User talk:John K/Naming conventions (names and titles)

May as well comment -- I imagine that's what the page is here for. You won't be surprised to learn that I'm not in favour of the "(King of England)" solution for monarchs. I really don't see its value by comparison with the existing standard. I also think it's more likely to confuse because it's less intuitive. You might expect a new user to guess the title "Richard I of England" but there's no way they would guess "Richard I (King of England)" Okay, there are disambiguation pages and redirects to cope with that, but I prefer prevention to cure. That's just my view. Deb 17:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Except that Richard I of England isn't blindingly obvious. Richard I or King Richard are obvious, and that's why we have so many links to dab pages. It would be nice if there was an obvious technical solution [Is it possible to have links to dab pages show in a different colour ?], but no naming system is going to make finding things intuitive. I'm a history wonk and have a vague grasp of the guidelines, and I have trouble finding things. Not much hope for the average reader. We are woefully short of dabs and redirects, whatever the system is. Readers should not be exposed to the miserable excuse for a search engine on Wikipedia. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Angus. One advantage of the parenthetical, in my view, is pipe trick magic. The other advantage, which I understand that other people don't get, is that, in my view, the real title of an article at the location Richard I (King of England) is "Richard I" - the other is just qualifying information to give a unique location. BTW, Richard I, appears to be the only person of that name, so he'd get to go there. The big advantage that I see to the parentheticals is that it allows non-ambiguous titles to be at just "Name Ordinal." With Kings of England since 1066, that'd be Richard I, Edward II (currently a disambig page, but arguably the King is the primary topic), Edward III, Richard II (again, currently a disambig, but arguably a primary topic, since the others are a play named after him and an obscure duke of normandy), Edward IV, Edward V, Richard III (again with the disambig page that perhaps should not be), Henry VIII, Edward VI, Elizabeth I, James VI and I (which I think would be a reasonable title under a new convention - I think James II and VII should probably be James II (King of England), though), George III, George IV, Edward VII, Edward VIII, George VI, and Elizabeth II. For kings of France since Hugh Capet, you'd have Hugh Capet, Philip Augustus (arguably), Philip VI (arguably - we have a disambiguation with Philip III of Spain, who was supposedly "Philip VI of Burgundy", but that seems unnecessary, since he's never actually called that.), Louis XI, Louis XII, Louis XIII, Louis XIV, Louis XV, Louis XVI, Louis XVII, Louis XVIII, Louis XIX, Louis Philippe I, Napoleon I, Napoleon II, Napoleon III. That's a fair number of simplified titles, and the ones that do need disambiguation wouldn't be at names that are that much worse. Now, I suppose one could do this and also stick by the current disambiguation form, but my problem with this is that an article Henry IV of France being followed by Louis XIII seems weird - as though completely different naming standards are in operation. Parentheticals show that the naming standard is just "name ordinal," with parenthetical disambiguation provided if necessary. john k 22:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other pages that could be moved: John the Fearless, Philip the Good, Charles the Bold; Charles XI and Charles XII; Frederick William II, Frederick William III, and Frederick William IV; Franz Joseph I, Ferdinand VII, Alfonso VII, Alfonso VIII, Alfonso IX, Alfonso X, Alfonso XI, Alfonso XII, Alfonso XIII, Isabella II, Juan Carlos I, Charles Emmanuel I, Victor Amadeus I, Charles Emmanuel II, Victor Amadeus II, Charles Emmanuel III, Victor Amadeus III, Charles Emmanuel IV, Victor Emmanuel I, Charles Felix, Charles Albert, Victor Emmanuel II, Victor Emmanuel III, Carol I, Carol II, Nicholas II, Christian I, Christian II, Christian III, Christian IV, Christian V, Christian VI, Christian VII, Frederick VI, Christian VIII, Frederick VII, Christian IX, Frederick VIII, Christian X, Frederick IX, Margrethe II, Carl XVI Gustaf, Gustaf VI Adolf, Gustavus V, Oscar II (currently a disambiguation page, but arguably), Charles XV, Oscar I, Charles XIV John, Charles XIII, Gustavus IV Adolphus, Gustavus III, Adolf Frederick...

I'm sure there's more. To me, this would be the biggest advantage of a move - all the unambiguous articles that would have a shorter, cleaner title. john k 22:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Add Scots kings before Edgar plus Malcolm IV except the Constantines; most early Bulgar Tsars/Khans; most or all Serbian Tsars; some Georgian Kings, Armenians and Cilician Armenians; most or all Ethiopian Kings/Emperors; quite a few Muscovite/Russian rulers. There are many more that could be moved to [[<name> (<disambiguator>)]] and be better that where they are now: Picts and Strathclyde are cases where the numbers were entirely made up I think. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James IV and James V are also unique, no? We'd also end up with Mary I (Queen of Scots), which would be better than the current name, although still a bit silly looking. john k 00:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although Macbeth, I fear, would have to be disambiguated. Robert III seems to be the only one of his name. In Portugal, it'd depend on how you spell. If you use "Afonso," then all the Afonsos - Afonso I through Afonso VI - are unique. Also Maria I and Maria II are arguably unique, as well as Pedro V. Many German rulers would be unique, although I believe that the way it is currently phrased suggests that monarchs below the level of "King" get the automatic ", Title of Country." But Maximilian II Emanuel, for instance, or Joachim I Nestor, or Johann Georg IV or Franz Friedrich IV are all pretty unique (although the last doesn't have an article). john k 01:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this proposal will introduce an enormous mess. The idea to put every second title in brackets would not be tolerated by the community. It is neither helpful nor practicable. Wikipedia is not consistent, says WP:POINT. We should not force consistence where none is needed. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 12:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was the current policy that was enforcing consistency when none is needed. john k 13:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can see I'm out of step, but if I were, for example, searching for Richard I on Google, I would enter "Richard I" and "England", not just "Richard I", and from that point of view, I think "Richard I of England" is blindingly obvious, actually. And that's what he's usually called. I still feel consistency is important. Deb 18:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With adequate redirects and disambiguation, I don't think that one will have a hard time finding any page. The problem with "Name Ordinal of Country" is that it encourages consistency even in cases where it shouldn't be encouraged, because monarchs are not actually known by a given name. It's more or less fine for Richard I. But "John III of Poland" is a bit ridiculous. I also don't like forms like Louis-Philippe of France and Leopold I of Belgium, when the people held the titles "King of the French" and "King of the Belgians," which is a significant distinction that was considered quite important at the time, and is not simply some kind of obscure alternate title, as the current guidelines seem to suggest. Leopold I (King of the Belgians), would seem far superior to me to Leopold I of Belgium. There's a very limited group of articles for which the current form is undeniably the best. These are generally the most well known royal articles, but the current system works out pretty bad for most other instances. john k 18:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Point 4, "correct name of the state"

4 Take care to use the correct name of the state at the time when a monarch reigned. So it is State or Realm? --Philip Baird Shearer 23:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No idea - I just copied that part from the current guidelines. john k 06:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd make the terminology as vague as possible. Ignoring examples, and combining points 4 and 5, something like:

When disambiguating rulers use their most common title and the associated number. So, for example, use Frederick III (German Emperor) rather than Frederick I (German Emperor) or Frederick III (King of Prussia). When several titles are associated, it is proper and often desirable to give the others compensating prominence in the introduction. Rulers known by multiple titles should be added to disambiguation pages for all plausible search terms. So, for example, Charles IV (Holy Roman Emperor) and Charles V (Holy Roman Emperor) should also appear on the Charles I (disambiguation) page and Frederick III (German Emperor) also on the Frederick I (disambiguation) page. Where unambiguous, redirects should always be created for well known alternative titles. So, for example, James VII should redirect to James II (King of England). Disambiguated redirects, such as Charles I (King of Bohemia), may be created for ease of editing.

Anything here that could be seen as progress ?

I would like to see our guidelines giving due prominence to dab pages, redirects and {{otherpeople}}, as that is where we are going wrong. It may be obvious to someone that Philip the Fair is not Philip the Handsome, but I doubt that it is obvious to everyone as de:Philipp der Schöne, es:Felipe el Hermoso and nl:Filips de Schone are dab pages. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changed James VI/I to James VII/II per JK's comments. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a useful change, and I agree with everything save that I think James VI and I should be at, er, James VI and I. He is just about the only monarch with double ordinals that I feel this way about, but I think that version is widely enough used as to make it worthy of exception. I don't think we should have, say, Charles V and I or James II and VII, or what not, as the primary article title, but James VI and I is really the most common name, and under a new standard I think it would be appropriate. Anyway, I'm going to appropriate your version to the page. john k 14:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]