk) 16:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not one of them, but yes. -Rrius (talk) 17:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked 2 uninvolved admins to review (see 1, 2) NickCT (talk) 17:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whether and how to change the guideline (and thus potentially other article titles) is a separate question from whether this particular article should follow the guideline or not. (The guideline already has exceptions, as would be expected of any guideline.)--Kotniski (talk) 16:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm one of the two people who have been contacted by NickCT with a request to close this RfC. Are there any objections to me doing so after the 30 day RfC period is over, i.e. after 08:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)? Sandstein 17:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"A postscript question might be; by the reasoning we are using to make an exception here, who is going to go to all the other articles on monarchs that this reasoning could apply to, and make the changes there?" NickCT asked. The trouble is that different people have put forward different justifications for moving this article, and some have just made cryptic comments like "I agree" or "the existing guidelines are rubbish" so it's far from clear what the wider implications of any move would be. PatGallacher (talk) 18:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As one who thinks NCROY is flawed, I still think this is sui generis. So much of the debate has been about why an exception is okay in this case that a head-on discussion at NCROY would be necessary before making wider changes. That is not to say it would be inappropriate for editors to take the arguments made here to other individual articles if they think they apply with equal force there, but I don't think it would be right to assume this discussion somehow overturns current guidelines; it just make an exception. -Rrius (talk) 18:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rrius - To play the devil's advocate; after this conversation it would seem necessary for us to immediately change George VI of the United Kingdom. NickCT (talk) 18:45, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this really was "sui generis" I might reluctantly let it through on the nod. However some people are arguing that it does have wider implications. The issues with George VI are not quite the same, unlike Elizabeth II this name + number combination is not unique. PatGallacher (talk) 18:55, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've recently been lower-casing King & Queen regnant in monarchial bio articles per MOSCAP. If Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom gets moved to Elizabeth II, others will have to do a who sale movement of all monarchial articles, as I value my sanity too much. GoodDay (talk) 22:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should see this article (Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom) being moved to Elizabeth II as a an exception to the guideline, and the guideline accepts exceptions anyway. Just because this article is moved it doesn't mean that every other monarch article must be moved, and that the guideline is thrown out. For monarch articles where it would be best to exclude a country in the article title (for neutrality or other purposes), we can have separate discussions just like this on their talk pages and see what we can come to. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 08:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd agree with that, except that some kind of conclusive discussion on the guideline itself is probably long overdue (since many editors have expressed dissatisfaction with it).--Kotniski (talk) 09:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From such lengthy discussion there should be some result, a decision over this is not going to make the wiki wheels drop off and the view from Buckingham palace window will not change. If Administrator Sandstein is willing to grasp the horns then I don't see any problem with that, are there any objections to accepting his offer to close? Off2riorob (talk) 10:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No objections to Sanstein's offer to close --Snowded ^TALK 10:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have had a look at the guidelines for RFCs, and I see no such procedure as "close as successful". Controversial move requests still have to go through the relevant procedure. Even the last few comments have identified some unresolved problems e.g. is the dispute over this title sui generis, or does it have wider implications for other monarchs, and if so what are these wider implications? PatGallacher (talk) 12:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Close as successful is just the title of this section, as I understand it that is just someones opinion, what Sanstein would be doing would be reading and evaluating all the discussion and closing the RFC as he sees fit considering all MOS and policy, no consensus, consensus to move or whatever he decides is the outcome, the closure would not be predetermined but in his hands, so to speak. Off2riorob (talk) 13:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This would've all been easier, if Elizabeth II chose to live in each realm for 1-year (having a Governor-General of the UK, when at the other realms). GoodDay (talk) 15:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That idea was actually floated at when her reign began. But not in all of the realms, but in four senior realms: that she would spend 3 months of the years residing between the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, to reflect the fact that she is Queen of each of her realms equally. Unfortunately it didn't seem a very practical idea back then. But, this is all a bit off topic. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 15:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it didn't & doesn't occur, can't be ignored though. Anyways, when can we expect the page-move (and the following protestations)? GoodDay (talk) 15:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as the administrator goes through this RfC. I don't think there will be any protests, as the vast majority of editors are in favor of the move as well the arguments, and almost all of all reliable sources, and not mention the 2 core WP policies. Any protest to the article being moved to Elizabeth II after this will be silly. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 15:27, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. GoodDay (talk) 15:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, these are all your desires and opinions, consensus is not a vote but a summing up of the arguments and issues raises, there is a whole load of issues that this desired moved has raised and the outcome is far from clear. Off2riorob (talk) 15:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's your opinion. The outcome is quite clear, there are far move arguments supporting the move, as well as 99% of all reliable sources as proven, and the @ WP policies of NPOV and OR. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 16:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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