Talk:James I

On 3 August 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved from James I (disambiguation) to James I. The result of the discussion was moved.

Requested move

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: pages moved and redirected accordingly. Aervanath (talk) 00:32, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James I → James I (disambiguation)
James II → James II (disambiguation)

– "James I" and "James II" are the primary topics for James I of England and James II of England, respectively. This requested move would free up "James I" and "James II" to redirect to those articles. (Note: there is currently a separate request to move James I of England to James VI and I (where I have joined the discussion, as full disclosure). Regardless of the outcome there, a successful move here would mean that "James I" would redirect to that article.) Dohn joe (talk) 21:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support as nom. Wikipedia traffic stats show that James I of England and James II of England both outdraw the other Jameses on the disambiguation pages by a large margin. In June 2011, for example, James I of England drew 93,000 visitors. The other five James I articles combined drew fewer than 12,000. In March 2011, James II of England drew 70,000 visitors. The other six James II articles combined drew fewer than 11,000. That seems large enough of a discrepancy to declare them both a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and to send the vast majority of readers directly to the articles they want. (Note that this is a separate issue as to what the best title for those articles should be.) Dohn joe (talk) 21:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. If you Google "James I" -wikipedia, every result on the first page refers to the English king. Kauffner (talk) 00:27, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~~weakly~~ I am not sure that the statistics above quite amount to what we mean by primary usage, but they are close. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:37, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Make that Support strongly; anything opposed by argumenrts like the one below should be supported. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree with Dohn joe, if the statistics on the disambiguaion pages are that large then it should be the primary usage.Beefcake6412 (talk) 03:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as nom. An unfortunate attempt to thwart the editors from several english speaking countries who are presently voting on James I Talk Page. The Google information given above is flawed and challenged on Talk:James I of England. The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography - "National" meaning of the United Kingdom, not of England or of Scotland - titles its article James VI and I. Even the original version gave precedence to the VI.and also at: The Official British Monarcy Website uses James VI and I. Mugginsx (talk) 16:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Mugginsx is not the nominator, of course. He does not appear to have noticed that this was moved and seconded as a good idea whatever happens to the article now at James I of England; the two questions are independent. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I note that the British Monarchy site also uses "James I", the proposed moniker. Kauffner (talk) 23:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kauffner: And?????? Mugginsx (talk) 07:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Primary topic. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, as there's Scottish monarchs named James I & James II, who are different individuals to the English monarchs James I & James II. GoodDay (talk) 16:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as a clear attempt at systemic bias in favour of England and the English-speaking countries generally, see WP:BIAS. Google searches and the like aren't everything, and would tend to be biased in favour of the English-speaking countries. James I of Aragon and James I of Scotland are both important figures in the history of their respective countries. PatGallacher (talk) 21:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is Scotland not an English-speaking country? Not only that, but even in the Scots-language Wikipedia, someone found it necessary to create "James I o Ingland" as a redirect to James VI - but no one has taken the time to create an article on James I of Scotland. Where is the bias here? Dohn joe (talk) 22:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dohn joe, et al: These are not logicial rationales. There has never been an article on many things yet - It proves nothing. Also Scotland, like the rest of the world is multi-lingual. Mugginsx (talk) 07:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, as there are other persons named James I and a dab page is appropriate. Anyway this discussion should be at the James I of England talk page as presumably the dab page can only be moved following a successful proposal to move that one. Sussexonian (talk) 19:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not quite what this proposal is about. The dab page will exist, no matter what. The only question is what the title of the dab page should be: James I, or James I (disambiguation) (same goes for James II). If we pick the latter, then "James I" will redirect to either James I of England or James VI and I, depending on the outcome over there. An analogy would be George Washington. There are lots of people named that, so we need George Washington (disambiguation). But because the vast majority of people typing in "George Washington" are looking for the first U.S. president, that's where George Washington takes them. Same here - there are several articles about different James I and IIs. But the vast majority of people typing in "James I" or "James II" are looking for the Scottish/English kings, so instead of sending them to the dab page, we should send them straight to the article they are looking for. Does that make sense? Dohn joe (talk) 20:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Too many monarchs have the name James I and making it specifically for James I of England (also James VI of Scotland) would violate a WP:NPOV. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WCM: how is it violating NPOV to send 90% of our readers directly to the article they're looking for? Isn't this why we have the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC tool at our disposal - as a navigational aid? Dohn joe (talk) 05:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its a disambiguation page, there are more than one monarch named James I, to claim that this Monarch is more important that all the others and should occupy this spot is distinctly anglocentric POV. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not to belabor the point, but could you explain how this is different than my earlier example of George Washington? There are several WP articles on different people named George Washington, but readers who type "George Washington" get directed to the article about the president, with a hatnote alerting them about the other GWs. How is this different? Dohn joe (talk) 00:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I can see your point I would tend to disagree with you on this occasion. A number of places and people are named after George Washington, hence the prominence whilst others are minor figures. In this case, we have a number of monarchs who happen to share the same title and I do not think the same judgement call is applicable. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And James VI and I was named after his grandfather James V, who was ultimately named after James I of Scotland, So? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:08, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support the primary topic for James I is James VI and I. Hot Stop talk-contribs 15:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Perhaps this is closer to the line than Elizabeth I but it's still the case that, in English, if I just say James I unqualified and in a general context I mean the King of England not say James I of Scotland (and I say that despite my proud Scottish background). So, far from being DABs, the two unqualified names James I and James II should either be or redirect to the articles on the English kings. Andrewa (talk) 17:56, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Just a note to the closer: due to the recent successful move request of James I of England to James VI and I, a successful move here would mean that James I should redirect to James VI and I. (James II would still redirect to James II of England as noted above.) Dohn joe (talk) 18:14, 11 November 2011 (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.

Requested move 3 August 2022

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

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 21:54, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

James I (disambiguation) → James I
James II (disambiguation) → James II

– There are many important monarchs with the same name. James I of Scotland and James II of Aragon to name just two. Right now the base names redirect to the corresponding English monarchs (James VI and I and James II of England). The dab page should be moved to the base name. Vpab15 (talk) 10:18, 3 August 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:24, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Oppose: the English kings are still the WP:PRIMARYTOPICs here, just as they were when this was last discussed. Rosbif73 (talk) 11:45, 3 August 2022 (UTC) [reply]
Oppose: the English monarchs are the primary topics. Indeed James VI and I, should be moved to James I, as he's more notable for being King of England (22-year reign), then King of Scotland (58-year reign) & James II of England moved to James II, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 12:59, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi GoodDay, it seems you have changed your opinion since the previous RM above. Granted, that was more than 10 years ago. In any case, would you mind explaining what made you change your mind? Just curious, that's all. Vpab15 (talk) 13:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~What was my opinion 10 years ago? GoodDay (talk) 14:13, 3 August 2022 (UTC)~~[reply]
You opposed moving the dab page from the base name: Oppose, as there's Scottish monarchs named James I & James II, who are different individuals to the English monarchs James I & James II. Vpab15 (talk) 14:16, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Back then, I was of the opinion that between 1603 & 1707, the kingdoms of England & Scotland should be treated equally in terms of their shared monarchs. Now, I see that historically - James I/VI to William III/II (note: Anne went from English/Scottish to British monarch, in 1707) are more notable as English monarchs, compared to Scottish monarchs. GoodDay (talk) 14:31, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've switched to support (see below). GoodDay (talk) 00:59, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Like other monarchs, James should be "X of Country". James VI/I is admittedly tricky. I wouldn't say England is more notable than Scotland. He ruled quite a bit longer as King of Scotland than England, and his reign in Scotland was particularly notable given the Scottish Reformation. His current page is at "James VI and I", as perhaps it should be under the circumstances. James I should be a redirect to disambiguation page. Both the James kings of Scotland and Aragon are very notable. Walrasiad (talk) 18:06, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would support having all monarch bios moved back to "Monarch # of country", like they used to be. Reckon, that'll never happen though. GoodDay (talk) 18:20, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It actually might. Per the recent RFC on regnal names, Wikipedia's guidance was changed to remove language saying it's inappropriate to add the country to unambiguous royal names. There seems to be a recognition that consistently applying the geographical clarifier is positive and desirable, as in cases like Aloys II (→Aloys II, Prince of Liechtenstein), Edward IV (→Edward IV of England), etc. ╠╣uw [talk] 19:38, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The geographic clarifier is a totally separate issue. Today we have a dab page James I (disambiguation) and a redirect James I. Whether the redirect points to James VI and I or James I of England or to some other clarified name is of no bearing whatsoever on whether WP:PRIMARYTOPIC applies to the short name. Ditto for James II. Rosbif73 (talk) 20:10, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the focus here is on the primacy of the short names. The comment I was responding to, though, was about the consistent use of "X of Country", something to which the RFC relates. ╠╣uw [talk] 20:43, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Walrasiad's comments above. (Also, in keeping with the November regnal names RFC, always applying the geographic clarifier better meets WP:AT and the requirement that good titles should be, among other things, consistent with the pattern of like articles.) ╠╣uw [talk] 19:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Holy smokers? I was the first editor to post in the survey, of that RFC. GoodDay (talk) 00:59, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I'll go along with this. GoodDay (talk) 00:59, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I support James I and James II being disambiguation pages but I do not support the renaming of James VI and I. Sahaib (talk) 10:47, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I too am convinced by Walrasiad's argument that "X of Country" is preferred for the monarchs. James VI and I can stay where he is as the double ordinal is enough to distinguish him and adding both countries would be long.PrisonerB (talk) 10:58, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, that is not the question being asked. The question is whether James I should remain a redirect to the article (under whatever name) for James VI and I, on the basis that he is the primary topic, or whether James I should become the dab page. Rosbif73 (talk) 11:28, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - the natural disambiguation available here is nice Red Slash 22:59, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The English kings are clear primary redirects. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:15, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:03, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mellohi!: Why did you relist this? Srnec (talk) 23:17, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I felt like the discussion on the primary topic issue was deficient. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 00:40, 14 August 2022 (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.