Talk:Victoria of the United Kingdom (disambiguation)

Untitled

See also talk at talk:Princess Victoria, related to this talk

User:Francis Schonken created today a new disambig page at Victoria of the United Kingdom (disambiguation) and only a bit later he realized that there already exists another, essentially similar old disambig page Princess Victoria of the United Kingdom. When realizing that, Schonken started to fight against our GDFL terms. Schonken obviously wants to save his own creation and instead tries to have the old page merged into his creature (which will equal cut-and-paste move and will destroy the old page's edit history). I find his such conduct highly disruptive. The merger should be made to opposite direction: contents of the page Victoria of the United Kingdom (disambiguation) should be merged into the old disambig page Princess Victoria of the United Kingdom. Arrigo 23:18, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would say the disambiguation page here should be Princess Victoria, which should include all Queens, Princesses, ships, and other objects which might conceivably be known by this title. The title "Princess Victoria of the United Kingdom" is certainly not in everyday use in the UK, was it ever anyone's formal title? PatGallacher 01:35, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

At Princess Victoria, there is also a bunch of others than British princesses (and it may grow even bigger). IMO we need a disambig page for those approx four women who were Victorias of the United kingdom, i.e British princesses named Victoria. Several of our articles (up tp four) are named or may be named Victoria of the United Kingdom due to our NC. In order to avoid a disambig note (listing so many) in the beginning of articles, a separate page is needed. But that page should not be an overflow, and we know that all the world's princesses Victorias will be an overflow which defeats the purpose of having a navigational aid for those who seek British Victorias. I oppose merger between Princess Victoria (the general list) and British Victoria page. However, have I understood it correctly that you Pat are supporting that Francis Schonken's creation [1] should be merged somewhere. Arrigo 02:34, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The older page seems to me to be clearly badly titled, against both the general naming conventions (which would indicate the common name, which would be Princess Victoria) and the specific ones (royal titles, which would be Victoria of the United Kingdom). Thus it should be merged into one or the other, I'm not much bothered as to which. If the issue here is "whose" page is merged into "whose", then request an admin-assisted move to preserve the older history on the newer page. Alai 03:12, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If it is badly titled, just file a move request. Moving (instead of cut-and-pastes or other destructive means, or of duplicates) are the mandatory way to have the heading to be changed to the best possible... Arrigo 23:36, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The list of princesses under Princess Victoria is not so large as to be unmanageable, this is not a terribly common name, I think we've already got most of them. We could run into all sorts of problems if we try to split them by nationality or other criteria e.g. what about those who had more than one nationality during their lifetime? There is all sorts of potential for making a complicated issue even more complicated. Keep It Simple Stupid. We definitely need Victoria of the United Kingdom for Queen Victoria, the one everybody's heard of, in accordance with Wikipedia naming conventions, although the intro should include a redirect to Princess Victoria. Princess Victoria of the United Kingdom should be a redirect to Princess Victoria, Victoria of the United Kingdom (disambiguation) is unnecessary and should be deleted. Phew! PatGallacher 10:31, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Victoria of the United Kingdom (disambiguation) is unnecessary and should be deleted. Arrigo 23:34, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking about the dab pages:

Victoria (disambiguation)
Princess Victoria
Victoria of the United Kingdom (disambiguation)
Princess Victoria of the United Kingdom
Victoria of Coburg/Victoria of Saxe-Coburg (final title t.b.d.)

-> 1 has to stay (as a dab page), that's obvious I suppose.

-> 1 is very long and there are already several split-offs (e.g. the La Victoria dab page, etc...)

-> 2 is at least a logical split-off when starting from 1

-> I defend 3 as a separate dab page, as well from the perspective of 1 (that already had a section "british royals named Victoria, but didn't list all of these), and I defend 3 also from the perspective of Victoria of the United Kingdom, which is a page about a single person, while there are several that could be named thus: so the Queen Victoria page needs a dab sentence on top of the page, linking to all the others, and that page should -preferably- also mention all those that can be named "Queen Victoria", while Queen Victoria is a redirect to "Victoria of the United Kingdom": I would make such dab-page linked from the top of the Queen Victoria page not longer than necessary, so neither a redirect to 1, nor to 2: 3 seems perfect.

-> 4 is a redundant double with 3: I prefer 3 while the title is more general and links better from the "Victoria of the United Kingdom" page.

-> So, I see 4 as a redirect, and if it is a redirect, I would prefer it to redirect to 3, while that covers all "princesses" Victoria of the UK.

-> Regarding 5 I don't know yet, don't see any useful links to it yet. If it's not linked from a particular page, for a plausible reason, it could IMHO probably be a redirect to 1 or maybe 2 (if they're all princesses).

--Francis Schonken 00:01, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As the disagreement basically is about the viability of 3 or 4, excluding each other, I want to remind that 3 is a newer creation (created, surprise, by a certain user who has uttered a defensive speech above) and 4 is much older. Cut-and-paste of contents of 3 to 4 is not the way to correctly change the name. It should be done by a move request. It might be true that "Victoria of the United Kingdom (disambiguation)" is a better heading for that page than "Princess Victoria of the United Kingdom", but it is not to be done by the way Francis proposes. The present discussion will obviously lead us to no effective resolution (at least as long as a certain user defends his fresh creation), whereas a move request has the characteristic of inviting community participation in decision-making and will have an outcome (since an admin will study the discussion and polling, and will make a determination). Arrigo 00:20, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Age" of a page has no relation to the issue;

GFDL is not really involved, seen the limited content of a dab page with four dab topics, that even can be shown to be double of content already in wikipedia on other pages before the redirect page was turned into a dab page. Really, GFDL is nowhere involved for 4. That was already explained to Arrigo by sysops much smarter than I am.

The only issue is what is the best page title for a page disambiguationg the four Victoria of the UK Princesses.

If Arrigo wants to claim "ownership" of the one sentence he added to 4, I would like to point him to Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Word_ownership, and of course GFDL, explicited whenever an edit button is clicked with these words: If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it.

So, we're looking for the best page title for that page, and that's all.

Of course the "editing mercilessly" is covered by wikipedia policies and guidelines. that is, if you destroy useful things, that's vandalism, which the community refutes.

--Francis Schonken 01:11, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The question is not so much about some sentence(s) I added to 4 or whatever, it is question of all edits of several people, beginning apparently from year 2003. (Possibly impossible to contact all them to ask their wishes). I wonder why it is so impossible to Francis to add contents of his contributions at the new page to the older page? That should give us the same result... Arrigo 12:10, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The only *content* added to 4 are these two diffs (after the page's history was emptied resulting from a move in September 2003):

The remainder of the history is switching redirect page versions, putting the Deb/Arrigo content back, and/or adding a non-content template, with *1* time a minor tweak to the Deb/Arrigo content. That tweak was so minor, that it didn't count as a "change" in the assesment of Arrigo breaking 3RR on that page.

Note that the content is *identical* to disambig content that could be found on other disambig pages at the time.

Note that to preserve the history of a page that has been a redirect page for 99% of it's life, the safest way to do that, is to keep it a redirect page, without moving it anywhere else.

Moving a redirect page unneccesarily obfuscates its history. So Arrigo still today occupied in moving Victoria of Saxe-Coburg (a redirect page!) to Victoria von Saxe-Coburg (still a redirect page!) to Victoria von Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld (still a redirect page!), somewhere along the line in an edit history noting "undoing a cut-and-paste move" (yeah, sure), littering the place with double redirects (as of writing this still not cleaned up, notwithstanding an invitation to do that [2]) is nowhere a "positive asset" to wikipedia's GFDL policy: it makes unclear whether the page he moved it to was just created today, or was a redirect page existing on wikipedia for ages, without anyone having changed it. It also obfuscates the true history of the "Victoria of Saxe-Coburg" page (now seemingly created "today"). You need to be really hard core to trace its history back over two page moves to "von" "Saalfeld". This anti-GFDL triple page move in itself is IMHO enough to get Arrigo banned again. --Francis Schonken 23:33, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Further I'd like to point Arrigo to Wikipedia:How to hold a consensus vote: again, it's not wikipedia's policy to trigger votes for whatever, to get an opinion of the community. That way of dealing with issues is oppossed to the consensus principle. So if there's no opposition to moving the content of Victoria of Coburg to Victoria of Saxe-Coburg, and if Arrigo did not even ask to the only person involved (StanZegel) whether he would oppose such move, then it's silliness to trigger a vote on that. Arrigo didn't even try to reach consensus on that. And he put the vote template on the wrong page. So please stop abusing time of other people, for things that are even not marginally contributing to the quality of wikipedia.--Francis Schonken 01:32, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I defent User:Alai's right to make a move request, as Alai has done. Further, I will defend the integrity of the move request process against all sorts of disruptions ("we all can see who within a couple of recent hours has made such disruptions"), and others should also defend it. Arrigo 12:22, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's up to Alai to make up his own mind on that: I replied to Alai's questions re. the desirability of a vote at this stage, on Alai's talk page. So I await Alai's reply on whether Alai thinks the vote nonetheless useful or not. "Integrity of vote requests" is not at stake. --Francis Schonken 18:33, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arrigo please stop moving pages or making life difficult for Francis Schonken or any other users. Your behaviour is trolling and you keep moving royal articles pages at whim. This is not acceptable behaviour. Please contact Flcelloguy for the mediation request [3] set up for you, which is posted on your talk page. Gryffindor

12:53, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge?

Should this be merged with Princess Victoria. Seems to contain all of the same information. Prsgodd e ss187 20:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if that debate from 2005 has cleared up yet, but I will offer my support for merging with Princess Victoria. Changing from disambiguation to redirect. -- DSGruss 19:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]