Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15→Archive 20

Strengthen COMMONNAME

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.
Currently the text of COMMONNAME reads (emphasis added):

Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, title an article using the most common name of the person or thing that is the subject of the article (making the title unique when necessary as described in the following section and in the disambiguation guideline). The naming conflict guideline may help resolve disagreements over the right name to use. Where articles have descriptive names, the given name must be neutrally worded.

I object to the bolded portion because it essentially guts the provision; anyone who writes up another naming convention can override it. I propose a change to the following wording (emphasis indicates added portion):

Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication Title an article using the most common name of the person or thing that is the subject of the article (making the title unique when necessary as described in the following section and in the disambiguation guideline). If it is not obvious what the most common name is, then other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions should be consulted to determine the best name for the article. The naming conflict guideline may help resolve disagreements over the right name to use. Where articles have descriptive names, the given name must be neutrally worded.

I believe this would bring it more in line with the injunction to use the name that "the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize", and reflect the principle that "The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists." The current wording gives far more leeway to specialists than it does to the general audience, and should be changed to remedy this. I am open to other suggestions on wording that would convey the same general intention. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 20:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm opposed to this, as written, although perhaps too much credence is presently given to WikiProject conventions. The royalty naming convention has reduced some edit wars, and the place naming convention was reducing edit wars until [an editor] started acting as if the US place naming convention was a nullity. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Redacted, per request.   Will Beback  talk  23:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
It's not derogatory, but the name of the editor isn't relevant to this discussion unless he participates. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
It's not derogatory? Did you mean that comment to be complementary? --Born2cycle (talk) 01:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
There are three basic views about this issue.
  1. Model 1. The first is the model in which WP:NC serves as a default (what the rules are if no more specific rules apply), and that more specific naming conventions can override and contradict what the WP:NC default rules say.
  2. Model 2. The second view is the model in which WP:NC defines the fundamental naming rules, and that the more specific rules only apply when the fundamental rules don't provide sufficient guidance, in particular whenever "it is not obvious what the most common name is", or to provide guidance for how exactly to disambiguate when disambiguation is required and only when disambiguation is required.
  3. Chaos. The third view is that we use both models, sometimes following the first, sometimes following the second, mostly depending on how the "consensus" addressing a given naming issue happens to be leaning at some given time.
In a sense, the third view is correct, because that's we have today, but the result is an endless source of dispute about naming because of the conflicting models.
This proposal to strengthen COMMONNAME goes a long way towards adopting Model 2.
It should be noted that there would be probably be very little change to royalty names if this change (or the full adoption of model 2) was put into effect. This is because most members of royalty do not have a clear "most commonly used" or "most recognizable" name, and so even with Model 2, the more specific royalty name guideline would provide the same guidance it does today.
It should also be noted that this is true about many other categories as well, such as plants. For example, the vast, vast majority of plants do not have well-known commonly used names, and, so, even with Model 2, the plant-specific WP:NC (flora) guidelines would specify how to name them. Only with respect to well-known commonly used plant names would their names be determined by the fundamental WP:NC rules. In the case of areas well thought-out guidelines like TV episode names there would be absolutely no change, since they wisely already "disambiguate only when necessary".
While both models lead to some inconsistencies, there are much fewer with Model 2, at least with respect to well-known topics. In both models each area has its own guidelines about naming within a given area, and nothing says they have to be consistent with each other, but at least in Model 2 all well-known "primary topic" uses of each name are named consistently per the main WP:NC guidelines. Only names that require disambiguation due to relative obscurity (because they are not primary, or because they are so obscure that there is no obvious name per fundamental WP:NC rules) are named per the more specific naming guidelines. Model 1 does provide intra-consistency of naming within a given area, but little or no inter-consistency among names in disparate areas.
So, in the name of reducing confusion, conflict, dispute and inter-inconsistency with respect to naming articles in Wikipedia, I support this proposal to strengthen COMMONNAME. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
In the interest of reducing confusion, I suggest we should more clearly adopt model 1. The history of the confusion created when specialized guidelines were ignored in favor of WP:COMMONNAME make it clear that merely strengthening it would cause added confusion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Let's not incorrectly attribute the confusion created by the current chaos to Model 2. The chaos confusion/contradiction exists to this day, and more clearly adopting model 1 would not help. Cities in most countries, per their specific guidelines, are disambiguated only when necessary, while in the U.S. all cities except those on the AP list are disambiguated whether they need to be or not. Model 1 does nothing to address this confusion/contradiction; in fact it encourages it.
With respect to U.S. cities, the only reason the confusion/contradiction exists is because a majority insisted on make U.S. city names an exception to WP:NC. Contrast this with WP:NC-TV, for example, which states: "when disambiguation is required, use (TV series)", and add the series name in parentheses only if there are other articles by the same name. In other words, disambiguate only when necessary. Simple. No confusion. No contradiction. If every specific naming guideline said this, there would be no confusion or contradiction at all.
Model 1 guarantees confusion and contradiction, like the inexplicable differences between articles within WP:NC (flora) (assume dabbing required and use the practically-guaranteed-to-be-unique but obscure Latin name) and those within WP:NC (fauna) (considerable priority given to most commonly used/recognizable name). By adopting Model 2 we would eliminate this confusion and contradiction. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Model 2 for me (hence I support the original proposal). It's a question of balance, but generally speaking, cliques of specialists shouldn't be allowed to make their own little rules that override a fundamental community principle.--Kotniski (talk) 06:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I think it's obvious that I support Model 2. I also thank Born2cycle for bringing up the crux of the issue first; if we can't decide on what the underlying principles are, then putting forth a wording proposal is somewhat premature. Any wording which promotes Model 2 over Model 1 is one that I could support.--Aervanath (talk) 06:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

support model 2 per Kotniski Jasy jatere (talk) 09:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Strong oppose. This policy should reflect what people actually do, not what we want them to do. Out there in the mainspace, people take into account a range of considerations, including commonness, consistency across articles, accuracy, neutrality, standardisation within a field, etc.

    Ornithologists have standardised the vernacular names of birds, and WP:BIRDS has long ago decided to follow this real-world convention; who are we to tell them they are wrong?

    Who wants to go move Metallica (album) to The Black Album (Metallica)?; you'll have to if the title Metallica chose for their album is no longer to be given any weight at all.

    Who wants to go tell the physicists to move gravitation to "gravity" because that's the term people use, and the fact that it would be wrong is irrelevant?

    Hesperian 00:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Let us not conflate the name of an article about a topic with the full/correct/official/precise/legal name of the topic.

    There is no right and wrong in article naming. Often they are the same, but often they are not, and when they are not, that is not necessarily wrong. In many cases the most commonly used name to refer to a given topic differs from the full/correct/official/precise/legal name, and the convention in Wikipedia to deal with that is to use the former as the title of the article, disambiguated if and only if necessary (and this is where more specialized guidelines are of great assistance), and to clearly specify the latter in bold in the opening sentence of the article. In those cases where there is no clear most commonly used name this is not an issue because there is no difference, and the more specialized guidelines can provide guidance if there is more than one to choose from.

    So, most bird names are probably fine as they are. Bluejay (rather than Cyanocitta cristata) is consistent with this. But yeah, that Metallica album should probably be moved.

    And even per m-w.com 1 2 gravitation and gravity are synonyms, and so we should just go with whichever is most commonly used among authoritative sources. What's "wrong" with that? --Born2cycle (talk) 14:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose per Hesperian. Do we have to go through all this again? Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose because this will strip away the protection of years of considered debate and consensus determination at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (adjectives), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Armenian), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite and indefinite articles at beginning of name), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (astronomical objects), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (baseball players), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Burmese), Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Canada-related articles), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (law enforcement agency categories), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (chemistry), Wikipedia:Manual of Style (chemistry)/Nomenclature, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Clergy), Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Naming Conventions, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (comics), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (companies), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (country-specific topics), Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Ancient Egyptian), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (government departments and ministers), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Greek), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Hebrew), Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean), Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Kosovo-related articles), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (languages), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Latter Day Saints), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (long lists), Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (manuscript names), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Mongolian), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (pieces of music), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (New Zealand), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Norse mythology), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (numbers and dates), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (operas), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (political parties), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision), Wikipedia:Romanization of Russian, Wikipedia:Romanization of Ukrainian, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ancient Romans). Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (technical restrictions), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles), Wikipedia:Manual of Style (U.S. state and territory highways), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (verbs), Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines/Naming, Wikipedia:WikiProject Mining/Style guide and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements)/Counties and lead to a quagmire of ambiguity and uncertainty. Melburnian (talk) 02:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Model 2, for all the reasons given. Support Model 1, an attractive alternative to Chaos.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose strengthening. I support model 2 above. There needs to be negotiation with specialist areas to ensure there is no ambiguity when common names are used. The two can complement each other rather well if this is taken into account. i.e some simple/common names are good as long as they are not ambiguous and also to have some conformity with other entities in a given area. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I support the change that Aervanath is proposing as the current wording is confusing (as shown by some of the comments in this section). Most of the advise on the guidelines became redundant about a year ago when we added to this policy page that reliable sources should be used. Policy supersedes guideline advise. This is the naming conventions policy page, all the rest are guidelines to the naming conventions. So common names should be used unless there is another more detailed convention on this page that contradicts that. (I proposed about a year ago that this page be renamed so that there was less confusion over the difference between policy and the guidelines to the policy -- perhaps we should have another request). --PBS (talk) 10:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose for reasons explained by Hesperian. • Rabo³ • 12:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Naming conventions exist for good reasons and are the result of years of discussion.   Will Beback  talk  16:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Naming policy exists for good reasons and are the result of years of discussion. I don't think it's clear at all that what many of the specific naming guidelines say is said for good reasons. A lot of them appear to have been formed by small groups of biased specialists focused on their particular area, with little or no regard to the goal of naming consistency throughout Wikipedia. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm happy to see this resolved in a way that supports common sense. That means if there is a common name use it, don't use a scientific or obscure name when an English common name is available. Also, understand that since for many articles that share a common name, disambiguation is the first choice for the main name space when primary usage is not clearly established. What we have today is chaos! I have said over the years, that this policy is part of our style sheet and as such it should produce predictable results. As a side effect, it should reduce conflict and extended discussions of article names. It should also reduce editor confusion. My gut says that either model 1 or 2 could work. That means we may only need to tweak the current wording. I'm just not sure what that change is or how easy it would be to reach a consensus. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Common sense suggests that works best for operas is not what might work best for plants, and that the best common sense solution for Kosovo related articles many not work so well for companies. The limitations of a single top down solution is what has lead to the plethora of naming conventions listed by Melburnian. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
  • It is certainly true that what works well in one area might not work well in another area. However, as Wikipedians, we all follow certain fundamental policies; WP:Verifiablity, WP:Neutrality, etc. Those fundamental policies apply EVERYWHERE. Therefore it is not unreasonable to assume that there are OTHER common rules which can apply on a broad scope. In my view, COMMONNAME is one of them. I am not an expert in any of the various fields that have their own naming conventions, and our readers aren't either. That's the whole point. We should be optimizing this for the readers of our articles, not the specialists. While it is tempting to say that "opera editors know best about opera" and "plant editors know about plants", and therefore we should defer to them, that's the opposite to what we should be doing. We should be optimizing this for people who don't know anything about any subject, and are looking to learn. That means putting articles in the place where most people are likely to look.--Aervanath (talk) 21:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Exactly. Also, no one is advocating a single top down solution. Just some consistent principles that should apply consistently everywhere - nuances still have to be handled case-by-case. But naming should be consistent at some fundamental level. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
  • (ec) Yes, I agree with that, but not at the expense of accuracy. Plants is a case in point where common names often very wildly, are multiple or nonexistent, same with most invertebrates and fish. Birds are virtually the only creatures with official common names. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I think "plants is a case" is not correct. Plants is not a case - plants is a collection of countless cases, and for many, most or perhaps even the vast majority of those cases it may be true that "common names often vary wildly, are multiple or nonexistent". And for each one of those cases where that's true, then, as well as any time disambiguation is required, the plant-specific guideline should kick in, so to speak. But for all those cases where there is a clear single easily recognized most commonly used unambiguous name for the plant topic in question, then that should be the title. But thinking of "plants" (or any group of articles) as a whole being a separate case en masse is problematic from the outset. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
  • From Aervanath - We should be optimizing this for the readers of our articles, not the specialists. You know in these discussions I am sick to death of this kind of argument. It is not a case of elitist specialists lording it over the pondlife masses. That is not what it is about. It is a question about organisation. Naming conventions are essentially a question about where the article in question sits. We should be optimizing this for people who don't know anything about any subject, and are looking to learn. That means putting articles in the place where most people are likely to look. Bullshit. That is not what this is about. Example, the article on pigeons is currently sitting at Columbidae. This is not the name people are looking for, they are looking for pigeon. But they still find what they are looking for, which is an article on pigeons (and doves. The whole stupid reason we have the article at Columbidae is we had millions of screaming voices saying "pigeons aren't doves, we can't have the article on one or the other pages). What gets readers to where they want to be is not where the article sits ultimately but what redirects and dab pages point to it. If people want to find Joshua tree it doesn't matter where it sits as long as the dab page is clear or the redirect is there. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
  • This assertion is only true to the extent that the reader is searching for the text instead of scanning through a category. Redirects are rarely categorized. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Also, the situation with pigeon and dove is exactly the kind of case where my wording of COMMONNAME would put the article at Columbidae: there are two, approximately equally used, ambiguous names, so the title should default to the scientific name. I have no problem with that. However, in the hypothetical case that all species of Columbidae were universally known as pigeons, with no confusion, then I would argue that the article should be called pigeon. I have trouble with specific naming conventions that ignore a universally used common name in favor of the specialized name.--Aervanath (talk) 22:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I have trouble with specific naming conventions that ignore a universally used common name in favor of the specialized name. Such as? In months and months of debate, I have yet to be given a single compelling example where the proposed rewording would correct an obvious title error. A few marginal, arguable examples are offered, like this Metallica (album) versus The black album (Metallica) issue, but that is it. Born2cycle, to his credit, tried to offer some compelling plant examples, but in every case offered, the scientific name was at least equal in usage in reliable third-party sources to the vernacular name that B2c had alleged was more commonly used, and in most cases the scientific name absolutely smashed the vernacular name. So where are these examples? Do you have any? Will this change actually have an impact, or is it pointless idealogy? Just one compelling example. Please. Hesperian 00:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm puzzled. Since the proposal won't change much if anything with areas like plants, why are you so opposed to it? --Born2cycle (talk) 01:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  • How many times must I answer this question before you bother listening to the answer? The outcome will be the same. The process will change from clear guidelines easily followed, to months and months and months and months of hairsplitting googlewanking bullshit pointless arguments with tosspots who get off on that kind of thing. Have I made myself clear yet? Hesperian 05:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I brought up pigeon not as an example of common names versus scientific ones but to refute the idea that a scientific article title precludes people being able to find the article they wanted. Two different points entirely, so please don't conflate them. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
  • One great way to use Wikipedia is to scan categories. That method is useless if the names listed in the categories (article titles) are unfamiliar to the reader. Say a reader is home from a California vacation, and there was a tree she wants to look up, but can't quite remember the name (but probably will if she sees it again). If it's Joshua Tree, Torrey Pine, Monterey Cypress or just about any other tree in California, it will be impossible for her to find it in category of list of trees of California.

    The idea that a scientific article title precludes people being able to find the article they wanted has not been refuted. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Easier said than done. How are you with herding cats? This brings up another problem with Model 1... nothing in the model allows for ensuring that the redirects from the most commonly used name are created in the first place. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  • ... whereas Model 2 will create all the redirects, herd all the cats, and write a host of featured articles for us on its days off, right? Hesperian 05:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Precisely. While TV episode names were using Model 1, at least partially, there were all kinds of missing dab pages and links. That is, there might be a unique TV episode named "An extraordinary night", but the title would be predabbed with the TV series name as An extraordinary night (The Adventures of Hesperian), and there would be no dab page at the name of the episode itself, An extraordinary night, which would just be red. Or, that would exist as some other article with no hat note to the TV episode name, or it would be a dab page with no link to the episode article. Why? Because editors were simply creating the article at the name they thought it should be at, and really had no reason to check what if anything was going on with the basic name. I've seen the same kind of thing in other categories that predab, from U.S. cities to Russian subs. But once they switched to Model 2 all those got fixed. Now, per Model 2, each TV episode name is guaranteed to be occupied with either the article itself, or a dab page. When someone creates a new article under Model 2, the first thing they do is try to use the "most commmonly used name", so they are forced by the model to naturally discover if it needs dabbing. With Model 1, it's somebody else's problem. It's hard to quantify how big this problem is, but I seriously think it's pretty significant in any category that predabs. It is a significant difference between the two models, and as long as humans keep coming up with new topics to cover in Wikipedia, it will only get worse the more Model 1 is adopted. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Ah, I understand this point now. This is why I have a user space subpage dedicated to identifying Western Australian places for which the "PLACENAME, Western Australia" article has been created but no-one bothered to redirect or disambiguation from the "PLACENAME" article. But whilst your argument holds for predisambiguated pages, there is no evidence or reason to believe that it holds in all cases; for example there is no evidence that it applies in the case of scientific name versus vernacular name. Hesperian 07:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  • So in the context of the general Model 1 v. 2 debate, Model 2 gets the nod on this point, at least for all specific guidelines that predisambiguate contrary to WP:COMMONNAME under Model 1. Agreed?
  • And for specific guidelines that choose in Model 1 scientific over most easily recognized (when applicable) under Model 1, we still have the categorization problem. For example, look at trees of California. For the non-specialist reader browsing through that category is useless, for the names are incomprehensible. He is going to have to click on each and every link to even get an idea of what it is about. Let's randomly take the first one on the list, Abies bracteata. It has two vernacular names listed, Bristlecone Fir and Santa Lucia Fir. Now, let's do a basic google test.
  • Results 1 - 10 of about 3,330 for "Bristlecone fir"
    Results 1 - 10 of about 751 for "Santa Lucia Fir".
  • No contest, agreed? So why not change the article name to Bristlecone fir (oh, looky there, it's red... evidence of the problem even for vernacular names after all), and make Abies bracteata a redirect to the article? This is what adopting Model 2 would accomplish, automatically (no need to herd cats to get it done), and the reader would see the familiar Bristlecone fir rather than the foreign Abies bracteata when browsing trees of California, and any other category in which that plant is listed. Now do this for every plant that is likely to be familiar to the general non-specialist reader, and you have a huge improvement in the encyclopedia. That's what this is about. --Born2cycle (talk) 14:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't know why I continue to hold out hope that you might mount an honest argument at some point. Firstly, you've omitted
    Results 1 - 10 of about 9,300 for "Abies bracteata"
    Why did you do that? Surely you wouldn't have overlooked such an obvious search phrase. I think you deliberately omitted because the result forces you to concede that either (a) A. bracteata is the most commonly used name; or (b) your google hits method is useless. Either way, your argument is an epic fail. Your premise that the names are incomprehensible is repudiated by the very method you've adopted. And you knew it before you even hit the save button.
    Secondly, a single red link is not evidence; it is a datum. It seems to me that people visit and link to familiar titles more often than they visit and link to obscure titles; that's the whole point of all this COMMONNAMES stuff, isn't it? Doesn't that imply that redirects from common names are more likely to be created than redirects from obscure names? And doesn't that imply that people will be much quicker to create redirects from familiar titles to an obscure title, than they are to create redirects from obscure titles to a familiar title? And doesn't it follow that we can optimise future redirect creation by putting our articles at the most obscure titles available, thus maximising the familiarity of the titles from which redirects are required? Reductio ad absurdum. Hesperian 23:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  • As I thought I made clear, I was using the google test only to decide between the two vernacular forms. The google test popularity of the scientific form over the vernacular forms is irrelevant to the point I was making, and it does not prove that English speaking non-specialist Wikipedia readers are more likely to be familiar with the scientific form than the vernacular forms. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  • It is not at all irrelevant; the result of that query either refutes your premise that the scientific name is less recognisable than the vernacular names; or it refutes your premise that the google test is useful for assessing the relative recognisability of names. Either way, your argument is refuted.
    Thankyou for providing me with a diff in which you have explicitly stated that the google test is useless for determining the relative familiarity of scientific and vernacular names to non-specialist readers. I'll be sure to keep it to hand. Hesperian 00:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I said it was "irrelevant to the point I was making" in answer to your query about why I didn't check on the ghit count for the scientific name. That doesn't mean it's irrelevant to anything else. If you would like to discuss whether it's relevant to some point you're trying to make, we can do that, but that's a different issue.
  • The result of your query only refutes the premise that the scientific name is less recognizable than the vernacular names if you also accept the premise that the Google test is always a reliable tool for determining whether the scientific or vernacular name is more likely to be familiar. My argument is not dependent on that premise. Is yours?
  • You say that if that premise is not refuted, then it refutes the premise that the google test is useful for assessing the relative recognisability of names. My argument is not dependent on that premise either.
  • My argument is based only on the limited premise that the Google test is useful for assessing the relative familiarity or recognizability of vernacular names. Since your query is outside of the scope of this premise, it is irrelevant to the point I was making. Which is why I said that in the first place.
    So, with all irrelevant tangents aside, I ask again, why not change the article name to Bristlecone fir, and make Abies bracteata a redirect to the article? Or is it your position that the typical English speaking WP reader/user is likely to find the scientific name to be more familiar and/or recognizable than either of the vernacular names? --Born2cycle (talk) 01:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
  • As I read it, your argument rests in part upon the premise that "for the non-specialist reader... the [scientific] names are incomprehensible"; and on the unstated premise that the corresponding vernacular names are not so. Not only did you start your argument with this premise, but you subsequently invoke it in the assertion that "the reader would see the familiar Bristlecone fir rather than the foreign Abies bracteata." A refutation of a premise upon which your argument rests is not an "irrelevant tangent"; it is the demolition of your argument. Your most cherished belief doesn't become irrefutable fact just because you don't like it to be challenged. So tell me, does the result of my Google test refute your premise? If not, why not? Hesperian 03:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
  • You've avoided answering my question twice now...

    First, yes, my argument here does rest in part on the premise that scientific names are significantly less likely to be comprehended than are the corresponding English vernacular names. Most WPians who are not even familiar with the plant are probably more likely to infer that Bristlecone fir is a type of fir tree than they are likely to infer that from Abies bracteata (which to me, for example, if I didn't just learn what it was, it could just as likely be a weed, a type of frog, some kind of bacteria, or perhaps even be Latin for something like "over the shoulder boulder holder").

    Second, I agree of course that a refutation of this premise would not be an irrelevant tangent.

    Your Google test does not refute my premise because ghits and "likely to be comprehended" are not necessarily directly correlated. Are you prepared to argue that they are directly correlated? I didn't think so. So I assume we don't have to go down that path (why debate/dispute something we both already agree on?). Please correct me if I'm wrong.

    Now, for the third time, why not change the article name to Bristlecone fir, and make Abies bracteata a redirect to the article? Or is it your position that the typical English speaking WP reader/user is likely to find the scientific name to be more familiar and/or recognizable than either of the vernacular names? --Born2cycle (talk) 04:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Your question is a request that I restate all of the myriad arguments that I have put forward in support of the present flora convention, and all of the myriad arguments that I have put forward in refutation of your arguments. In short, you're asking me to go back six months and start this interminable discussion all over again. I quite understand that you would like nothing more than to argue over naming conventions forevermore, but I have better things to do. In answer to your question, I direct you to the megabytes of discussion at WT:NC (flora). You certainly cannot deny that I have already answered this question at length numerous times therein. Hesperian 05:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Okay, in retrospect, that's probably fair about the first question, but not at all about the second, which I would think you should be able to answer with either one of two particular words. I think we have just enough room for that.  ;-). Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
  • It depends on how familiar and recognisable are defined.
    1. I recognise Bristlecone Fir as a term I've heard before, but I have no idea what it means."
    2. "I don't know what Bristlecone Fir means but I assume it means some kind of fir tree."
    3. "I know exactly what Bristlecone Fir means.
    Case 1 is of no interest. I grant that Case 2 favours Bristlecone Fir over Abies bracteata, since, for most people, it is easier to extract context from "cone" and "fir" than it is to extract context from "Abies" and "bract". I assert that Case 3 favours Abies bracteata over Bristlecone Fir; i.e. the precise scope of the article is more easily infered from Abies bracteata than from Bristlecone Fir.
    Now before you start trying to negotiate with me over how familiar and recognisable should be defined, permit me to remind you that this is completely irrelevant, because WP:COMMONNAMES doesn't enjoin us to choose names with these properties; it tells us to choose the most commonly used name (according to usage in reliable sources). User talk:Hesperian|Hesperian]] 06:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


  • Wikipedia is not a textbook or guide book. We do not set up any of our bird or plant or fungus articles as identification keys. Unless you actually have some idea what you are after we can't help. Sorry. I suggest your reader goes onto Google and tries there. Once they know what tree they are after they can come here, type in either the scientific or common name, and then get the article they want. Or hell, check out the article California native plants, which is probably a much easier way of finding out what they are after. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Using article titles that are likely to be recognized by non-specialists in order to make Wikipedia categories useful for readers to find articles does not turn Wikipedia into a guide book or a text book. WP categories are uniquely useful for this purpose - it is not something that google searches offer. If categories are to be filled with generally unrecognizable names, why have categories? --Born2cycle (talk) 00:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I like "Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, title an article..." I note however that this dispute concerns the article page name, not the article title. Once we settle this, the guideline should be revised to make this important distinction clearer. --Una Smith (talk) 22:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • While it seems clear that this proposal is not going to succeed, I'm curious as to how you would define the difference between the article page name and the article title. My impression has always been that "moving a page" and "retitling an article" were complete synonyms here, if only because of the technical details of the MediaWiki software.--Aervanath (talk) 22:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
  • (ec) I'm almost certain there there is no way to make a title different from its page name. So I've always used and interpreted the terms completely interchangeably. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Okay, here's what I mean. The page named Breeching is a dab. Entries on it include two articles about breeching, on pages named Breeching (boys) and Breeching (tack). The dab and the two articles all have different page names but share the title Breeching. An article has only one page name, but it can have multiple titles. Page names cannot be shared but titles can be shared and often are. Consider how we use pipes to display a title when it differs from the page name: [[Breeching (tack)|Breeching]]. --Una Smith (talk) 02:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Oh! Yes, I agree the guideline could be improved in terms of making the distinction clearer between the topic name part and the disambiguation part of dabbed titles. But I still think the whole thing could be referred to as either the title, or the page name, and they are always one and the same. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose per Hesperian, Melburnian, and countless others who have opposed past attempts to emasculate WikiProjects who have put a great deal of expertise, experience, and thought into their project naming conventions. We should continue to trust the boots on the ground and the time proven policy of giving power to the people who are doing the actual work on this project. First Light (talk) 23:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The problem is that golf specialists, for example, are not necessarily Wikipedia article naming specialists. Many of the members of these projects are likely to know very little if anything about WP:NC or why it exists. They are likely to have never thought at all about the problem of making article naming across Wikipedia consistent and how to solve it. Specializing in the naming issues of a particular area does not make one an expert on how best to name topics in Wikipedia in general, or even how best to title WP articles within that area of expertise (though often such specific naming expertise is very helpful, especially when disambiguation is required). --Born2cycle (talk) 04:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
The very fact that a project has thought enough about naming to create set of naming conventions suggests that they must be tangentially aware that generalised naming conventions exist (otherwise how could they add some subject specific supplements?). Moreover if a project isn't aware of these conventions and goes around naming things willy-nilly it doesn't matter what we change here, because they won't be aware of it. Besides, there is no danger of projects being unaware of the conventions, as well meaning editors can be relied upon to point it out, at length and as often as is needed, should they dare venture from said conventions. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
@B2c - sorry, general article naming specialists? Who would they be then? If they are not aware of the specific accuracy of a given name in a topic they are unfamiliar with how can they possibly advise of the correct name without input from specialised topic guidelines or specialists? Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Apparently B2c thinks that golf specialists are not necessarily Wikipedia article naming specialists... but Wikipedia article naming specialists are necessarily gold specialists, bird specialists, plant specialists, ship specialists, royalty specialists, place name specialists, mammal specialists, history specialists, physics specialists, music specialists.... Hesperian 05:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm just saying that being a non-specialist in a given area probably means you have a better sense of what names are likely to be familiar to other non-specialists (i.e. typical readers of WP) than are specialists in that area. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
As a non-expert in any number of things, ranging from 17th century naval law to country music to Greco-Roman architecture to the minor works or Virgil to chemistry to the career of Engelbert Humperdick to Art Nouveau ceramics to the diplomatic relations of Caribbean island states, I can assure you that I'd trust the judgements of people who know something about them over mine any day of the week. Including how best to make them accessible to ignoramuses like me. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose the change as suggested, you wouldnt seek legal advice from some punk on a street corner you'd see a lawyer why should we have a policy thats says the street corner punk is the one who should be deciding the name. Gnangarra 11:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
OK, anyone feel like archiving this as, erm, not going to pass? Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
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.

Naming question

The country music trio Schuyler, Knobloch & Overstreet began its life as Schuyler, Knobloch and Overstreet. Its debut album was released under that name, but two of the three singles (including a #1) were credited to just S-K-O. The second album was released as S-K-B (…and Bickhardtt) before they disbanded. Since all three names were used for a roughly equal period of time, which name should the article take? S-K-B since it was the most recent name used, or S-K-O since it was the name they had greatest success under? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 14:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I would say the name with which they had the most success, unless there is reason to believe some other name is more commonly used to refer to them. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
The last name tends to be what is used in other cases, like for a radio call sign in an article. A more interesting question might be are both bands notable and are they different enough to merit separate articles? WP:MUSIC does not appear to address this point, but maybe asking there might get a better answer. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
They were only around for two years. Three singles were credited to S-K-O and three to S-K-B. Given that they're effectively the same band and weren't around for very long in any incarnation, it should probably be just one article. I'm tempted to say S-K-O, myself, since their biggest hit was as S-K-O. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 04:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Then go with S-K-O, if that's what they were known as for their biggest hit, unless S-K-B is more common in reliable sources. So, check Google New, Books, etc.--Aervanath (talk) 18:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Macedonia naming Request for Comments

A Centralized discussion page set up to decide on a comprehensive naming convention about Macedonia-related naming practices is now inviting comments on a number of competing proposals from the community. Please register your opinions on the RfC subpages 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Capitalization exception

I've toned this down somewhat. I think it was the original intention that fancy caps may be used to disambiguate, but don't have to be:

except where non-standard capitalization is selected as one of the many possible methods of disambiguation.

but if may be clearer now.

I'm not sure this is a good idea; on the one hand, if there were another Invader Zim, it might be simpler to use Invader ZIM than Invader Zim (video game). On the other hand, the reason we don't encourage funky caps is that they are often surprising and inconvenient to readers. It may be better to remove this and leave the question to IAR. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Especially considering that WP:MOS-TM leans against using non-standard caps.--Aervanath (talk) 18:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with the video game, but I'm guessing this is a similar scenario to Spore or SimCity, which are spelled in all caps in the logo, but not elsewhere? If that's the case, I'd recommend spelling it Invader Zim. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 20:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

A proposal

I'd like to know the regulars' opinions of changing Wikipedia policy pages from (disambiguation) format to /subpage format. Please read and respond here. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 02:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

For those who read this too quickly (as I did), this proposal doesn't relate to articles, only pages in the Wikipedia: namespace. So all the separate naming conventions would become subpages of WP:Naming conventions, etc.--Aervanath (talk) 03:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I wonder how many proposals are felled through hasty phrasing... Thanks again! ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 03:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't say it was hasty phrasing on your part: you clearly stated "Wikipedia policy pages". The hastiness was in my reading of it, and THAT's what fells a lot of proposals: people reading too quickly, missing a crucial detail, and participating in the discussion from a position of ignorance.--Aervanath (talk) 03:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, but I almost always participate from a position of ignorance, I should assume the same of other people. There's already been one comment under your same assumption. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 04:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Music: technical terms

The currently guidelines for music only give suggestions for works and band names. However, I believe it would be helpful to many editors to have some advice on "technical" terms.

For example, a merge of acoustic scale and lydian dominant scale has been proposed (since they are the same pitches, but conceptualized and used differently) but no article title has been suggested. The current Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Music give no suggestion as to whether they should be kept separate articles or merged, and if merged, where to. Hyacinth (talk) 19:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Then that means that it's up to the editors of those pages to agree on what the best page name should be. After that discussion, you could generalize the results of that specific consensus to other articles, and add it into the guideline. If someone else disagrees, then you can discuss it at the convention's talk page.--Aervanath (talk) 17:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Italic titles for genera and lower taxon titles

A proposal to adopt a new naming convention for the Tree of Life wikiproject:

The editors at Tree of Life are ready to begin italicizing titles of all genera and lower-level taxa as per IUCZN guidelines. We have been advised not to continue until this action is approved. It appears to fall under Naming Conventions, not MoS, so I'm proposing the change in policy here. We have two methods by which we can italicize the title, one using a hack with the {{taxobox}} template and a second using an actual {{italictitle}} template. There is clear consensus within the project that this needs to be done. The only opposition comes from outside the project. A poll was taken, and 38 editors supported the change, while only 21 did not. The 21 did not include a single Wikipedian from the ToL project.

Please review the RfC before approving, as it seems controversial among those not involved with this project.

Thank you, Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 19:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Approve. Seems to me that consensus has pretty much been reached over this. I don't know who else's approval you think you need, but you can certainly have mine. --Kotniski (talk) 19:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Well no, I don't think that's how it works. I was just saying that my opinion is that it should be approved; my one voice doesn't automatically make it approved. (But I'm not really sure whose approval you're now seeking.) --Kotniski (talk) 20:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  • This is a bad idea; there is no consensus to make an exception for this class of articles. Powers T 13:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I tend to agree with Carl's comment below, but just for interest, can you tell us why you consider this a bad idea?--Kotniski (talk) 14:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
      • I did; because there is no strong consensus to overturn such long-standing convention. Powers T 14:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
        • Well, it's not really a long-standing convention, AFAIK it's an issue that's only arisen recently, thanks to new technical possibilities. If the experts in a field consider that making use of the new functionality will make their articles more accurate/professional, then I think we need a pretty good reason if we're going to say that they can't.--Kotniski (talk) 15:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Italicization is not a naming issue, it is a style issue. A name is the same whether it is in roman, bold, italics, or small caps, or put in quotation marks. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I've just added a paragraph to WP:Naming conventions (technical restrictions), saying what the technical situation is, but without stating right or wrong as yet. Perhaps it would be helpful to continue discussing this matter on that talk page.--Kotniski (talk) 15:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
It's a bit of trouble; some computers won't display it correctly, and we don't do it for novels (for which the convention of italicization is somewhat stronger). Don't lets. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
My understanding is that there's a standard for taxa that scientists pretty universally follow, presumably even when the name does not appear in running text (which is the situation we're dealing with). While it might be very common to italicize novel titles within text, it isn't necessary when they appear on their own. Can you specify what computers (browsers?) don't display these titles correctly?--Kotniski (talk) 22:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Not offhand; but to change is a bet that there are none. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether an appeal to facts and W3 standards is worth much, but the markup of an example is <h1 id="firstHeading" class="firstHeading"><i>Yucca brevifolia</i></h1> ; the <i> tag is generally used to mark up italics in article bodies as well. If that's not convincing, but an analysis of the CSS id and class would be, I'll do that as well.--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
That does look unlikely to break. It's still unnecessary. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I think a decision should be come to more broadly than just for scientific names. It would be particularly odd to have italicized the titles of articles on scientific names, but not the titles of articles on books and movies. A broader solution seems in order. john k (talk) 17:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
See my point above - with scientific names it's an official and generally respected standard, whereas with book titles etc. it's just a convention that has limited application outside running text.--Kotniski (talk) 07:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
What is the basis for this claim about book titles, etc.? john k (talk) 13:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Look at the title page of a randomly selected book - the title probably won't be in italics. --Kotniski (talk) 13:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
This is true, of course. But the title of a wikipedia article is not the title page of the book itself. john k (talk) 14:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
John, You can see that at the RfC there was no clear consensus or even a majority for either direction on that issue when it was discussed last month. Therefore, book title naming convention guidelines haven't been altered yet. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 17:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. My point is that I think italicization of titles should be an issue taken up on a broader front, and not project by project. john k (talk) 14:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
It isn't so much a project by project approach in this case as a difference in the relative merits between the two subjects. Biological literature is utterly unambiguous and inflexible, you use italics. That is why every TOL editor was behind it. With books there isn't the same level of consistency. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
You know, here's a question I haven't seen asked or answered yet: do other encyclopedias italicize headings, or only in text? Powers T 20:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Microsoft Encarta does. The Encyclopedia of Life does. How many more do you need? When the technology is available, they do it. Besides, according to WP:IAR, it's okay to break a standard if it improves the situation. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 20:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I've found at least one that didn't, although it was a short-form encyclopedia with dictionary-length entries. As far as IAR goes, it can be invoked to support either side of the argument. Powers T 20:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
[1, 2, 3 ... 18!] This 'rule' in the real world, adopted with an overwhelming consensus here, "prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia"? cygnis insignis 21:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I guess it depends how you define "improve". I'd argue that making Wikipedia's article titles consistent with the entire world of biology is an improvement, whereas presumably those against consider stylistic consistency across the entire project an improvement over everyone doing whatever the hell they want. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Bingo! I'm glad someone here can see both sides of the argument. Powers T 01:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
You do realise that the overpowering strength of Wikipedia is driven by people mostly doing "whatever the hell they want". Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Sure, but they still must stay within certain guidelines. Powers T 13:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
The trick being to get the balance of the two right. In this particular case sacrificing some stylistic consistency seems quite small if it allows Wikipedia to obey a fundamental rule of biological nomenclature and thus doesn't annoy the biologists (nothing screams amateur to a biologist like opening a paper and reading Homo Sapiens or Tyrannosaurus rex or worst of all canis lupus). Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
You're definitely right about the professionalism. With professionalism comes credibility. Without credibility, the articles are worthless. This part of the wiki is typically not even looked at by people uninterested in the field, anyway, so why are you concerned? ToL has more articles that will never be viewed except by people within the field than does any project. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 20:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that there is some ridiculous exaggeration going on as to the "unprofessionalism" here. The capitalization issue is just moot - wikipedia articles have no problems with that that I am aware of. As far as italicization, it is done in every context except the article title. At any rate, I have no strong objection to italicization, it just seems to me that it is odd to italicize only the taxonomic names, and no other article titles. It seems to me that if no titles are italicized, then we are basically free of any fears about "professionalism" with italicization - the issue is simply that we don't italicize any article titles, so there's nothing to be concerned about. As soon as you start italicizing one type of articles, then you open up the claim for all manner of claims of "unprofessionalism" on this front. Beyond that, I think Wikipedia has numerous problems with "professionalism" as it is, and that "not italicizing article titles that are the scientific names of organisms" is pretty low on the list of reasons that people don't find wikipedia credible. john k (talk) 00:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Were we to have a policy of not italicising anything then the question would be moot. We don't have such a policy and never had, we have only until this point had a technical restriction. Now we no longer have a technical restriction, we only have ambiguity. I don't disagree with a lot of what you say but I will say this, if we italicise only one thing that thing should be taxanomic names. If policy dictates we don't italicise anything then not italicising taxanomic names is simply odd if we have the opportunity to do so. If we do italicise some things but not taxonomic names then we would be very wrong. There is a case for italicising other things, but that case is not as strong as it is for taxanomic names. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
All who think this argument is "moot" may now resign, since it really doesn't matter what the outcome is anyway. :)
In the world of biology, not italicizing scientific names in a reference is like not capitalizing the first letter of each sentence. If you don't, fellow scientists are less likely to believe you've got anything of value to share with them.
As for consistency, we are striving for a consistency. We want Wikipedia's biological articles to follow the same rules the rest of the world of biology follows. I personally have nothing against the other WikiProjects adopting an italicization policy, so long as they are willing to enforce it. ToL has a whole team of people ready to enforce it, and there is no controversy within the project that would stand in its way, so the goal is very realistic, too. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 18:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Character (arts)#Gathering material on character into one article

Other thoughts are needed on this matter. I especially encourage editors here involved in topics relating to this to weigh in on it. I fully expect some to disagree with me on this matter and am not simply looking for people to agree, but also consensus. Two editors by themselves going back and forth on this -- whether the article is best titled Fictional character or Character (arts), or whether we should have articles with both of these titles -- is not going to solve anything. Flyer22 (talk) 01:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Naming conflict page

It is being asserted at WT:Naming conflict that the name someone/something gives itself is to be used in preference to the common name for that person/thing. Is this really the case? I would have thought not, but if it is, surely this page needs to be amended to state that. Please join in that discussion to hammer out the relationship and inconsistencies between this page and that.--Kotniski (talk) 04:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, are these hundreds of guidelines part of the policy, or not part of the policy? That is, can you freely move text between this policy and its guidelines??    M   05:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Naming convention for Burmese geographical names

A discussion has started about the lack of a clear guideline on Burmese geographical names here. Any input is welcome. Skinsmoke (talk) 01:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Italic title

Should this be used for articles of works of fiction, like films, video games, albums, novels...? The only mention of its use that I can use is for binomial nomenclature. BOVINEBOY2008 03:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Modification of convention for monarchs

Wikipedia's current convention related to the proper naming of sovereigns is ambiguous. A recurring topic of discussion is what happens when more than one country shares a head of state (eg, Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth Realms)? Some ask why the current title, Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom is not adequate. Well, is have been said that since the British Empire no longer exists, and nearly all residual legislative links between the UK and former colonies have been severed, it is no longer appropriate for the UK to have a "monopoly" on the reigning monarch of 16 different heads of state.

My proposal is that English Wikipedia, in accordance with the majority of foreign language editions, eliminate the country marker from all monarchs. Only the regnal name and numeral (if any) would be retained. In the case of two prominent monarchs, a disambiguation would be needed. However, in the case of one well-known monarch and one lesser-known one, a simple heading could be placed on the dominant article, directing the reader to any other uses of the term.

Other discussions on this topic can be seen at the following locations:

I look forward to hearing everybody's input. Jagislaqroo (talk) 08:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

This would be a good excellent idea. This should solve many issues. If the Thai and Japanese monarchs can have it this way, then so should all the other monarchs, especially ones who reign/reigned over more than one independent country equally. If there are more than one monarchs with the same name & regnal number and are also equally well known, then only should a country name be included in the article name. So, anyone have any ideas on how the addition to the naming conventions should be formally worded? --~Knowzilla (Talk) 09:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Strongly agreed. Specific naming conventions should be strictly subordinate to the generic guideline which says that articles should be titled by their most common names. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
While I have been quite vocal in my view that WP:COMMONNAME should be stronger than it currently is, that view has recently been rejected (see Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions/Archive_13), so specific naming conventions still override the "rule of the common name". However, I still certainly support changing the specific guidelines so that the common name, when one clearly exists, is used. So I would support this change to the names and titles guideline.--Aervanath (talk) 16:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
That archived thread is depressing. It still appears that, as here, we're supporting a position where individual WikiProjects own their domains by default, whereas IMO WikiProjects should do their very best to coordinate themselves with the encyclopedia as a whole. Every high-profile example I've seen of WP:COMMONNAME being ignored in favour of a more project-specific rule has been the wrong decision. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I actually support the case to move "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom" to "Elizabeth II", but I disagree with some of the arguments being bandied around here. Every British monarch since around the Glorious Revolution and certainly after the Hanoverian Succession was monarch of an empire stretching among territories much larger than the British Isles, including the Thirteen Colonies, what would be Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, Pakistan, Burma, South Africa and so on. Yes, Elizabeth II was crowned monarch independently of each of the Commonwealth Realms at the time of her succession, but then Victoria, Edward VII, George V, Edward VIII and George VI were crowned Emperor/Empress of India and George III and others were crowned King/Queen of Ireland (now Northern Ireland and the Republic).
But the thing here is that back then, all of the states were either colonies of the British Empire or had legal ties to the British parliament that really limited the independence of those countries. Today, the 16 realms are much more advanced and the monarchy has since developed into 16 unique institutions. Jagislaqroo (talk) 19:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
If we're going to make a new policy, we're going to have to remember that while some monarchs (Queen Elizabeth II for example) have a name and ordinal that are almost always used to refer to one monarch, many earlier ones (particuarly the Georges and William IV) have names and ordinals used by a large number of European monarchs, while they themselves were king or queen of a much greater territory than that of the current Commonwealth Realms. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 19:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
That makes a lot of sense. We just need a way to find out which ones are better known, and act accordingly with a disambiguation page or a multiple use blurb at the top of the article. Jagislaqroo (talk) 19:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, indeed, but for articles like the one of Queen Elizabeth II, it's obviously fine to have at Elizabeth II, as people would know straight away who that is. For those monarchs who have had their name used several times by monarchs who are equally well known, then we can disambiguate. --~Knowzilla (Talk) 19:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like consensus-building to me! Jagislaqroo (talk) 19:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose. After much thought, I prefer the monarch articles to remain as is. Furthermore, the Thai & Japanese monarch articles need to be brought into consistancy (should be 'Akihito of Japan' & 'Bhumobal Adulej of Thailand'. GoodDay (talk) 20:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Do you have any rationale for your position? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Yep, there's historically several monarchs of different countries with the same name/numeral. James, Henry, John etc. GoodDay (talk) 22:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. It makes sense to make these determinations on a case by case basis, and to have a naming convention that provides that flexibility. I'm not sure that I necessarily believe that Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom needs a new title, but I do acknowledge that she is the head of state of a number of independent countries, and as such the arguments for renaming are quite valid and strong. As such, I believe that the naming convention should not be an obstacle to that debate. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Contrary to what's being asserted here, Elizabeth II is far from unique as a monarch who has held multiple crowns simultaneously. Personal unions have been common throughout history - the crowns that eventually merged to form the UK have at one time or another been in union with Hannover, the Netherlands, Denmark, France, numerous Commonwealth realms and so forth. The Danish crown has also been in personal union with various other Scandinavian crowns over time. Austria-Hungary was a dual monarchy with the two components having separate thrones. And so many more. And not all personal union monarchs had the same number - e.g. Henry IV of France was also Henry III of Navarre. The present arrangement is the least worst option as it has limited umpteen edit wars over how a particular monarch is best known - there's also the problem of nicknames. This has nothing to do with whether nations are developed or not or whether empires still exist but with providing a consistent format that makes it easy for readers to locate the articles and have location stability. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
    How does this in any way refute the other argument presented above, that where there is an obvious primary subject for a given name+nominal that there is no reason to prematurely disambiguate? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Supportbut I suggest that the new convention only apply to monarchs that are simultaneously sovereigns of several independent states. This ensures coherence with NPOV. QEII is unique in this regard so no previous UK monarchs would have to be changed. In the case of other monarchs not many are in a similar position - usually one of their realms was pre-eminent or else the realms were very closely linked e.g. Austro-Hungary so it shouldn't mean wholesale changes to existing articles. 78.86.226.253 (talk) 22:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the following reasons:
    1. First, let's propose this change (as previously suggested) where it belongs: at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles), so that those who are knowledgeable about or interested in monarchs' titulature in particular are more likely to see the discussion & be heard on its implications beyond the "Elizabeth II (EIIR)" issue. Moreover, section 4:38:1 of this project page specifically refers us to that discussion page (rather than this one) regarding naming articles on monarchs & nobles.
    2. Also, so that the many previous discussions on monarchical titulature can be reviewed and considered (e.g. here and here under "Monarchical titles").
    3. Again, this seems a rush to judgment, with some people in the discussion above and at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom feeling that because those participating at that early moment were in agreement, and because some find the current location objectionable, that there was both urgency and consensus in making this change, when there is neither. Yet only 11 hours after 4 attempts to move EIIR failed this month, it's being claimed that a consensus to make that move is already building here! Let's slow down.
    4. Encyclopedic consistency is a legitimate concern, and titles of other monarchs of all or part of the realms ruled by EIIR should be coherent with whatever rationale is used to decide this case. But how would that apply to disambiguating Kings John of England, George II of Great Britain, and William IV of the United Kingdom (who was also King "William I of Hanover"}? And what about the many realms ruled by other monarchs, e.g. Henry IV of France was simultaneously Henry III of Navarre, and Emperor Pedro I of Brazil was also "King Pedro IV of Portugal and of the Algarves". If predominant association has become so politically incorrect, substitute realm of main residence.
    5. The rule that monarchical article titles reflect the realm most widely associated in English with that sovereign was adopted after weighing the objections that a monarch's subjects of differing nationalities may make, versus the need to disambiguate monarchs with the same name & numeral, versus resolving the issue that many monarchs have ruled more than one realm during their lives but it's impractical to indicate that in an article's name. As Timrollpickering notes, it's still the best compromise for Wiki -- though regrettably not for many of EIIR's subjects.
    6. Finally, the claim that any usage of Firstname of Realm is unacceptably POV with respect to any other realms of which s/he was sovereign is a red herring, because that principle applies to neutrality between conflicting allegations within articles -- yet no one disputes that EIIR is queen of both Canada and of the UK (whereas "Elizabeth II of England" would be inaccurate), as her article explains: But it is not a legitimate purpose of Wikipedia to name articles so as to change the public's perception of a monarch's associations, rather it is to reflect prevalent terminology for ease-of-search purposes (I strongly support efforts to promote public awareness of EIIR as monarch equally of all her realms -- just not through Wikipedia's naming practices). Further, NPOV means that we assign proportionate weight to competing claims with respect to articles, rather than equal weight: Does anyone claim that Elizabeth II is equally associated with the UK and any of her other realms in the general public's view? Lethiere (talk) 23:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support The current monarch naming convention is an early compromise of WP:COMMONNAME and is arguably the cause of a lot of similarly flawed "exceptions". Let's bring some overall consistency to Wikipedia naming. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
  • No one is suggesting what you're talking about. I'm just saying that when the most common name for the topic of a given article can be used as the title, it should be. When an exception needs to be made for good reason for a particular article, fine, but I see no reason to make every instance of a given category (be it U.S. city names, TV episode names, monarch names, Russian submarine names, plant names, etc.) an exception to that rule just because it's a member of one of those categories. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment if this change is made how do we deal with names like Philip II -- I have deliberately chosen a name of a none British monarch, so that familiarity is less of an issue, but where a man like Philip II of Spain ruled half of Europe in a personal union. I have done a lot of work on the treaties of 1815 and it is clear that Monarchs swapped titles like playing cards in a game. For example take s:Final Act of the Congress of Vienna/General Treaty#ART.XVI "The provinces and districts of the kingdom of Saxony, which are transferred to the dominion of his Majesty the King of Prussia, shall be distinguished by the name of the duchy of Saxony, and his Majesty shall add to his titles those of duke of Saxony, Landgrave of Thuringia, Margrave of the two Lusatias, and count of Henneberg." If we do not use the current guideline, how would we decide on the name to use for someone like the King of Prussia or should that be "Margrave of the two Lusatias"? --PBS (talk) 00:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I suggest we use whatever is the name most commonly used to refer to him in reliable/verifiable sources, probably Philip II, disambiguated with appropriate distinquishing information in parentheses as necessary, per WP:D. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
What I am suggesting in the next few sentence is a supposition I have not done a Google search. What happens if Philip II of Spain is either commonly called "Philip II", or "Philip of Naples", then as "Philip II" is a dab page, do we go with the second most common name which is "Philip of Naples", although far less common than "Philip II" as is the most common name which does not involve disambiguation? PBS (talk) 00:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
A further problem is that someone like James II of England was known by another title for most of his life including the Civil War, the Interregnum and the Restoration, how do we decide what is the most common name? Duke of York or James II, if he was usually known as Duke of York then do we use that title? If so then do we name him James Stuart, Duke of York? A better example is probably William II of the Netherlands in most English language sources he is better known as the Prince of Orange who fought at the Battle of Waterloo (the rest of his life is a footnote as far a most military histories are concerned) so how would he be named? --PBS (talk) 00:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
If Philip II is most commonly called Philip II but Philip II is a dab page, and this Philip II is not the primary topic, then I think the title should be Philip II (dab info). Alternatively, it should be dabbed per the monarch naming conventions, but only if dabbing is required.

If the most common name is "Philip of Naples" then that should be the title, but if it's a far second than it should not be the title.

As you know, this is all carefully laid out at WP:NC, and, with relatively minor changes, has remained fairly stable for years. I've never understood why articles about monarchs or any other category of topics should be exceptions to this very reasonable and universally applicable fundamental naming policy. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The major reason for the development of the guideline, was because, a lot of the developments took place before this policy had an addition of "Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject." (added about a year ago). The guideline was very useful to solve 4 problems where
  • (1) the common name on the net (eg "Bloody Mary") was not the same as that used in reliable sources,
  • (2) the name is common so "disambiguation" is needed. For many cases such as Philip II there will always be a need to add additional information to the name of the article for disambiguation purposes and whether it is done as Philip II of Spain Philip II, of Spain or Philip II (Spain) does not really matter, and the current dab extension of including "of state" at least complies with "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." which it could be argued Philip II (Spain) does not. There is also an argument to be made that if you are not a Wikipedia expert, and you have found Charles X of Sweden through to Charles XI of Sweden, it appears very odd to have the last in the series at Charles XII.
  • (3) The name is so obscure, there are few to no English language sources easily available to Wikipedia editors to make a decision on what is the common name in reliable sources is. If we start to use the name in foreign sources, they may not use a naming sequence which is familiar to most English readers making it hard to find a linage.
  • (4)What do we do about a person who is famous in English for something the did before they were King such as William II of the Netherlands who in most English language sources is better known as the Prince of Orange who fought at the Battle of Waterloo (the rest of his life if mentioned at all is as a footnote in most military histories).
Also I think there is a cultural problem here, When "of England" or "of the French" is used, these are shortening of the full title, and I think that whether they are aware of it or not, thanks to the provisions Art.I.IX in the US constitution, there is an cultural bias in the States against using titles, because titles are frowned upon, and people should be identified by name and not title (to do so is to break the rules like an actor saying Macbeth rather than the Scottish play). The suggestion that Philip II of Spain should be Philip II (Spain), is like saying that William (McKinley) and William (Taft) should be used for disambiguation purposes. --PBS (talk) 08:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  • (ec)Comment Both sides of the discussion sound like good ideas but they looking at to big a picture. Lets return to QEII, as she is head of many states would it not be more prudent to consider separate articles for each state, sources permitting. This is the real heart of the issue so why not have a basic article QEII on the monarch that covers persons physical/private life, then have daughter articles on the titles which cover in detail the specifics of the title ie QEII of the UK, QEII of Canada, QEII of Australia etc. Taking what I know personally a QEII of Australia article would cover her corination, visits, how she is represented in Aust, republican debate, and possibly events like the Whitlam dismissal all of which a single article about the person trying to cover 16 different realms equally with as much detail just wouldnt be practicable. This applies equally to other monarchs like Phillip II. Gnangarra 01:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Frankly, as long as the articles in question have qualifying statements in their introduction, then this issue should be of no matter. In the case QEII that is simply stating the country from which she reigns as monarch, this has little consequence. However if article titles are changed then the impact and content of the article will not be altered; it will then make these arguments null and will give the opposition to this no motivation for changing it back to its now current format. Outback the koala (talk) 01:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, that's just the old "the title doesn't really matter" argument, the extreme of which is "let's just use randomly selected strings for titles". I think article titles do matter, in that they proclaim what WP editors have determined to be the most commonly used name in reliable/verifiable English sources to refer to the topic of that article (disambiguated as necessary). That is, the title conveys this information - its most commonly used name - about the topic in and of itself. You can verify how well this work by clicking on WP:RANDOM a few times. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  • The people who have opposed this seem to have the idea that this proposal is specifically because of the need to move QEII's article. No, if you read the first few comments, you'll see that we have thought of a way do deal with Monarchs who've had their names used several times by other monarchs. Only for articles such as QEII, where it's clearly that person who is by far best known by that title, then shall we move them to an article title without a specific country included in the name. When it's disputable which monarch is best known by a particular title, then we can have a country name included in the title. Also, for article's such as the one of QEII, look at common use, what do hear/read more? Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom or Elizabeth II? About 99.9999% of the people who would search for Elizabeth II is looking for information on The Queen, not any other person. --~Knowzilla (Talk) 07:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I see no benefit to this. Since we already have redirects where appropriate, it would be a lot of work for no useful return. Deb (talk) 11:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
The benefits would be more article names in a NPOV and it would stop the issue of renaming coming up from so many people again and again so many times for articles like Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, so we can focus more on the content of the article rather than it's name, if the issues with it's name stops, as many feel the article should be at Elizabeth II and that issue keeps on coming back. --~Knowzilla (Talk) 12:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. Most especially in the case of Queen Elizabeth II, this is quite sensible. In the case where there is no clear default target for the article, such as Phillip II (mentioned above), the dismbiguation page is of course appropriate. The issue of what to call the articles that are being disambiguated to is necessarily solved by the fact that there is no default to land at; again, see Phillip II, where the eventual targets do mention the realm. Queen Elizabeth II of <insert one of 16 realms here> should then redirect to Queen Elizabeth II, which can have links to any others, or to a disambiguation page if there are too many.  Frank  |  talk  15:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
    I think you misunderstand Phillip II of Spain probably held a many titles a Betty, and many other kings listed under Philip II would have held other titles than those listed on the dab page. All that is listed on the dab page is their main realm. --PBS (talk) 16:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
    I misunderstand how this shows any misunderstanding on my part... ;-)  Frank  |  talk  18:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - anything that imposes something as artificial as E2 of the UK must be in need of a change. (We do realize, I presume, that she is not the second Queen Elizabeth of the UK, which is possibly a reason why we never hear her called that.)--Kotniski (talk) 15:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support, since this has become a !vote; there's only a need to add the "of country" suffix if the name and regnal number isn't enough to disambiguate. Should disambiguation be necessary, I would prefer the "of country" method over the standard parentheticals in this case.--Aervanath (talk) 15:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Lethiere. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support The proposed naming method conforms more with WP:NPOV than the present naming guidelines do. However, that said, I wouldn't go so far as to rename all monarchical biography articles. Many monarchs did reign over only one country, so it is not a violation of WP:NPOV to include that one country in the article title. It is only when we get to monarchs who were the fulcrum of a personal union that the issue of one country being picked out over all the others - i.e. POV - comes up. So, I would say that the naming guidelines should be amended to include a special provision specifically for sovereigns of more than one independent state, and that provision should be that no one country should be mentioned in the article title. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
    So what about the change from Lord of Ireland to King of Ireland do those who were only Lord of Ireland get known as King "of England" but Henry VIII and after is not known as of England? Or do we not use of England for any king after 1171? See my comment above about titles and playing cards, your suggestion would mean that many many monarchs who are primarily associated with a kingdom would not if we were to use your suggestion. Out would go Elizabeth I of England presumably with her "stomach of a king, and of a King of England too" --PBS (talk) 16:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  • If a monarch reigned over more than one independent state, no state is named in the article title. "Primarily associated" will always be a matter of POV, so it remains my belief that it should be avoided all-together. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Many naming issues are "POV", and rightly so, since we want the most natural name for English speakers, not the name spewed out by an algorithm. The reason E2 of the UK is wrong for me is not the fact that she's queen of other countries (though that might sometimes be a factor), but that she's never normally called that - she's known as E2, and is the primary topic for that name, so no disambiguation is needed. Plus the fact that the number 2 is wrong for the UK anyway.--Kotniski (talk) 17:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
What do you mean "Plus the fact that the number 2 is wrong for the UK anyway", Whether one looks at it as a point of law or as a common name II is the correct ordinal for Betty. Or are you suggesting that the ordinal for George IV should be changed to George II? --PBS (talk) 13:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Whatever the law may say, she's not the second queen Elizabeth of the United Kingdom. And as a common name, of course she should have the numeral II (and George the numeral IV), but it's the tag "of the UK" that offends grossly against the common-name principle.--Kotniski (talk) 08:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
She's not the second Queen Elizabeth of the United Kingdom. And Victor Emmanuel II was not the second King Victor Emmanuel of Italy. More to the point, Charles VII of Sweden was the first King Karl of Sweden. Pope John XXIII was only the twenty-first (I believe) pope named John. So what? She is titled "Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland," and she uses the regnal name "Elizabeth II." Whether that is strictly accurate or not is completely irrelevant. john k (talk) 22:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Pope John XXIII was definitely not the 23rd Pope John. The confusion started with Antipope John XVI, whose Antipope status was not recognised at the time and so the next John took the numbers XVII instead of reusing the XVI number, and two more Johns followed suit with XVIII and XIX over the next thirty years. Then there were no more Pope Johns for two and a half centuries, during which time poor transmission of a document led historians to assume that there were two Pope John XIVs, one who reigned for eight months, another for four. (Actually the four months was referring to John XIV's imprisonment by Antipope Boniface VII.) Historians began "correcting" the numbering to reflect this and consequently Pedro Julião followed this received wisdom and so ratified this "correction" by becoming Pope John XXI. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
This is also completely insane. Charles II of England and Charles II of Spain both reigned over multiple independent states (in the former case, England, Scotland, and Ireland; in the latter, Castile, Aragon, Valencia, Catalonia, Sardinia, Naples, Sicily, Milan, the Franche Comté, and the Spanish Netherlands). So apparently we have no disambiguation we can use for either of them. It's almost always easy enough to determine what country someone is primarily associated with based on factors like "where they lived." john k (talk) 22:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Just making this clear, I didn't say this outright before, as I wasn't expecting this to turn into another support/oppose game, I was expecting helpful suggestions for the proposed amendment, not some unhelpful opposes. I've made most of my points clear above. --~Knowzilla (Talk) 16:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support "If a monarch reigned over more than one independent state, no state is named in the article title." Now we just need to rewrite the convention! Jagislaqroo (talk) 18:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment Looks clear, but how does one apply it to the articles currently entitled James I of England and Charles XV of Sweden, just to take two examples of differing numerals? —JAO • T • C 19:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
      • How about we allow it when theres enough reliable sources to have both regnal numbers, I know for sure that a lot of reliable sources have called James I of England James VI and I. If the common use is that (this is an example) James VI and I is used more than James I of England, it can be moved, if not, no. Something like that? --~Knowzilla (Talk) 19:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  • There seems to be a good consensus to amend the conventions, now for the official wording, hows about: If a monarch reigned/reigns over more than one independent state, no state is named in the article title (For example: Elizabeth II, not Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom or Elizabeth II of Canada). If there are conflicting article names of equally well known monarchs, then a country may be included in the title. For where a Monarch has reigned over more than one country with different regnal numbers, if both regnal numbers are mentioned together in enough reliable sources, it may be used for the article (For example James VI and I). That ok with everyone, or would someone like to make a change to the wording? --~Knowzilla (Talk) 20:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I've no issue with drafting up some wording, but shouldn't we also have some input from WP:NCNT participants? That guideline is the one most directly affected by what we're proposing here. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I think I mentioned on the talk page over there that a discussion is going on here to amend the conventions. So, they probably did see. We could notify them again. --~Knowzilla (Talk) 06:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • That sounds pretty good! I'm sure that those words can be the basis for an all-encompassing and rational rewrite. I'm just sorry that I won't be able to see the finished project, as per my impending road-trip of death. I'm so glad WP is moving on this! Jagislaqroo (talk) 20:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm fine with the wording, but wish it would go further. This is a Band Aid for a particular problem - I would rather address the more general problem.

    The particular problem being addressed by the above proposed wording is limited to the particular case of when "a monarch reigned/reigns over more than one independent state". The more general problem is specifying the state any time disambiguation is not necessary.

    If the most common name for a monarch has no conflicts with others uses, or that monarch is the primary use of that name, that name should be used for the title of the article, in order to be consistent with Wikipedia article naming in general. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yeah, sure. Why not? That would mean articles like John Carlos I of Spain can be moved to John Carlos I. Sounds good. --~Knowzilla (Talk) 06:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • There certainly does not seem to be a consensus! john k (talk) 22:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Alright, I will be amending WP:NCNT soon. Can I have approval from some of you for the final wording: If the most common name for a said monarch does not conflict with other article names, that name should be used for the title of the article, especially if the said monarch reigned/reigns over more than one independent country (Example: Elizabeth II, not Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom). If there are conflicting article names, disambiguate. For where a Monarch has reigned over more than one country with different regnal numbers, if both regnal numbers are mentioned together in enough reliable sources, it may be used for the article name (For example James VI and I). This wording would mean that even articles such as John Carlos I of Spain may be moved to John Carlos I if wanted. Is that good, or would anyone like to make any changes to that wording? I'll wait for some replies before adding this to WP:NCNT. --~Knowzilla (Talk) 07:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Looks good to me, except I would say something about primary topics. I.e. there might well be another Liz II of somewhere, but that needn't automatically mean that the well-known one can't be called just by that name (on the same principle that we use for WP:PRIMARYTOPICs in general). --Kotniski (talk) 09:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. There is obviously no consensus for such a thing. john k (talk) 22:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. For several reasons. It is not clear to me that there is a consensus for either change, with less for the second one (James I IV) which has hardly been addressed at all in this conversation or the ramification for it. I think this needs far more discussion than has taken place so far. How widely has this discussion been advertised? I for example have have raised several points that have not been addressed. This change seems to be being pressed with unseemly hast. Why? --PBS (talk) 10:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Alright then, we can leave the James VI and I one out. Most of your points have been answered to, what else are you unsure about? Ask, and I'll try and answer your issues. This change is not being pressed with unseemly haste, how else would you want it to go? --~Knowzilla (Talk) 10:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I'm going to give it more time. Since there is good support for this convention to be amended at least, I guess we should start a section on the talk page of WP:NCNT. Exactly how much input do you feel is necessary for this to go ahead? --~Knowzilla (Talk) 10:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I think we've had quite enough input already, but sure, it should really be being discussed at NCNT. A minimum change which I think the vast majority of people would agree with is that the convention should state that is does not necessarily override COMMONNAME where there's another good name for which the monarch is clearly the primary topic. That way we could get rid of absurdities like Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom and Victoria of the United Kingdom (-> Queen Victoria, how hard is that?) without necessarily starting a mass rename of monarch articles.--Kotniski (talk) 15:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
You have already indicated your opposition above (so I have struckout your second "oppose"). By the use of "oppose" here, I assume what you are saying is that you disagree with the suggestion that consensus has been achieved. Fair enough. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I was opposing what appeared to be a second proposal - a proposed wording which was apparently being proposed on the false premise that consensus existed. Deb (talk) 20:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There are two proposals here. One would remove {name of country} from all monarchs. That will not work. To pick a not-so-random example, Charles III is any of a dozen rulers, including five kings; at least three of them are normally called (when disambiguation is not necessary) Charles III. We must disambiguate them somehow; any other method would present the same questions, and probably be clumsier.
The other would leave almost all monarchs where they are, and disambiguate a handful which seem to be primary usage. I oppose this because it is a difficulty for readers and editors alike to figure out which those are. We can tell now where Charles X of France is. Is Charles X ambiguous? Have we chosen to ignore some Swedish or Silesian prince of that number? Why should the reader have to figure this out?
This is a temporary solution (where do we put Charles III when he reigns, if Charles III of the United Kingdom is unacceptable?) to an almost entirely imaginary problem. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Why is it difficult to determine primary usage for monarchs, when we are able to do it quite successfully for almost everything else we have articles about? --Kotniski (talk) 14:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I did not say that it could not be done, but that there was no reason to expect every reader or editor to do it. This is our common practice in fields where the most common names tend to be massively ambiguous, like peerage titles (every Duke of Devonshire - with one possible exception - is best known as "the Duke of Devonshire", but we disambiguate them all by name and number) or American municipalities (Every Springfield in the US is called Springfield most often; but we call them all by their State, instead of deciding whether Springfield, Illinois is primary usage). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, very often we do decide that one represents primary usage. London, for example. The present rule about monarchs is even worse then you make out, because it forbids using the most common name not just when it's the primary topic among several, but even when it's not ambiguous at all. I don't know what you mean about every reader and editor. Do you really think "Victoria of the United Kingdom" is the name a sane reader or editor would expect to find Queen Victoria's article under? --Kotniski (talk) 16:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Type "Victoria" into the search box; you will have the choice of Victoria (Australia), Victoria, British Columbia, Victorian era, Victoria of the United Kingdom.... I have no trouble telling which of these is Her Late Majesty; where's the insanity? (And this is one reason consistency is useful: if I've just been looking at Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, I will know where her predecessor is, and I will continue to know even after Victoria of Sweden is added to that list). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
And it's interesting to note that all of those places are all named after Queen Victoria anyway... --~Knowzilla (Talk) 07:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't propose "Victoria" as a title; I propose Queen Victoria, which is what she's called in real English (you usually support calling things by their common English names; I'm surprised to see you on the other side of the fence on this one). And hmm, United Kingdom changes to Great Britain changes to England at various points along the line, so no, you don't always know where people's predecessors are located.--Kotniski (talk) 16:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Queen Victoria may reasonably be expected to be ambiguous in the near future; what then? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
No matter; the other one would still be the primary topic. To be honest, I think pretty much all the kings and queens to have reigned in England since the Conquest can be regarded as primary topics in the English language, so we could drop all the "of England", "of Great Britain", "of the United Kingdom" tags (and add "King.." or "Queen.." where there's no numeral). But certainly the quite unnatural "of the United Kingdom" is to be avoided, particularly when it produces numerical inaccuracy as in the case of the present queen.--Kotniski (talk) 08:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
That's a red herring to this. Umpteen monarchs have had numbers that aren't "accurate" - Frederick III, German Emperor (only the second German Emperor), Victor Emmanuel II of Italy (the first king of the country), or umpteen Spanish monarchs - Philip II of Spain, Ferdinand VI of Spain, Isabella II of Spain and Alfonso XII of Spain are all the first rulers "of Spain" with their names. Do people dispute using a location on those articles because of "numeric inaccuracy"? If the next monarch decides to be "Rameses Niblick III Kerplunk Kerplunk Whoops Where's My Thribble" they will be "Rameses Niblick III" regardless of there having been no previous monarchs called "Rameses Niblick III". Timrollpickering (talk) 10:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
(unindent)For me, it's what people normally call them that matters - and if we have to disambiguate by using a rarely used or made-up name, then that name should at least be accurate. So if Philip II of Spain is so known, then let's call him that too. But in my experience, Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom is virtually never called that in the real world (I'm prepared to be proved wrong on that), so that title is inappropriate for WP first and foremost because the artificial disambiguation is unnecessary (it's a primary topic), secondly because as a constucted name, it's misleading (she isn't the 2nd E of the UK), and thirdly (though for others apparently firstly) because she isn't queen only of the UK. --Kotniski (talk) 12:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Your second point isn't really relevant to the discussion as you're treading on a general objection going back many years. Regardless of her not being the second Elizabeth of the UK, that is the number she has chosen, and the right of the monarch to determine the number has been held up in court. It is no more misleading than many other cases such as those cited above, which have generated far less discussion (most none at all). II is the number used for her and that ain't going to change regardless of the fact that she isn't the second Elizabeth for any of her thrones.
In terms of how she's usually called it is "the Queen", which is okay for most conversations at hand but useless for an encyclopaedia, or "the Queen of England", which is inaccurate, or any number of nicknames or artificial constructs ("Brenda", "Elizabeth Windsor" and so forth). That's fine for conversation but not for an encyclopedia (just as we don't have Barack Obama at "American President").
The basic rule is "what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." Having a consistent format makes for easy linking and second nature, whilst the name is what would be most easily recognised, whereas anything based on her position is more of a mess. It is not a surprise for readers to find monarchs at the form "Name Number of Country" and it conveys the information clearly in a way that contracted shortforms do not. I just don't see the multiple thrones as an issue that sufficiently overrides this, because for many, many monarchs with multiple thrones it's not workable to list them all and that brings up to how we pick a unique name. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
It was a huge surprise to me (as a reader) when I first saw "Victoria of the United Kingdom" - I'm sure many must do at least a double-take before they realize who is being referred to. And "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom" conveys as much false as true information (readers will think either that it's her usual name, or that there was an Elizabeth I of the UK). Dropping the suffix (in line with general WP naming principles, which is a more valuable consistency) seems a completely obvious solution. --Kotniski (talk) 07:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
The "false information" thing is, once again, nonsense, as has already been pointed out. King Victor Emmanuel II of Italy was the first King Victor Emmanuel of Italy. Pope John XXI was the nineteenth pope named John. Charles VII was the first king Charles of Sweden, and Eric VI was the first king Eric. Closer to home, William IV was the first King William of the United Kingdom, and the only King William of Hanover. George III, for that matter, was the first King George of the United Kingdom, and Edward VII the first king Edward. In most modern cases, monarchical numbering isn't a historian's attempt to describe the monarch's antecedents. It is a name that the monarch herself takes up. So she is Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, notwithstanding the fact that there was never a Queen Elizabeth I of the United Kingdom. British monarchs have chosen to continue the numbering of English monarchs. Your proposal has absolutely no answer for what we do about William IV, whose title is just as "inaccurate" as QEII's. William IV, you'll note, includes about a dozen other rulers, including a well-known eighteenth century prince of Orange and a well-known twentieth century grand duke of Luxembourg. And what would you have us do about Frederick III, German Emperor? Frederick III is obviously an unacceptable title, given the severe level of ambiguity. But the current title is obviously conveying "as much false as true information (readers will think that there was a Frederick II who was German Emperor)". But yet he was called Frederick III. This is a plan for a gigantic mess and you simply haven't thought about it enough, or aren't familiar enough with the ramifications of it, to realize what a mess your proposal would be. john k (talk) 13:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
"but we call them all by their State, instead of deciding whether Springfield, Illinois is primary usage". Unfortunately. What a terrible and inconsistent precedent that has set. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


'Pmanderson', Prince Charles might decide to go by George VII, he need not go by Charles III'. Besides, we need not worry about the distant future already. You say "almost entirely imaginary problem?", the talk page archives of QEII's article says otherwise. --~Knowzilla (Talk) 14:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
No, the talk page of her article says that there are a lot of imaginative Canadians. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
That's offensive - which is exactly why the convention needs to be changed. 78.86.226.253 (talk) 22:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
'Pmanderson', how can you tell they are all Canadians? You can't. It seems you are opposing this proposal not out of good reason, but out of your own political POV. That was a very rude statement. -~Knowzilla (Talk) 07:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
All Canadians? I never said that. That many are Canadians is obvious; do you deny it? I am not a citizen of any Commonwealth country, and how Canada chooses her Head of State is not my business; my PoV is to wish them a better system and better batting average than we have had.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 12:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I think Mr Anderson you are confusing the Canadian with the Australians when you talk about batting averages :-) -- PBS (talk) 21:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Once you comment on it, you have made it your business. As such, you should familiarize yourself with the facts before deeming "many Canadians" on Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom to be "imaginative", which, in this case, is a word you have employed merely as a euphemism for "crazy". --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
No, Sir. The Government of Canada is determined by its citizens, not by Wikipedia. Most of the nationalists we have to block think that if Wikipedia can only be coerced to state The Real Truth, the world will magically follow; I disagree. My concern is with what Wikipedia does; if Canada changes its Head of State, or her style, we should report that, no more. In the meantime, we should call Queen Elizabeth by the name most convenient for our readers and editors, which I hold to be the systematic name, like all other royalties not known primarily by nicknames. Get everybody to call her Good Queen Liz, and WP will follow; I will support that move, under those conditions. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
This imaginative Canadian dreams of a Canadian republic. GoodDay (talk) 22:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Ahem, we seem to be straying ever so slightly from the topic... Is anyone planning to make a proposal at the names and titles page, as was suggested somewhere above?--Kotniski (talk) 15:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm probably going to, but lets give it a little rest, in a day or two maybe? Need to think of better way to get started with that, so it can actually be successful. --~Knowzilla (Talk) 15:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Getting things changed at the 'names & titles page' to accomadate 1 article is ambitious. Oh well, let's commence. GoodDay (talk) 16:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is a seriously half-baked proposal, and is based on a number of fallacious premises, most of which have been pointed out by others above. There is no explanation given here of what we should do when disambiguation is required (which it is for the vast majority of monarchs). The Elizabeth II issue is only controversial because a small number of Canadian monarchists have made it their mission to constantly dispute the common sense idea that Elizabeth II is most closely associated with the country in which she actually lives. I would be amenable to discuss a broader modification of the "always disambiguate" rule - we have discussed it in the past. But the new system would have to be clearly worked out in a sensible manner before I'd be willing to support anything. john k (talk) 22:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Erm, excuse me, there are those of us who oppose the present name for Her Maj's article (and those of her predecessors) for reasons that have nothing to do with Canadians.--Kotniski (talk) 07:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I'm sure. Didn't meant to imply otherwise. But the Elizabeth II issue keeps getting brought up again and again by Canadian monarchists, which is why you can point to it and say "Look at all the controversy." At any rate, only a small number of articles cause controversy - Elizabeth II's and James I's, primarily. There are dozens of articles which have exactly the same "problems", but which nobody seems to care about. Charles I was not merely king of England, but of the equal and independent kingdom of Scotland as well - and of the neither equal nor particularly independent kingdom of Ireland, if you like, too. The proposal leaves us with no way to title his article. Charles I is obviously massively ambiguous, but Charles I of England is apparently "POV". So what are we supposed to call him? Philip II of Spain is a misnomer and, in your view "conveys as much false information as true" - he was not the second King Philip of Spain. Furthermore, he didn't even have the title of "King of Spain" at all. But Philip II is highly ambiguous and Philip II of Castile is both a weird and unfamiliar form and would also be "POV" in elevating Castile above his other realms. I could keep coming up with examples all day. And this proposal has nothing in it which gives any guidance for how to deal with any of these issues. The comments you and others have made indicate that you don't even seem to understand that these issues exist, much less have any kind of plan for dealing with them. You are single-mindedly focused on coming up with a plan that will allow us to move the current queen's article to Elizabeth II, and you haven't even considered the broader ramifications of it. Until you do so, this is a terrible idea. john k (talk) 13:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
All right, calm down, it's not like anyone's pushing any specific proposal uncompromisingly - the present system has at least as much bad about it as the other ideas you're calling "terrible". 99.9% of articles on Wikipedia are named in accordance with the principle I'm suggesting be applied here, and it works very well. We call things by the names by which they are best known, with accurate disambiguation as necessary. Another WP principle is that rules have exceptions: we can keep the existing system for the great majority of monarch articles, where it gives good results, but should be prepared to make exceptions where there is a clearly better alternative. At the very least, Elizabeth II and Queen Victoria surely fall into this category.--Kotniski (talk) 13:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Surely there is much to be said for consistency. Queen Victoria, in particular, is a title which would be deeply inconsistent with every other article about a monarch on Wikipedia. Oughtn't this be considered? Also, you are basically confirming what I said - that you want a massive change in a naming convention which has worked well for many years in order to accommodate your dislike of two specific article titles which follow that convention. I agree that Victoria of the United Kingdom is a somewhat awkward title. I just think the alternative proposed is much worse. Any formulation of policy really needs to consider the broader implications. The question is not just "would this proposed change get the articles whose titles I don't like to places I like better?" It's also "what would be the consequences of the proposed change on the project as a whole?" You can say "Most articles stay where they are" all you like, but all the principles which have been proposed to move the two articles you don't like the titles of have much broader implications, and that can't be ignored. If you want to bring about a change like this, it behooves you to actually study up on the issue so that you understand what's in question, and figure out the implications of it. Almost all of the arguments that have been presented for why Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom and Victoria of the United Kingdom are bad are ones that would apply to tons of other articles, and the solutions proposed are impossible to scale to all those other articles. john k (talk) 14:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
We should keep the status-quo. Someday we may have another monarch named Victoria, Victoria of Sweden. GoodDay (talk) 22:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
It still won't matter there, Queen Victoria and not Victoria of Sweden will be the primary topic even then. --~Knowzilla (Talk) 05:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, as has already been pointed out (this conversation is going round in circles, so this will be my last contribution to it for now). To sum up my position, I believe consistency with common sense, the real world and Wikipedia's overall naming principles (and the even more fundamental principle that rules are expected to have exceptions) is far more valuable than consistency with an arbitrary artificial rule. I would be happy either to see the rule reworded to admit the possibility of exceptions (which should be understood, but unfortunately isn't), or to see it altered to make an explicit exception for (at least) the United Kingdom monarchs.--Kotniski (talk) 08:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Firstly, the point isn't consistency with an arbitrary rule, but consistency between articles on comparable topics. Secondly, the basic problem here is that those of you proposing the change haven't thought through what exactly you want to propose, how it would be worded, or what the justification for it would be. Continuing to throw out half-thought out new ideas for how to change the convention doesn't help. john k (talk) 14:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- The present convention is clear and unambiguous. In the case of Elizabeth II and Victoria the use a simpler name is certainly attractive, but this is at the expense of consistency. However, we cannot do the same with kings called Philip, Francis, George, Edward, William, etc without grave ambiguity. In the case of Elizabeth II, her chosen title is soemthing like "... of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of her other realms and dominions"; is that not a good enough reason to keep the present form? Peterkingiron (talk) 17:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
No you are wrong. Her style is different in each country she is sovereign of, e.g. in Oz she is know as "QEII of the Commonwealth of Australia and of her other realms & dominions." The page title is POV which is why the convention needs to be changed. 78.86.14.169 (talk) 03:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
You are indeed wrong, her chosen style is not "of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of her other realms and dominions". She has a style for each independent country over which she reigns. Examples: In the UK it is: "Elizabeth the Second, By the Grace of God, Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her Other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith", in Australia it is: "Elizabeth the Second, By the Grace of God, Queen of Australia and of Her Other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth", in New Zealand it is: "Elizabeth the Second, By the Grace of God, Queen of New Zealand and of Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith". Realms refer to the other independent nations over which she reigns and Territories refer to the territories of the countries over which she reigns, in each of her styles, respectively. --~Knowzilla (Talk) 13:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Except that the article is about a person, not a symbol of the state, and that person has spent the vast majority of the last 57 years in the United Kingdom, acting as Queen of the United Kingdom, and has probably spent no more than, what, a few hundred hours all told actually doing things for any of her other realms? Why so many problems with this, and none with Oscar I of Sweden? In Sweden he was called "King of Sweden and Norway," and in Norway he was called "King of Norway and Sweden." We put him under Sweden because he lived in Stockholm, and because he is most closely associated with Sweden. The same applies to Elizabeth II. john k (talk) 01:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Ha! So it should stay where it is because of your POV that it is the most appropriate. So your value judgement of which realm is more important decides. Interesting. 78.86.226.253 (talk) 12:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. Use Common Names works fine almost everywhere else; where there is any ambiguity, we can easily fall back to the current guidelines. Powers T 12:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support -- Wikipedia's general approach of using the most common name seems entirely appropriate here - the current convention means that we end up using names that are inaccurate and never used outside of Wikipedia. --rossb (talk) 23:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose because, per other opponents' points, this is complete tosh of the lowest order DBD
  • Oppose The current system works, is effective and there is no consensus for a change. Could not agree with DBD more. In my view the proposed change would mark a decline to rank amateurism. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
You obviously have no concept of NPOV then. This insistence on "QEII of the UK" is rank amateurism. 78.86.226.253 (talk) 12:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Precisely. Professional encyclopedias don't make up names and pass them off as genuine, which is what the current system has us do.--Kotniski (talk) 12:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
For any particular reason? Surely you can see that the current system is producing confusing, invented names, against all Wikipedia principles and common sense, when the natural names would serve perfectly well as they do everywhere else on the encyclopedia? --Kotniski (talk) 12:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I think this is another case of trying to modify a universal guideline for the wrong reasons. (see below). If Queen Elizabeth II presents special problems, that is a good reason for an exception to be made in that specific case. (And of James 1 and VI), However removing the country designations of all monarchs is a recipe for anarchy. King Philip IV of France is a well accepted and well-understood usage, it is not particularly outlandish. Having to guess which William III is meant out of the many that exist, would be extremely confusing. Xandar 00:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles/Archive_13&oldid=1148117772"