Talk:William the Lion/Archive 1

Longest reign?

It says that his reign was the longest in Scottish history, but I don't know whether this claim should survive as two Queens of Scotland (after union with England) had longer reigns(?). --Daniel C. Boyer 20:50, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Interesting one. It depends how you interpret the phrase "Scottish history", doesn't it? We could add a sentence saying, "However, two rulers of the United Kingdom..." Deb 20:58, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I think this would be the best approach. --Daniel C. Boyer 21:15, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't agree. For one thing , five monarchs from the British Isles had (or in one case, has) reigns longer than William's: Edward III, Elizabeth II (52 years and still counting), Henry III, George III and Victoria.

For another, I think it very reasonable to assume that the terms "Scottish History" refers to the history of Scotland prior to 1603 (though a look just now at History of Scotland suggest otherwise). However, if you really insist, you could say that William was the longest serving Scottish monarch. Arno 03:59, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You mean prior to 1707. From 1603 to 1707, "King of Scotland" was still officially a distinct title. Aridd (talk) 14:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William and the French

William did NOT arrange the Auld Alliance, which dates from the reign of King John Balliol. It is quite meaningless to raise earlier connections between Scotland and France in this context, just as it is to suggest a spurious extension of the Franco-Scottish alliance to the times of the Jacobites.

Rcpaterson 00:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William Excommunicated?

It says on the entry on Pope Alexander III that he excommunicated William I. Why? Could be interesteing to learn more about. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.140.216.99 (talk) 14:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was no move. DrKiernan (talk) 14:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William I of Scotland → William the Lion — Per WP:NCNT If a monarch or prince is overwhelmingly known, in English, by a cognomen, it may be used, and there is then no need to disambiguate by adding Country. I certainly think this is the case here. In the articles I write, I almost always type [[William I of Scotland|William the Lion]] or King [[William I of Scotland|William]], because it is rare to refer to him as William I. It is uncommon to the refer to William of Orange as William II of Scotland, and therefore it is counter-intuitive to see William the Lion called "William I", even though it is technically correct. In any case, that is my interpretation of why it is so rare. —Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Support as nom. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as we've got a William II of Scotland and also I prefer numerals over nicknames. GoodDay (talk) 19:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment How often have you seen William III of England referred to as William II? See nominating comments. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's mentioned in that article, again I prefer numerals over nicknames. GoodDay (talk) 19:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I think even current guidelines support this. john k (talk) 20:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support: In Britain and the English-speaking world he was known as William The Lion, as appears in virtually every history book you pick up. He is better and popularly known to us as that. But changing this article's title should not be a pretext for changing other monarch's article pages where, say, as in the case of Polish or French monarchs the average English-speaker has barely heard of the king (as in, say, a Louis) let alone heard that his own people called him 'The Bold' or 'The Fat'. So changing the obvious here should not be a pretext for changing the obscure. Regards, David Lauder (talk) 21:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support "William the Lion" over "William I of Scotland." The king is better known by the former name, and in this case the cognomen is much more communicative than the ordinal. But... perhaps, in future, "William I the Lion"? Nihil novi (talk) 23:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as an odd case and should not establish any precedent: the obscure fact that William of Orange was Wm II of Scotland should not be used to force "Wm I of Scotland" in preference to "Wm of Scotland", which form sans numeral is out of favour, and thus we are back at Wm the Lion. Srnec (talk) 06:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Like JK, I see this as being within the scope of the current guideline. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Seems most common in English. - Darwinek (talk) 12:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree with Darwinek. Space Cadet (talk) 15:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Most references I have seen to him use William the Lion. The move will not set a precedent for nicknames, so much a choosing "the most common name", which for most monarchs will still be the name and ordinal version. Gwinva (talk) 19:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because I believe in consistency and naming conventions. Deb (talk) 19:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This naming is how I and most people were taught in school and is by far the commonest way to refer this king. Bill Reid | Talk 19:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The merits may be fine but this volume of requests should be dealt with wholesale, maybe with a change of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles). — AjaxSmack 03:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Nickname test cases. Andrewa (talk) 16:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not nearly well enough known. Johnbod (talk) 04:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not known well enough. Systematical name, William I, is better for this use. Shilkanni (talk) 22:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Another obscure nickname getting revived. I think the ordinal is much more common. Dimadick (talk) 14:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Once again, some evidence of the overwhelming nature of this is appreciated as while there seems to be a majority for William the Lion, it is a slim one from my count. Narson (talk) 09:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per GoodDay. Nicknames inevitably inject POV and lead to arguments as to which ones to use. If this case fell under Angus McLellan's Kenneth MacAlpin argument (i.e., too early to be properly called "King of Scots," which I don't see as contrary to the current guideline), then I would think about it. But I don't see that argument here. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I would rather have consistency in the naming of monarchs, in the format of "monarch name (ordinal) of country". As William the Lion redirects to William I of Scotland, I really don't see a problem with the current name. – Axman (☏) 16:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - There should be naming consistency with monarchs. I'm sure many are known by certain epithets but if a more encyclopaedic term is available in the vernacular, it should be used instead. Parable1991 (talk) 19:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles). "If a monarch or prince is overwhelmingly known, in English, by a cognomen, it may be used, ... But there must be consensus so strong that it would be surprising to omit the epithet". Also a mass proposal like this should have been discussed on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles) to see if there was a consensus 'before a mass WP:RM was made. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:

See Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Nickname test cases. Andrewa (talk) 16:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.