Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11

Discussion of interest at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation

(non-automated message) Greetings, fellow members of WP:ROYALTY! For your information, a discussion on WikiProject Disambiguation's talk page is ongoing regarding the appropriateness of including potential regnal names of European and Jordanian heirs in disambiguation pages related to royalty. Given the relevance to our topic focus, I would especially appreciate any well-informed opinions from our community! Thank you, Hurricane Andrew (444) 03:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

New royalty and nobility article creation tool

Hi everyone!

I noticed that plenty of articles relevant to this WikiProject were being created without going through the AfC process. I figured some of you might be interested in keeping tabs on those "ghost" articles, so I enlisted the help of User:AlexNewArtBot to generate a report of new articles that fit some criteria (for example, the presence of the word "marquess"). You can always see the Rules and Match log to see what triggered the bot to display some results over others. A new report is generated every 24 hours, usually between 22:00 and 00:00 (UTC).

If you like it, and given enough time for us to tweak it to avoid false positives, do you think it would be a useful addition to the WikiProject page, under the "articles for creation" part of the bot-assisted list?

This list was generated from these rules. Questions and feedback are always welcome! The search is being run daily with the most recent ~14 days of results. Note: Some articles may not be relevant to this project.

Rules | Match log | Results page (for watching) | Last updated: 2024-11-20 22:29 (UTC)

Note: The list display can now be customized by each user. See List display personalization for details.

Cheers, Pilaz (talk) 21:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:William I (disambiguation)#Requested move 10 August 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:William I (disambiguation)#Requested move 10 August 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:38, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Oscar I of Sweden#Requested move 17 August 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Oscar I of Sweden#Requested move 17 August 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Векочел (talk) 21:47, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Louis Philippe II, Duke of Orléans#Requested move 20 August 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Louis Philippe II, Duke of Orléans#Requested move 20 August 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 21:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Eric XIV of Sweden#Requested move 3 September 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Eric XIV of Sweden#Requested move 3 September 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Векочел (talk) 21:47, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Welsh royalty discussions

There are discussions concerning potential OR, RS and SCOPE issues on Talk:House of Aberffraw (article) and Talk:King of Wales (article), but could apply to other related articles. Editors of this project may be interested in these discussions, specifically those with an interest/expertise in Welsh history. Any contributions to the discussions would be welcomed. Thanks/Diolch DankJae 23:30, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Purge consorts of pretenders?

I find it strange that List of royal consorts of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies doesn't end in 1861, and that List of Greek royal consorts doesn't end in 1973. Those kingdoms ceased to exist. It seems pseudohistorical to me to list the consorts of pretenders as if they actually still reigned as monarchs. Should we purge them? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:06, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

No opposition from me. GoodDay (talk) 22:55, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
Me, either. --JBL (talk) 00:37, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
I've removed such lists from other pages as well.98.228.137.44 (talk) 23:46, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Using "House of" for Nobility (not Royality)

I know several years back someone was adamant about using Visconti Family instead of House of Visconti. If this is still the case, someone who feels strongly about this might want to review the edits of MarcBgd‎ (talk · contribs). Peaceray (talk) 20:14, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

"House of" is not really idiomatic Eglish, and somewhat pretentious. Perhaps this is its attraction for some editors. Johnbod (talk) 20:27, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
I think it may very well be, example being The Fall of the House of Usher. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 02:57, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
Well, no it isn't. That is literally a house. No one ever talks of, say, the House of Cavendish, though I see we have a redirect. Johnbod (talk) 04:42, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
House of Windsor, House of Habsburg, House of Este, House of Hohenzollern. I think the broad convention is European ruling dynasties (not necessarily royal) are "House of..." but non-ruling aristocratic families aren't. The Visconti being a ruling family, "House of Visconti" I would say is reasonably common.[1]. DeCausa (talk) 06:27, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
I don't think Poe wanted to circumscribe the topic to the destruction of the mansion. If you read the story, it is about the end of the Usher dynasty. The fall of it. And the Usher mansion gets destroyed as well as a result of some apparent supernatural connection. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 23:56, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Princess Pauline of Württemberg (1877–1965)#Requested move 22 September 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Princess Pauline of Württemberg (1877–1965)#Requested move 22 September 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:55, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Australian monarchy's infobox

Should the Australian governor-general be in the infobox of Monarchy of Australia, with the king? We'll need input, on whether or not this should be done. GoodDay (talk) 00:21, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

The discussion is taking place here. -- GoodDay (talk) 00:28, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Were all 'murdered monarchs' also 'dethroned monarchs'?

Should Category:Murdered monarchs be a subcategory of Category:Dethroned monarchs? Or can one person not be categorised as both simultaneously (as this is either redundant, or will lead to a logical contradiction)?

I'm asking because Anula of Anuradhapura is both in Category:Dethroned monarchs and Category:1st-century BC murdered monarchs. Sorry if this may sound strange or like linguistic nitpicking. But it seems to me that:

  • A: If you wikt:dethrone a monarch who is in office, but you continue to let them live (at least for some time), they are simply no longer a "monarch", because they are no longer in office. If they continue to claim to be the legitimate monarch, that makes them a pretender (with no prejudice against whether that claim is legitimate or not).
  • B: If you murder a monarch who is in office, then it is redundant to say you've dethroned them; due to being dead, they are automatically no longer a "monarch" either, because they are no longer in office.
  • C: If you murder someone after dethroning them, you've not murdered a "monarch", but an "ex-monarch", because they had already been out of office.
  • D: If you execute someone after dethroning them, you've not executed a "monarch", but an "ex-monarch", because they had already been out of office.

I know that it can be a point of view (POV) whether the monarch was really dethroned or not, and especially whether they were still the (legitimate) monarch or not. The classic historiographical problem is the Execution of Louis XVI: was that "putting citizen Louis Capet to justice" (D; as revolutionaries saw it) or "murdering/lynching the rightful King Louis XVI" (B; as royalists saw it)? I can imagine royalists will have maintained that Louis was the rightful monarch of France until his death, even though I think there is consensus in historiography that at least the Insurrection of 10 August 1792 and Louis' subsequent imprisonment (13 August 1792 to 21 January 1793) in the Temple fortress until his execution represents a dethronement. That is scenario A, which could still lead to C or D, depending on whether you consider the Trial of Louis XVI to have been legitimate or illegitimate. But scenario B is no longer possible, because Louis was evidently not in office anymore while imprisoned in the Temple.

All this leads me to the conclusion that we cannot simultaneously put people in the Category:Dethroned monarchs and the Category:Murdered monarchs trees. Because it leads to a logical contradiction. The only scenario in which I can see that happening is that if Hank becomes the monarch of Foo, is dethroned but allowed to live (A), and becomes the monarch of Bar, and is then murdered while in office (B). That means Hank is the dethroned monarch of Foo, and the murdered monarch of Bar, but not the dethroned monarch of Bar. Hank would only be in Category:Dethroned monarchs because of Foo. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:43, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

In normal language, I don't think a murdered monarch is referred to as "dethroned" (your category B). Dethroned implies that there is life after being a monarch. A murdered monarch is a murdered monarch. They cease to be a monarch for the same reason a monarch dies of natural causes, death, not because they are dethroned. They remain a monarch to the end of their life. We don't refer to dead monarchs as "ex-monarchs". DeCausa (talk) 10:57, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
My thoughts exactly. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:56, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Completely agree with both of you. --Marbe166 (talk) 16:40, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Almost completely agree, except that in "B" I would classify a ruling monarch that's been murdered as a "past monarch", rather than "no longer a monarch"; a very small distinction but of some importance when it comes to legitimacy/succession: fairly often in history a monarch is murdered only for their heir to ascend the throne, often deriving their legitimacy from shared blood with the previous monarch. I would consider "no longer a monarch" to be more aligned with "ex-monarch", as usually, both imply the line of succession has been vastly disrupted or even ended; while palace/familial coups where a monarch's brother/son/mother's brother's uncle's son seizes the throne do occur, and usually rely upon the legitimacy of the predecessor with some (often extraneous) justification for why the new guy should be able to take the throne, by and large, most cases where the previous monarch is in exile/prison, the line of succession, and the legitimacy derived therefrom, are ended. The distinction, therefore, is that a "past monarch" is fully legitimate and would have continued to be until the end of time or another cause of death, anyone who is "no longer a monarch" has presumably lost their legitimacy ipso facto, the same as an "ex-monarch". Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:30, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
For the sake of clarity and a TL;DR: I agree that: For "A", a dethroned monarch is either "no longer a monarch" or a pretender (if they still press the claim), and that for "C" and "D", if a monarch is dethroned and then murdered or dethroned and then executed, they are an "ex-monarch" at the time of death. My only quibble is that per "B", I believe that monarchs who are murdered while ruling should not be categorized as "no longer a monarch" but as a "past monarch", due to legitimacy considerations. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:35, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
I don't see any distinction between "no longer a monarch" and an "ex-monarch". In normal language, they are interchangeable. But, in any case, I don't think it matters to the question originally posed on the murdered/dethroned categorisations. DeCausa (talk) 06:42, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Just to add that there could be some factual ambiguity about whether a monarch was just murdered or dethroned and then murdered during or shortly after the coup. I'm thinking about some of the Roman and Byzantine emperors for example. There may be a case for some of these being in both categories. But that wouldn't mean Category:Murdered monarchs should be a subcategory of Category:Dethroned monarchs, which is the point of the question. DeCausa (talk) 10:20, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
FWIW - Louis XVI was 'no longer' monarch, by the time he was executed. France had already been a republic for about four months. Examples of former monarchs 'might of' been murdered, while their countries were still monarchies, are England's Edward II & Richard II. GoodDay (talk) 13:37, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
For the record, the category was renamed from Murdered to Category:Assassinated monarchs. – Fayenatic London 21:44, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Louis X, Duke of Bavaria

Does anyone know the exact date Louis X, Duke of Bavaria in 1516 Louis became Duke? ✠ Robertus Pius ✠ (Talk • Contribs) 16:20, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Need notifications, for when RMs are opened

A request. May we please have RM notifications brought here (at this WikiProject), so editors won't miss such RMs? With so many of them ocurring, some opened before others are closed, it can be difficult to keep up & easy to miss. In the meantime, we've got WP:RM as our current tracker. GoodDay (talk) 03:29, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

They are automatically listed in the Announcements section. DrKay (talk) 17:42, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
I do believe, I need new glasses. GoodDay (talk) 17:44, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
If you watchlist Wikipedia:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility/Article alerts, it is updated once a day with changes. DrKay (talk) 17:48, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Ok. PS - Sure wish those who are anxious to implement the latest page moves, would wait until one RM is closed, before opening another. GoodDay (talk) 17:51, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Pause the RMs

As many of you will be aware, following the NCROY change there have been many requested moves. That's a lot of intense discussions which largely cover the same ground. As a peripherally-involved editor I think it would do everyone the world of good to have a break, perhaps until the new year. What do you think? A.D.Hope (talk) 11:21, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Discussion of interest: JOBTITLES

FYI, there's a discussion under way at WT:MOSBIO#JOBTITLES simplification proposal that potentially impacts this wikiproject and in particular the WP:NCROY naming conventions. Rosbif73 (talk) 12:40, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

RfC: How should articles on sovereigns of current European monarchies be (re)titled?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Initiator has withdrawn request. See his extended closing statement below. Hurricane Andrew (444) 19:55, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

A previous RfC determined that there was consensus to support updating WP:NCROY, a guideline that has been a basis for titling articles on European monarchs since the fall of the Western Roman Empire, to explicitly allow the use of shorter titles for these sovereigns if disambiguation is unnecessary. Given this result, which of the following four options is the best way to (re)title Wikipedia articles on pertinent European sovereigns going forward?

  1. Option 1 - Maintain the status quo and issue a WP:MORATORIUM on all requested moves (RMs) for European monarchs’ articles under the scope of WP:NCROY until 365 days have passed since the closure date of this RfC
  2. Option 2 - Rename pertinent article titles to follow WP:NCROY as currently written (whose guidance deferred to WP:COMMONNAME at the time of this RfC’s opening)
  3. Option 3 - Rename pertinent article titles to follow WP:RELIABLE and amend WP:NCROY accordingly
  4. Option 4 - Rename pertinent article titles to follow WP:CONSISTENT and amend WP:NCROY accordingly

All participants are strongly encouraged to read the nominator’s extended rationale before contributing. Hurricane Andrew (444) 22:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Notifications

All notifications below this text were added after comments from other users had been made starting at 22:13 UTC on November 23, 2023. This disclosure is added per WP:TALK#REVISE.

Extended rationale by nominator AndrewPeterT (APT)

NOTE A: This is my (APT’s) first time initiating a RfC, so I apologize if I have done anything improperly.

NOTE B: This RfC is attempting to resolve unsettled concerns regarding the application of WP:NCROY in lieu of WP:NCROY per se. Hence, I am opening this discussion here at WP:ROYALTY instead of WP:NCROY. Hurricane Andrew (444) 22:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Article titles that APT would like the community to focus on

I recognize that there are many articles on the English Wikipedia that are arguably under the scope of WP:NCROY. To avoid overwhelming readers of this discussion, I ask that as a community, we focus our attention on the article titles that I have explicitly listed in this section. Hurricane Andrew (444) 22:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

CONTEXT: The information provided below up to the end of this section was originally published by APT on September 18, 2023 as evidence in favor of his argument at the same RfC linked in the opening statement of this RfC. Also, “Adherence to WP:NCROY” refers to whether or not a cited article title followed Guideline 2 of WP:SOVEREIGN at the time APT published his information originally (Link to current text of WP:SOVEREIGN)

NOTES: First, to avoid overwhelming readers not familiar with European royalty, rulers of former monarchies are excluded. Also, as alluded to previously, sovereigns of the Vatican City are excluded because they are popes instead covered by WP:NCCL. Furthermore, the Presidents of France and Bishops of Urgell, the Co-Princes of Andorra, are excluded because they are instead subjected to WP:NCP and WP:NCCL, respectively.

Monarchs of Belgium

This section was edited at 04:17, 25 November 2023 (UTC) after comments from other users had been made starting at 22:13 UTC on November 23, 2023. This disclosure is added per WP:TALK#REVISE.

All sovereigns that have reigned since Belgium’s independence from the Netherlands in 1830 are included.

Monarchs of Belgium
Title Reign Adherence to September 18, 2023 version of WP:NCROY
Leopold I of Belgium 1831-1865 Yes
Leopold II of Belgium 1865-1909 Yes
Albert I of Belgium 1909-1934 Yes
Leopold III of Belgium 1934-1951 Yes
Baudouin of Belgium 1951-1993 Yes (only monarch with name)
Albert II of Belgium 1993-2013 Yes
Philippe of Belgium 2013-present Yes (only monarch with name)

Monarchs of Denmark

This section was edited at 04:17, 25 November 2023 (UTC) after comments from other users had been made starting at 22:13 UTC on November 23, 2023. This disclosure is added per WP:TALK#REVISE.

All sovereigns that have reigned since the establishment of the Danish House of Glücksburg in 1863 are included.

Monarchs of Denmark
Title Reign Adherence to September 18, 2023 version of WP:NCROY
Christian IX of Denmark 1863-1906 Yes
Frederick VIII of Denmark 1906-1912 Yes
Christian X of Denmark 1912-1947 Yes
Frederick IX of Denmark 1947-1972 Yes
Margrethe II 1972-present No (moved since closure of RfC linked in opening statement)

Monarchs of the Netherlands

This section was edited at 04:17, 25 November 2023 (UTC) after comments from other users had been made starting at 22:13 UTC on November 23, 2023. This disclosure is added per WP:TALK#REVISE.

All sovereigns that have reigned since the establishment of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in 1815 are included.

Monarchs of the Netherlands
Title Reign Adherence to September 18, 2023 version of WP:NCROY
William I of the Netherlands 1815-1840 Yes
William II of the Netherlands 1840-1849 Yes
William III of the Netherlands 1849-1890 Yes
Wilhelmina of the Netherlands 1890-1948 Yes (only monarch with name)
Juliana of the Netherlands 1948-1980 Yes (only monarch with name)
Beatrix of the Netherlands 1980-2013 Yes (only monarch with name)
Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands 2013-present Yes (only monarch with name)

Monarchs of Norway

This section was edited at 21:13, 24 November 2023 (UTC) and at 04:17, 25 November 2023 (UTC) after comments from other users had been made starting at 22:13 UTC on November 23, 2023. This disclosure is added per WP:TALK#REVISE.

All sovereigns that have reigned since the dissolution of the personal union of Norway with Sweden in 1905 are included.

Monarchs of Norway
Title Reign Adherence to September 18, 2023 version of WP:NCROY
Haakon VII 1905-1957 No (moved since closure of RfC linked in opening statement)
Olav V 1957-1991 No (moved since closure of RfC linked in opening statement)
Harald V 1991-present No (moved since closure of RfC linked in opening statement)

Monarchs of Spain

This section was edited at 04:17, 25 November 2023 (UTC) after comments from other users had been made starting at 22:13 UTC on November 23, 2023. This disclosure is added per WP:TALK#REVISE.

All sovereigns that have reigned in Spain since the establishment of the House of Bourbon-Anjou in 1700 are included, excluding monarchs from other royal houses.

Monarchs of Spain
Title Reign Adherence to September 18, 2023 version of WP:NCROY
Philip V of Spain 1700-1724 and 1724-1746 Yes
Louis I of Spain 1724-1724 Yes
Ferdinand VI of Spain 1746-1759 Yes
Charles III of Spain 1759-1788 Yes
Charles IV of Spain 1788-1808 Yes
Ferdinand VII of Spain 1808-1808 and 1813-1833 Yes
Isabella II of Spain 1833-1868 Yes
Alfonso XII 1874-1885 No
Alfonso XIII 1886-1931 No
Juan Carlos I 1975-2014 No
Felipe VI 2014-present No

Monarchs of Sweden

This section was edited at 04:17, 25 November 2023 (UTC) after comments from other users had been made starting at 22:13 UTC on November 23, 2023. This disclosure is added per WP:TALK#REVISE.

All sovereigns that have reigned in Sweden since the establishment of the House of Bernadotte in 1818 are included.

Monarchs of Sweden
Title Reign Adherence to September 18, 2023 version of WP:NCROY
Charles XIV John 1818-1844 No (and fails to acknowledge Norwegian regnal number)
Oscar I of Sweden 1844-1859 Yes
Charles XV 1859-1872 No (and fails to acknowledge Norwegian regnal number)
Oscar II 1872-1907 No
Gustaf V 1907-1950 No
Gustaf VI Adolf 1950-1973 No
Carl XVI Gustaf 1973-present No

Monarchs of Great Britain or the United Kingdom

This section was edited at 04:17, 25 November 2023 (UTC) after comments from other users had been made starting at 22:13 UTC on November 23, 2023. This disclosure is added per WP:TALK#REVISE.

All sovereigns that have reigned since the unification of the Kingdoms of England and Scotland in 1707 are included.

British monarchs
Title Reign Adherence to September 18, 2023 version of WP:NCROY
Anne, Queen of Great Britain 1707-1714 Yes (only monarch with name)
George I of Great Britain 1714-1727 Yes
George II of Great Britain 1727-1760 Yes
George III 1760-1820 No
George IV 1820-1830 No
William IV 1830-1837 No
Queen Victoria 1837-1901 No
Edward VII 1901-1910 No
George V 1910-1936 No
Edward VIII 1936-1936 No
George VI 1936-1952 No
Elizabeth II 1952-2022 No
Charles III 2022-present No

Monarchs of Luxembourg

This section was edited at 04:17, 25 November 2023 (UTC) after comments from other users had been made starting at 22:13 UTC on November 23, 2023. This disclosure is added per WP:TALK#REVISE.

All sovereigns that have reigned since the dissolution of the personal union of Luxembourg with the Netherlands in 1890 are included.

Monarchs of Luxembourg
Title Reign Adherence to September 18, 2023 version of WP:NCROY
Adolphe, Grand Duke of Luxembourg 1890-1905 Yes (only monarch of name)
William IV, Grand Duke of Luxembourg 1905-1912 Yes
Marie-Adélaïde, Grand Duchess of Luxembourg 1912-1919 Yes (only monarch with name)
Charlotte, Grand Duchess of Luxembourg 1919-1964 Yes (only monarch with name)
Jean, Grand Duke of Luxembourg 1964-2000 Yes (only monarch with name)
Henri, Grand Duke of Luxembourg 2000-present Yes (only monarch with name)

Sovereign Princes of Liechtenstein

This section was edited at 04:17, 25 November 2023 (UTC) after comments from other users had been made starting at 22:13 UTC on November 23, 2023. This disclosure is added per WP:TALK#REVISE.

Sovereign Princes of Liechtenstein
Title Reign Adherence to September 18, 2023 version of WP:NCROY
Karl I, Prince of Liechtenstein 1627-1684 Yes
Karl Eusebius, Prince of Liechtenstein 1662-1701 Yes (only monarch of name)
Hans-Adam I, Prince of Liechtenstein 1684-1712 Yes
Joseph Wenzel I, Prince of Liechtenstein 1712-1718 and 1748-1772 Yes
Anton Florian, Prince of Liechtenstein 1718-1721 Yes (only monarch with name)
Joseph Johann Adam, Prince of Liechtenstein 1721-1732 Yes (only monarch with name)
Johann Nepomuk Karl, Prince of Liechtenstein 1732-1748 Yes (only monarch with name)
Franz Joseph I, Prince of Liechtenstein 1772-1781 Yes
Aloys I, Prince of Liechtenstein 1781-1805 Yes
Johann I Joseph, Prince of Liechtenstein 1805-1836 Yes
Aloys II, Prince of Liechtenstein 1836-1858 Yes
Johann II, Prince of Liechtenstein 1858-1929 Yes
Franz I, Prince of Liechtenstein 1929-1938 Yes
Franz Joseph II, Prince of Liechtenstein 1938-1989 Yes
Hans-Adam II, Prince of Liechtenstein 1989-present Yes

Rulers of Monaco

This section was edited at 04:17, 25 November 2023 (UTC) after comments from other users had been made starting at 22:13 UTC on November 23, 2023. This disclosure is added per WP:TALK#REVISE.

Sovereigns since Monaco became a principality in 1633 are listed, excluding periods of occupation.

Rulers of Monaco
Title Reign Adherence to September 18, 2023 version of WP:NCROY
Honoré II, Prince of Monaco 1633-1662 Yes
Louis I, Prince of Monaco 1662-1701 Yes
Antonio I, Prince of Monaco 1701-1731 Yes
Louise Hippolyte, Princess of Monaco 1731-1731 Yes (only monarch of name in Monaco)
Jacques I, Prince of Monaco 1731-1733 Yes
Honoré III, Prince of Monaco 1733-1793 Yes
Honoré IV, Prince of Monaco 1814-1819 Yes
Honoré V, Prince of Monaco 1819-1841 Yes
Florestan, Prince of Monaco 1841-1856 Yes (only monarch with name)
Charles III, Prince of Monaco 1856-1889 Yes
Albert I, Prince of Monaco 1889-1922 Yes
Louis II, Prince of Monaco 1922-1949 Yes
Rainier III, Prince of Monaco 1949-2005 Yes
Albert II, Prince of Monaco 2005-present Yes

Hurricane Andrew (444) 22:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

The Norwegian monarchs pages no longer have "Of Norway" in their article titles. 2601:249:9301:D570:DCE:DB6E:BCC:F04D (talk) 05:00, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing this out. I have modified the Norwegian monarchs' table accordingly. Hurricane Andrew (444) 21:15, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
APT’s personal opinion on the RfC matter

I support Option 1, Option 3, or Option 4 as the outcome of this RfC. I do not support Option 2 because neither WP:NCROY nor WP:COMMONNAME establishes an explicit numerical threshold or ratio that can be used to choose one possible article title over another.

In addition, I am aware that my views regarding the article titles for European sovereign have received strong opposition from the community, both at the RfC I linked in my opening statement and at a requested move on Elizabeth II’s article that I initiated on July 30, 2023. Therefore, the rest of my statement will instead seek to inform the community of the context regarding each proposed outcome in this RfC instead of attempting to persuade participants to agree with my opinion. Hurricane Andrew (444) 22:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Option 1 context: WP:RMs for articles on British monarchs have been frequent

I am aware that WP:MORATORIUMs are counter to some general Wikipedia practices. However, in the past year alone (i.e. since November 1, 2022), at least six different RMs have been initiated to change titles for British sovereigns in particular:

RMs for British monarchs
Article where RM was initiated Start date of discussion End date of discussion
Queen Victoria November 29, 2022 December 6, 2022
Charles III July 23, 2023 July 31, 2023
Elizabeth II July 30, 2023 (that APT initiated) August 4, 2023
George I of Great Britain July 30, 2023 August 15, 2023
Elizabeth II August 14, 2023 August 14, 2023
William IV September 14, 2023 September 22, 2023

It should be noted that the simultaneous discussion of the Charles III, Elizabeth II, and George I RMs in July 2023 caused a user to raise a complaint at WP:ANI about the appropriateness of such discussions occurring. This complaint was redirected to the talk page of WP:RM, where it was concluded that the simultaneous discussions could proceed.

Evidently, the quantity of RM discussions in the realm of British monarch’s title has caused frustration and exhaustion among Wikipedia users. Consequently, I believe that as a community, we need to take a break from arguing over what the best title may be for not just British sovereigns, but all European sovereigns. A moratorium that lasts up to a year after the closing of this RfC therefore seems prudent. Hurricane Andrew (444) 22:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Option 2 context: There is a disconnect between the letter of WP:NCROY and current practice

As of the start of this RfC, Guideline III of the Sovereigns section of WP:NCROY stated the following (Bolded emphasis mine):

Only use a territorial designation (e.g. country) when disambiguation is needed. In the case of kings, queens regnant, emperors, and empresses regnant whose common name is ambiguous or not the primary meaning, article titles are normally in the form "{Monarch's first name and ordinal} of {Country}". Examples: Philip IV of Spain; Henry I of France; Joan II of Navarre.

Moreover, Guideline V of the Sovereigns sections of WP:NCROY stated (Bolded emphasis mine):

European monarchs whose rank is below that of king (e.g., grand dukes, electors, dukes, princes), and whose plain common name is ambiguous, should be at the location "{Monarch's first name and ordinal}, {Title} of {Country}". Examples: Maximilian I, Elector of Bavaria, Jean, Grand Duke of Luxembourg. This is often usage, and avoids the question of when these duchies became monarchies, as opposed to noble offices within the Kingdom of Germany/the Holy Roman Empire

However, these blanket guidelines do not account for where multiple sovereigns’ titles are currently located. This is clearly illustrated in the list below:

  1. Juliana of the Netherlands is the only queen named Juliana to have an English Wikipedia page, but her article title uses the "{Monarch's first name and ordinal} of {Country}" format regardless.
  2. No other person named Christian X other than Christian X of Denmark has an article of English Wikipedia article. However, the Danish monarch’s page still uses the "{Monarch's first name and ordinal} of {Country}" format.
  3. The only person named Anton Florian with a Wikipedia page is Anton Florian, Prince of Liechtenstein. Nevertheless, the sovereign prince’s article title still follows the "{Monarch's first name and ordinal}, {Title} of {Country}" template.

From the above evidence, it can be seen that there is greater nuance to how European monarchs are titled on Wikipedia beyond whether or not they are the only sovereign with their regnal name. Work needs to be done to either amend WP:NCROY accordingly or move a number of article titles to adhere to the current guidelines of WP:NCROY. Hurricane Andrew (444) 22:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Option 3 context: WP:RSs show (Name) of (Country) format is more common in secondary sources

WP:RS states the following:

Prefer secondary sources – Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a paper reviewing existing research, a review article, monograph, or textbook is often better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised. Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves (see Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view).

Based on the following evidence in this section, an additional justification for using the "{Monarch's first name and ordinal} of {Country}" format for article titles on European sovereigns emerges:

  1. For example, when completing a search for “Wilhelmina of the Netherlands” on JSTOR (a digital library of academic journals and books), one sees that 24 primary sources and 122 secondary sources use this designation for the Netherlands’s queen regnant during World War II (i.e. over 400 percent more secondary sources than primary sources).
  2. Likewise, when completing a search for “Christian IX of Denmark” on JSTOR, one sees that 7 primary sources and 74 secondary sources use this exact title for Denmark’s king at the start of the 20th century (i.e. over 900 percent more secondary sources than primary sources). Hurricane Andrew (444) 22:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Option 4 context: The WP:CONSENSUS of the linked RfC in the opening statement has been debatable

In the closing statement of the RfC written on November 2, 2023, the closer noted that ...editors pointed out that the proposal [to explicitly allow shorter titles for European monarchs’ articles in WP:NCROY] reflects current practice…

However, by analyzing a series of RMs initiated before November 2023 for European sovereigns whose targets were more concise titles, a more nuanced picture of this current practice emerges:

NOTE: APT originally included some of these RMs in his evidence for the RfC linked in the opening statement of this discussion.

RMs for European monarchs
Article where RM was initiated Proposed target Was RM successful?
Anne, Queen of Great Britain Queen Anne No
Elizabeth I of England Elizabeth I Yes
George I of Great Britain George I No
Juan Carlos I of Spain Juan Carlos I Yes (Note that this discussion happened on a separate article talk page)
Maria Theresa of Austria Maria Theresa Yes
Napoleon I of France Napoleon I (now at Napoleon) Yes
Oscar I of Sweden Oscar I No
Victor Emmanuel III of Italy Victor Emmanuel III No

As can be seen from the above information, the supposed consensus that was acknowledged in the November 2023 RfC was not truly agreed upon. Additionally, a box in the lede of WP:SILENCE states the following:

Is there consensus?
...
  • Someone complained about my idea →
    You can no longer assume consensus exists because you have seen evidence of disagreement.

I can produce this evidence of disagreement on the spot: Two days after the RfC linked in the opening statement closed, I voiced my disagreement in writing with the final decision (albeit on a user talk page). This edit should indicate in no uncertain terms that one can no longer assume consensus exists regarding that RfC outcome.

Furthermore, I am not the only user who has expressed disagreement with how article titles on European sovereigns have been titled in recent years, as illustrated by this discussion on George III’s talk page.

Finally, as I illustrate in Appendix A of my extended rationale below, there is precedent for longer titles that are not necessarily WP:COMMONNAMEs to be used to identify members of European royalty on Wikipedia. The outcome of the November 2023 RfC is inconsistent with the pattern that I will show in that section. Hurricane Andrew (444) 22:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

APT’s notes for the closer

  1. First and foremost, I thank you in advance for carefully considering all of the opinions expressed in this dicussion. RfCs like mine are no easy task for the community to resolve, and your service is greatly appreciated.
  2. I ask that you be cautious for signs of response bias and participation bias when evaluating the substance of each argument expressed. As with most other functions of Wikipedia, there was no randomness involved in the creation of this RfC. Therefore, the consensus of this sample of Wikipedia editors cannot be generalized to be reflective of the population of all Wikipedia users. Moreover, this discussion may only reflect extreme viewpoints or other biased perspectives.
  3. WP:COMPETENCE notes the following:
Basically, we presume that people who contribute to the English-language Wikipedia have the following competencies … the ability to understand their own abilities and competencies, and avoid editing in areas where their lack of skill or knowledge causes them to create significant errors for others to clean up.
Consequently, I ask that in the spirit of this guidance, as you evaluate each argument made in this RfC, you place greater weight on reasonings that show a strong understanding of the implications of this discussion on the article titles of pertinent European monarchs.

Hurricane Andrew (444) 22:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

APPENDIX A: Evidence of WP:COMMONNAME already being disregarded for multiple European royals (and WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT being used)

NOTE: APT originally published this information on September 18, 2023 as evidence in support of his argument in the RfC linked in the opening statement.

Below, I have listed select princes and princesses from five current European monarchies. Moreover, using Google search results, I show that each of their Wikipedia article titles are less common than some alternatives but are still used regardless'. I see no reason why monarchs’ titles should not follow the same trend in the spirit of WP:CONSISTENT:

Wikipedia titles for European princes and princesses
Title Google hits for Title Alternative name Google hits for Alternative name Percentage comparison of Google Title hits with Google Alternative hits
William, Prince of Wales 659,000 Prince William 129,000,000 0.5% of Google Alternative hits
Catherine, Princess of Wales 1,220,000 Kate Middleton 152,000,000 0.8% of Google Alternative hits
Diana, Princess of Wales 4,940,000 Princess Diana 53,500,000 9.23% of Google Alternative hits
Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex 1,850,000 Prince Harry 170,000,000 1.09% of Google Alternative hits
Meghan, Duchess of Sussex 4,870,000 Meghan Markle 347,000,000 1.40% of Google Alternative hits
Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon 122,000 Princess Margaret 12,200,000 1% of Google Alternative hits
Anne, Princess Royal 452,000 Princess Anne 14,900,000 3.03% of Google Alternative hits
Prince Andrew, Duke of York 310,000 Prince Andrew 78,800,000 0.39% of Google Alternative hits
Prince Edward, Duke of Edinburgh 184,000 Prince Edward 95,500,000 0.19% of Google Alternative hits
Frederik, Crown Prince of Denmark 62,000 Prince Frederik 640,000 9.69% of Google Alternative hits
Haakon, Crown Prince of Norway 18,600 Prince Haakon 271,000 6.86% of Google Alternative hits
Prince Carl Philip, Duke of Värmland 26,200 Prince Carl Philip 797,000 3.29% of Google Alternative hits
Leonor, Princess of Asturias 130,000 Princess Leonor 954,000 13.63% of Google Alternative hits

Hurricane Andrew (444) 22:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Survey

  • Option 4 - Bring back consistency, in the form of Monarch # of country. GoodDay (talk) 22:15, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Support either option 1 or 4: supporting 4 to restore the "Monarch # of country" format which should not have been abandoned and whose abandoners have created circular arguments to detract from the inherently flimsy backing of the "concision" in the first place. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:40, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 2, if I'm understanding "Option 2 context" correctly. We should not be employing disambiguation strings unless they are necessary, per WP:DAB and WP:CONCISE. Just ensure that redirects like "Foobar IV of Elbonia" and "King Foobar IV" and "King Foobar IV of Elbonia" redirect to the "Foobar IV" article. WP:CONSISTENT means to name articles consistently, and when disambiguation is necessary, to employ consistent disambiguation strings. It does not mean and never has meant to "pre-disambiguate" unambiguous article titles with disambiguation strings to make them "consistent" with those that are necessarily disambiguated.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:50, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 4 - Definitely Monarch # of country, with redirects set up for well known names like "Elizabeth II" to go to "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom". While I understand that people are trying to have Wikipedia use common names to make pages easier to find, and that makes sense on an individual level, it's now created confusion where so many monarchs are written in different styles. This has resulted in monarchs being more difficult to find, not less. El Dubs (talk) 01:22, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 2 per SMcCandlish. Only disambiguate when necessary. That doesn't necessarily mean that we should move all of the existing unambiguous "Monarch # of country" articles to plain "Monarch #" though: WP:COMMONNAME allows us to add the country in cases where reliable English-language sources consistently do so (which is likely to be the case for countries whose monarchs are not well known to English-speaking readers). Rosbif73 (talk) 06:59, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 2 per SMcCandlish. I also oppose relitigating issues immediately after the closure of previous RfCs on the same issue. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:17, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 4 per GoodDay and El Dubs. --Marbe166 (talk) 10:24, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 2 per SMcCandlish and Celia Homeford. Thryduulf (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose Option 4. There are 4 other points besides consistency to consider when deciding on an article title. Consistency is not the most important one, nor should it be promoted above the others. The supporters of option 4 want to move Elizabeth II to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, but this has already been discussed and rejected in multiple prior discussions including in July 2023, August 2023 and September 2023. This RfC appears to be yet another attempt to circumvent the requested moves process in a desperate attempt to add 4 extra unnecessary words to a natural, recognizable, precise, concise, neutral article title that is consistent among British monarchs. Since this is the fourth attempt to move that article in as many months, I should think a moratorium on any further attempts will be imposed by the community regardless of whether option 1 is selected or not. I do not believe the community will accept further discussion on this issue at the end of this RfC and any attempt to launch such a discussion is very likely to be viewed as disruptive editing. On option 3, please note that WP:RELIABLE is a wikipedia-wide content guideline that overrides any naming convention. If a name is not found in reliable sources, it is not verifiable or recognizable and is therefore contrary to both the verifiability policy and the article titling policy. Consequently, option 3 is non-negotiable regardless of any other option chosen in addition to it. DrKay (talk) 18:30, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 2 per the fact that WP:COMMONNAME is policy and so is WP:LOCALCON. Option 3 is also the same as option 2, COMMONNAME assessments must be based on reliable sources. Oppose option 4 as it would sidestep recent RFCs on the matter. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:39, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
    I would also support option 1. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:19, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 1 These things should be decided locally, and a rest from the endless number of time-wasting RM proposals would be wonderful. Consistency is not that important. Johnbod (talk) 19:53, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 1 I feel that here I have to repeat what I said on the Elizabeth II PROD, she's not just Queen of the UK so it would be UNDUE to title her as Elizabeth II of the UK and the same principle would apply for monarchs who hold multiple crowns so option 4 would be inappropriate. It should be decided locally on a case by case basis as Johnbod says. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 20:41, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 1 and oppose all others. Only Option 1 is consistent with the previous RfCs, everything else is an attempt at a do-over. This should be procedurally closed insofar as it affects British monarchs due to the multiple RfCs on the subject in the past several months, all of which have come to the same conclusion. Frankly, it should be procedurally closed entirely. It's just being used as a way of getting another do-over on the question of British monarchs.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:57, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
    On reconsideration, I could live with option 2, given the recent changes to NCROY. I agree with the comments of Kahastok, below. Wehwalt (talk) 22:25, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
  • I'm not clear what I'm supporting and opposing with each option. On one hand, the extended rationale rules that any title not of the form Cheese IV of Onion or Cheese, Queen of Onion is not in accordance with WP:NCROY. On the other, it acknowledges that WP:NCROY currently prefers WP:COMMONNAME, in which case articles claimed not to be in accordance with WP:NCROY are in fact in accordance with WP:NCROY. I note that Option 4 is interpreted as requiring a move to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, but it cites WP:CONSISTENT, and consistency with other British monarchs would imply the opposite - that George II of Great Britain be moved to plain George II. It is argued below that WP:COMMONNAME isn't a clear enough standard, but we have used WP:COMMONNAME as a standard on the rest of the 'pedia for donkeys' years and there is no reason why this topic should be uniquely difficult to manage. More broadly, this appears to me to be an attempt to relitigate the previous RFC, which ended less than a month ago, where the issues seem to have been well-discussed and where consensus was reached. So I say we should speedy close and implement the result of the previous RFC. Kahastok talk 22:10, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
    FWIW, a few years ago, all British monarchs - George I to Elizabeth II, had of Great Britain or of the United Kingdom, in their artiel titles. GoodDay (talk) 22:23, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
    Clarification by APT - Before I continue, I want to say I am doing my best to not WP:BLUDGEON these discussions. However, I also feel the need for my perspectives and intentions to be truthfully represented. Therefore, I am taking this opportunity to respond to the claims that have been made in Kahastok's comment (some of which are also stated in other users' posts).
    1. First, I understand that some users see this RfC as an attempt to relitigate the issues of the RfC linked in the opening statement. I disagree with this claim. That RfC was attempting to determine consensus into what changes should be made to the explicit language of WP:NCROY based on the current titling practices of European sovereigns at the time. By opening this RfC, I seek to determine a consensus on what sitewide WP:PG should take precedence when changing any titles for relevant European sovereigns from now on, given the outcome of the WP:NCROY RfC and respecting the consensus that emerged there. (In any case, a user has noted that Option 3 is non-negotiable regardless of what other options the community agrees upon.)
    2. Second, I explicitly stated the following in my statement for the WP:NCROY RfC linked in the opening statement (Emphasis in original):

    Regardless of where we stand on this issue, I hope that we can all agree that this RfC should bring closure to a debate that has been in the making for the years. I will respect the final decision and will offer my services to amend WP:NCROY as appropriate depending on what the community agrees to.

    Evidently, I disagree with the outcome of the WP:NCROY RfC, and I have not been afraid to express this disagreement. However, this RfC was not and should not be seen as attempt to override that consensus. As I elaborate on further in 6., some of the fine print of WP:NCROY still does not align with the current titling practice, even with a new consensus and new language.
    3. Third, I am very perplexed by the editors that are claiming that some supporters of this RfC are attempting to move Elizabeth II's page back to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. Not once in the opening statement, my extended rationale, or in any of the survey comments provided so far, let alone from those who support Option 4, do I see any explicit calls for this move to occur. Yes, a user gave Elizabeth II's article as part of an example of what they would ideally like to see regarding the titling practices for European sovereigns. Yes, I notified followers of the talk page for Elizabeth II’s article that this RfC was occurring. However, I fail to see how merely providing an example of an article title and linking that article's talk page to an RfC is evidence of wanting a RM for such an article.
    4. Fourth, as with the WP:NCROY RfC, I have stated on multiple occasions that I was going to accept the eventual outcome of the Elizabeth II RM:
    Exhibit A - From my opening statement for the Elizabeth II RM from July 2023: Although I hope that a move to my requested targets will ensue from this discussion, I recognize that such a decision will come from the consensus that emerges.
    Exhibit B - From my extended rationale above (Emphasis in original): In addition, I am aware that my views regarding the article titles for European sovereign have received strong opposition from the community, both at the RfC I linked in my opening statement ... and at a requested move on Elizabeth II’s article that I initiated on July 30, 2023. Therefore, the rest of my statement will instead seek to inform the community of the context regarding each proposed outcome in this RfC instead of attempting to persuade participants to agree with my opinion.
    Above all, I have found the RMs for Elizabeth II’s article that have happened since the one I initiated since to be WP:DISRUPTIVE editing, and they should not have occurred.
    5. Fifth, not once did I rule that any of the current article titles for European monarchs were not in accordance with the current version of WP:NCROY in my tables in the "Article titles that APT would like the community to focus on" section. This adherence to WP:NCROY was in reference to a previous version of WP:NCROY, which I made clear in context: The information provided below up to the end of this section ... was originally published by APT on September 18, 2023] as evidence in favor of his argument at the same RfC linked in the opening statement of this RfC. Also, “Adherence to WP:NCROY” refers to whether or not a cited article title followed ... Guideline 2 of WP:SOVEREIGN at the time APT published his information originally]
    6. Sixth, I indeed noted that the current version of WP:NCROY prefers WP:COMMONNAME in the opening statement. Also, if this is what WP:NCROY is going to be based on, this actually means that some articles currently formatted Cheese [IV] of Onion or Cheese, Queen of Onion are not in accordance with WP:NCROY, as I highlight in my Option 2 context.
    Case in point: Juliana of the Netherlands is the only monarch named Juliana to have a Wikipedia article. Moreover, Queen Juliana is a more WP:COMMONNAME for Juliana of the Netherlands, which I can show with JSTOR results. However, her article still follows the "{Monarch's first name and ordinal} of {Country}" format, which WP:NCROY currently rules is unnecessary for a monarch with an unambiguous regnal name like Juliana.
    7. Seventh, I will concede that the claim regarding WP:CONSISTENT is correct for British monarchs. However, using this same reasoning, Margrethe II should be moved back to Margrethe II of Denmark because as can be seen in the tables of monarchs above, every other Danish sovereign that has reigned since 1863 uses the "{Monarch's first name and ordinal} of {Country}" titling format. Likewise, Alfonso XII, Alfonso XIII, Juan Carlos I, and Felipe VI should all be moved back to Alfonso XII of Spain, Alfonso XIII of Spain, Juan Carlos I of Spain, and Felipe VI of Spain because the majority (i.e. 7 out of 11) of Spanish House of Bourbon-Anjou monarchs are titled with the "{Monarch's first name and ordinal} of {Country}" template.
    8. Eighth, with respect to WP:COMMONNAME, just because that guideline has been frequently referenced in Wikipedia discussions does not mean that it is without its flaws. And I reiterate the claim I made in the Discussion section below that the lack of a specific numerical threshold in WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NCROY has been a factor in the intensity of the RM debates for European sovereigns. I will emphasize why a lack of a specific proportion is problematic with the following hypothetical example:
    • Editor A initiates a RM to move Foo III of Royalburg to Foo III. They cite WP:COMMONNAME in their request and note that 150% more secondary sources on JSTOR use “Foo III”.
    • Editor B supports Editor A's RM because Editor B's threshold for a WP:COMMONNAME is 140% more secondary sources on JSTOR.
    • Editor C opposes Editor A's RM because Editor C's threshold for a WP:COMMONNAME is 170% more secondary sources on JSTOR.
    • Editors D, E, and F all oppose Editor A's RM because Editor D, E, and F's threshold for a WP:COMMONNAME is 200% more secondary sources on JSTOR. Also, Editor A concedes that Editors D, E, and F have a stronger opinion.
    Because of the WP:CONSENSUS that emerged in that hypothetical discussion, Editor A's RM failed even though WP:COMMONNAME would have supported the move.
    To make it explicitly clear, if WP:COMMONNAME and/or WP:NCROY had specified a specific numerical ratio to select one common title over another, I would have endorsed Option 2. However, until either guideline is modified to explicitly include such a proportion, I stand by my opposition to Option 2 (while supporting Options 1, 3, and 4).
    Finally, I apologize if the following violates WP:AGF and WP:5P4. However, I highly encourage all participants not familiar with WP:READBEFORE to give that essay a thoughtful read. I hope that we can all agree that it is extremely frustrating to have to respond to false claims in any discussion.
    Hurricane Andrew (444) 03:44, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
    If I may--it may well be that there was no intent of reversing the recent failed RMs of British monarchs, But the supporters of Option 4 seem to assume there was. Whatever the intent, that is one reason why this RfC is causing a certain amount of frustration. Piled on the RMs first for individual British monarchs, then for groups of British monarchs, then perhaps for more individual British monarchs, it never seems to end. It is thus that some editors are viewing this as an unnecessary rerun of previous RfCs, and given how much editor time gets devoted to such discussions, beginning to rise to the level of disruption.
    On another matter--you complain of inconsistency among the titles of monarchic articles. We are barely three weeks since the close of the RfC amending NCROY and Wikipedia was not written in a day. Give it time. Several articles have been moved, others have not reached consensus for move. The community has barely begun to decide how to treat the more difficult cases. Judging by the evidence posted in initiating this RfC, the most difficult seem to be where the monarch is the only one of that name, and yet this RfC doesn't offer any guidance for that situation. It is time to step back and let the community work these things out. It is not the time for a fresh RfC, especially since if 2, 3, or 4 were adopted, the implementation would require a great amount of further discussion.
    I expressed my support for Option 1, but on reflection, I find that a mixed bag. It carries with it, part and parcel, a moratorium on further RMs for a year. I would be glad to see that in the case of British monarchs where moves have already been discussed to death, but I find it would also have the side effect of cutting off at a very early stage discussions of whether other articles, which have not yet had a RM, should be moved per NCROY. I would not seek to prevent that. Although I note, rather dispiritedly, that a moratorium on RMs does nothing to prevent further discussions like this, which has the effect of an RM. If this goes on, there's going to be another AN/I thread on whether there is disruption, and while this isn't the sort of area in which AN/I tends to take action, it's not going to do anyone any good. Wehwalt (talk) 14:34, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 1 / 3 / 4, not really sure what I'm voting on here, actual suggestion is just to overturn the recent change to NCROY and go back to the situation we had from 2019-2023 or so. That means using Option 4 / old-NCROY as the "default" (i.e. John I of Foo) and letting Option 3 (i.e. COMMONNAME / Reliable Sources) override it when there's a common name / the monarch is really famous. And Option 1 just seems good sense regardless, no need for constant move requests, just let things be sometimes. Opposed to option 2, i.e. throwing away "of Foo" everywhere. Just a first name isn't a significant enough disambiguator unless the person is incredibly famous like Queen Victoria, which is why "of Foo" is helpful as a replacement for a last name. SnowFire (talk) 02:32, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 1 for reasons given by Wehwalt and Kahastok: speedy close. This is just another attempt to change the naming of the British monarchs, which has been confirmed by consensus several times this year. I think it's starting to be an abuse of the RfC process. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:34, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Option Close down this forum shopping thread. We had this same discussion at Wikipedia talk:NCROY#RfC:_Should_the_guideline_explicitly_accept_Elizabeth_II,_Carl_XVI_Gustaf,_etc_titles? from 5 September until 2 November and reached a consensus, which OP and the participants already know because they took part in it. Surtsicna (talk) 16:18, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
    I note that I could have said the same thing about that RfC, as a similar one had already taken place in January. RfCs—rightly or wrongly— will happen regardless of if similar ones have happened in the past, even if they were in the very near past. So, if the NCROY RfC was allowed to take place, then this one by the same token should be too. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:48, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
    Do you mind linking to that January RfC? Surtsicna (talk) 16:59, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
    Here is the RfC that Tim O'Doherty was referencing. @Tim O'Doherty: let me know if this link is incorrect. Hurricane Andrew (444) 17:08, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
    So Tim O'Doherty proposes that titles such as Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom be enshrined into law ("always conform ... "without exception") at the expense of titles such as Elizabeth II. That proposal is so vehemently opposed that he ends up withdrawing it. 9 months later I propose the opposite: that decades-old, established titles such as Elizabeth II be explicitly endorsed by the guideline, and that proposal is accepted by the community. Now Tim O'Doherty wants us to believe that what I did is the same as this RfC which attempts to overturn this month's consensus. This is truly something to ponder. Surtsicna (talk) 17:18, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
    Surtsicna, with all due respect, I understand why you would see this RfC as forum shopping. Moreover, as I responded to a user above, I do not see this RfC in the same vein as the WP:NCROY RfC you linked. I agree with Tim O’Doherty that this RfC should proceed for the standard 30 days.
    And quite frankly, to add to Tim O’Doherty’s response, the consensus in the WP:NCROY RfC reflects a blanket judgement of WP:COMMONNAME that does not reflect specific nuances in how RMs have occurred, as I explain in my Option 4 context in my extended rationale, and is arguably equally unproductive as the WP:CONSISTENT blanket judgment that I accept I have been pushing.
    To make this point above clear, should the RMs for Norwegian monarchs not have been decided on a case by case basis? Is this RM not a WP:POINTy attempt to force adherence to WP:COMMONNAME? Or do these concerns only matter if WP:CONSISTENT is at hand?
    On a side note, I am exhausted from attempting to clarify my WP:AGF intentions to the community. At the expense of sidestepping WP:AGF and WP:5P4, I again direct all participants to read the WP:READBEFORE essay.
    Hurricane Andrew (444) 17:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
    AndrewPeterT, I honestly do not wish to offend, but I really have better things to do on Wikipedia than to read walls of text such as the one you just linked to. Please learn to present your point more succinctly. In this month's original RfC on this topic, your input even had to be hatted. That this is an attempt to overturn the consensus reached just this month after a two-month long discussion is patently clear to everyone involved. Even those supporting your proposal see it that way. Surtsicna (talk) 17:11, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
    Andrew, I don't know if you noticed, but WP:READBEFORE contains the line, Everyone should aspire to write concisely, and those who fail to do so forfeit the right to others' attention. This applies to you. Your extended rationale was originally 44kB and it's now even larger. You refer back to another 10kB behemoth here. You have failed to write concisely, and it is unreasonable of you to expect every word to be cogitated on carefully by every contributor to the page. Kahastok talk 17:42, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

There was a time, when all the bios of monarchs were in the style of Name # of country. Due to multiple RMs? that consistency has been evaporated, which (IMHO) is regrettable. GoodDay (talk) 22:13, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I completely agree with your response, GoodDay. Hopefully, my extended rationale shows to the broader community the extent to which these "consensuses" in this area were arguably never the case. Hurricane Andrew (444) 22:19, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Here's examples of confusion we've left for less familiar readers, concerning page names. We've got a monarch's page called Queen Victoria & a consort's page called Queen Camilla. There's German/Prussia monarchs, William I of Germany & Wilhelm II. But let's not forget (and plenty of examples of these) many current monarchs with no mention of their country, while their consorts mention the country. GoodDay (talk) 14:35, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Why is this a problem when titles like King Crimson, King Gale of Narnia, Queen Claye, Queen Clea, etc, exist uncontroversially? A reader only needs to read the articles to learn the status of the person being referenced. Thryduulf (talk) 15:02, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
Another reason indeed, to re-add the countries. So we don't have less familiar readers confusing monarchs/consorts with band names, sports names & fictional characters. GoodDay (talk) 15:09, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
Thryduulf, the examples you have cited are articles that would not fall under the scope of WP:NCROY. I agree that WP:COMMONNAME should be the basis for titling the articles you mention, and I agree with GoodDay that we should have a separate naming convention for non-fictional, literal royals so that readers can distinguish these two types of articles with WP:PRECISION.
Furthermore, since you mentioned King Gale of Narnia, I will counterargue by naming three fictional sovereigns whose Wikipedia articles do not have regnal titles: Palpatine, Elsa (Frozen), and Anna (Frozen). Hurricane Andrew (444) 04:07, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

@DrKay: I've been considering accepting an moratoriom on RMs in this area, after this current RFC ends. In these last few weeks, RMs on monarch bios have been popping up frequently, with some closures (IMHO) highly questionable. GoodDay (talk) 19:00, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Comment to those who support Option 2 - I understand and respect the opinions that you are expressing in this RfC. However, my core issue with WP:COMMONNAME (and by extension, the guidelines of WP:NCROY that are based off of it) is that there is no explicit numerical threshold or ratio that can be used to select one "common" article title over another.

Evidently, to establish an arbitrary WP:COMMONNAME proportion across all subject areas is impractical. However, in my opinion, this lack of a specific cutoff for WP:NCROY in particular is why the RMs for European monarchs have been so numerous, so heated, and so inconclusive. A community of multiple editors is reasonably going to have differing interpretations over what title is "more common" in secondary and other reliable sources. If we do not agree upon a specific numerical ratio to refer to, I worry that this discussion is simply going to appear again at a later date with a more unproductive tone. Hurricane Andrew (444) 21:41, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

  • Comment. I think articles GA and up at the time of rating should be analyzed for adherence to guideline (years later they may not have the same initial standards). In other types of articles, the title and lead of articles many times or mostly don't adhere to guidelines due to editors not knowing about them or checking them, not necessarily because editors think it is better to use whatever method they used. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 22:32, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
There doesn't need to be a numerical threshold, only consensus of editors at an articles talk page if the issue comes up. This is true of all articles titles, not just those under NCROY. The recent RFCs seem to have been the result of an attempt force consistency across articles, which has been rejected in many cases. This will fade and maybe in a few more years more there'll be new RFCs about renaming, and new ideas will come to the fore. None of this is set in stone, and it shouldn't be. The world changes and Wikipedia will change with it, hard set rules only act as a yoke to that change. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:14, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

In the tables, I note "Adherence to WP:NCROY". While it is noted, once, in the rather lengthy text, that this refers to the articles' present adherence to the former version of WP:NCROY, such may be missed by participants who are being given an awful lot of material to sort through, and who may, quite understandably, believe that what is being alleged is that those article titles presently do not comply with WP:NCROY, and form opinions based on that misapprehension. Can it not be made clear in each table that what is being referred to is whether the present article title would comply with the old version of the policy?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:39, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Wehwalt, thank you very much for your well-intentioned suggestion. I had decided to not modify the Adherence to WP:NCROY table row descriptors initially because I had assumed that the context sentence would have been sufficient clarification. However, given that I have now started to spend more time and energy than I had expected into responding to claims made in this discussion, I will be changing these headers as soon as possible. I also want to mention that per WP:TALK#REVISE, I will need to explicitly indicate that I modified the headers. Hurricane Andrew (444) 04:07, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
I have updated pertinent the table headers above. Hopefully, this should alleviate some confusion on the other participants' end. Hurricane Andrew (444) 04:19, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment My experience is that we have no definite guidelines to follow and never will have. No matter what we decide in a forum such as this one '!!!!!!CONSENSUS!!!!!!' will come along on any talk page and screw everything up anyway. There are many examples. Here is one of the worst, where '!!!!!!CONSENSUS!!!!!!' decided what a woman's name was, though it never was. Sad to say this after 15 years of contributing. Am I wrong? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:19, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

The deciding factor in the end, is editors. If a large enough number of editors want a page titled a certain way, that's most likely how that page will be titled. Gradually, "of country" is being 'removed' from bios of monarchs. I wonder, will heirs-apparent/presumptive, consorts & other royal family members be next? That does appear to be the direction that the winds are blowing in. GoodDay (talk) 19:25, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Closing statement by APT

The below statement was modified at 23:46, 25 November 2023 (UTC). This disclosure is added per WP:TALK#REVISE.

After observing how the tone of this discussion has gone, I have made the decision to WP:BOLDly withdraw my RfC. I had hoped that this conversation would be an opportunity to clarify matters regarding how European sovereigns should be titled. Unfortunately, many participants did not see this RfC the way I did, and that simply caused more frustrations to arise. I sincerely apologize for the confusion that was caused because of this RfC.

I accept that Option 4 in particular will likely be a thing of the past, and I will not challenge this WP:CONSENSUS from now on. That being said, I still personally believe that WP:CONSISTENT is a useful goal to keep in mind for the WP:TITLE of articles. In addition, I still believe that a WP:MORATORIUM should be imposed for renaming British monarchs' titles in particular in the next 365 days.

Finally, thank you to all who participated, regardless of whether you supported my proposals or not. Even though the discussion did not go as I hoped, this experience was a great opportunity for me to learn the mechanics of a RfC. Hurricane Andrew (444) 19:55, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

You aborted this attempt to overturn the WP:NCROY consensus only to then close the Talk:Edward I of England RM attempt to enforce the WP:NCROY consensus as "no consensus". You are perfectly aware that you are not an "uninvolved editor". You are as involved as one can possibly be. You even went to share these "good news" with the two editors who supported you here and who took part in all of these discussions. These are incredibly inappropriate actions.
@GoodDay:, @DrKay:, @SMcCandlish:, @Rosbif73:, @Celia Homeford:, @Thryduulf:, @ActivelyDisinterested:, @Johnbod:, @Wehwalt:, @Kahastok:, @SnowFire:, @Mr Serjeant Buzfuz:, @Tim O'Doherty: Surtsicna (talk) 21:56, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
@Surtsicna - I've BOLDly undone the move closure. No need to go through WP:MR with such a clearly hostile atmosphere brewing. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
I agree that I see a lot of inappropriate behavior here: you closed an RfC you started as withdrawn after more than a dozen people weighed in? With a summary that, in the third person, directs people to your personal final statement?! (That's not to mention the "neutral" statement at the beginning that directs all participants to read your own rationale, again in the third person.) The RM closure was not better. Wikipedia policies and consensus are not about you personally, it doesn't matter what you personally accept or don't accept (except that refusing to accept consensus in a disruptive manner can get you blocked). --JBL (talk) 22:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Alright. Andrew made an error, it's now undone: we don't need to crucify him over it (that's not directed towards you, JBL, just a general warning to others as I see so many have been pinged and may chip in soon). Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:09, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
I have retracted my closing statement. I understand why my statement was insincere and inappropriate. Again, I sincerely apologize for my WP:DISRUPTIVE behavior and the subsequent frustrations that have arisen. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 23:46, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I assume all is well? The RFC 'here' is closed & the RM concerning Edward I & company, is still open. Anyways, somebody responded to my recommendation that the said-RM be closed after 3 weeks running. I presume the closure, will be happening soon. GoodDay (talk) 00:40, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

All is well on my end. Also, I will disengage from talking about the Edward I RM further and let a truly uninvolved party address that discussion. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 01:43, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Monarchies in the Americas

Monarchies in the Americas has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:45, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Question

Just for my own personal research, would anyone be able to tell me how many Wikipedia articles are in the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility? Thnak you. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 00:49, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

See Category:Royalty work group articles
EmilySarah99 (talk) 07:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Stefano Černetić

Hello, WikiProject,

I'd appreciate if some knowledgable editor could look over this article and evaluate whether this person's royal claim (from 400 years ago) is real or this is effectively a promotional hoax article that should be tagged for some form of deletion. Thanks for any help you can offer. Liz Read! Talk! 03:06, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Wedding of Grand Duke George Mikhailovich of Russia and Rebecca Virginia Bettarini#Requested move 16 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Wedding of Grand Duke George Mikhailovich of Russia and Rebecca Virginia Bettarini#Requested move 16 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:56, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Heads of former ruling families#Requested move 13 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Heads of former ruling families#Requested move 13 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 09:21, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Rfc on Frederik X house

Hello, I've started an rfc on the inclusion of Frederik X's hosue, if so which, and how. Not experienced in rfc's either, so comments and advice are much appreciated. EmilySarah99 (talk) 10:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Francis Phoebus of Navarre#Requested move 15 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Francis Phoebus of Navarre#Requested move 15 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Векочел (talk) 02:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Nicholas II of Russia#Requested move 24 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Nicholas II of Russia#Requested move 24 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 22:53, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Yang di-Pertuan Agong#Requested move 4 February 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Yang di-Pertuan Agong#Requested move 4 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Векочел (talk) 21:29, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Infobox policy for descendants of abolished monarchies

User:GrandDukeMarcelo opened discussions on a few pages eg link, regarding the use of the royalty infobox over the pretender infobox for members of families of abolished monarchies. This kind of discussion has come up before in the history of a few different pages. I think a policy to only use the Pretender Infobox for those making an active claim and/or head of house with a claim would make sense (whether or not a monarchy exists as the word "pretender" at least tells you they are not reigning).

I feel it's incorrect to use the Royalty Infobox for descendants multiple generations down from an abolished monarchy. It would be more correct to not use the royal infobox for these other people as it implies a currently reigning royal family exists and by definition they are not royal. Perhaps a new infobox template could exist or ideally Person Infobox should be used instead. Opinions? D1551D3N7 (talk) 20:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose: "I think a policy to only use the Pretender Infobox for those making an active claim and/or head of house with a claim would make sense". This is your personal opinion. A claim is dictated by those belonging to a line of a defunct house. So, anyone in the "pretended" line can make an active claim really (which in the discussions you refer to, those individuals do make a claim). Therefore, this shouldn't be restricted to just one person (the first one in the pretense line), but extended to those after (making a claim).
As for your second paragraph, no one is suggesting for it to be extended to multiple people. In the case of the discussions I made in those other pages, are only regarding those individuals that are claiming a title (and would be sons of a King). I doubt the children of Dinis of Braganza and Maria Francisca of Braganza would have any titles if Portugal was a constitutional monarchy. GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 20:52, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
There are other people in a similar position to the children of Duke of Braganza, such as Luitpold Prinz von Bayern, Maria-Anna Galitzine, and Princess Maria-Olympia of Greece and Denmark who are in a similar position of claiming titles other than the defunct throne, so to treat these people different in terms of which infobox is used seems inconsistent. 170.76.231.175 (talk) 21:02, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Exactly. What I am proposing is the pretender option. Does "pretender" only refer to the first in line claiming? Or are we considering these other people? They are not royals though, but they do claim or "Prentend" titles in those defunct monarchies. GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 21:07, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
As it currently stands, the pretender template seems to refer solely to people who claim the title of monarch/head of the house, not other collateral members, as indicated by “thrones claimed” being one of the parameter. So using the pretender template in the manner on the the children of the Duke of Braganza appears to be an aberration. That being said several people who indisputably pretenders don’t have that box, so that’s another whole can of worms. 170.76.231.175 (talk) 21:18, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Can you provide examples of said people you mention? Thanks GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 21:21, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
I meant for " indisputably pretenders". Not the ones you listed before. GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 21:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
People like Margareta of Romania, Jean, Count of Paris and Georg Friedrich Prinz von Preussen. 170.76.231.175 (talk) 22:26, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Margareta and Georg are cut clear. Jean is an Orleanist. There are other two claims to the French throne, from two different branches, the Legitimists and the House of Bonaparte (Bonaparts). Do we consider all the individuals from these three lines claimants? I propose that yes, based on the fact that these were claims present at the time of abolishment. See my comment below for the proposal. GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 22:33, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
I propose that the Pretender Box to be extended to anyone making a claim to a defunct title. GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 21:23, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Actually anyone at all can "make a claim", the point is that the person with the pretender infobox is actually making that claim and not just in a line of succession where people think they should be making one. I'm also not suggesting it be restricted to just one person there are obviously situations where multiple people in a family tree are making claims and thus would each be pretenders but in say a situation where a father is living it's not typical for their children to be making a claim and if siblings are on good terms with each other (or respecting the hierarchy) only the eldest would be actively making a claim.
I'm also not proposing that my suggestions are exactly what the policy should be to be clear but I am very much in favor an infobox policy existing. D1551D3N7 (talk) 21:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
True, anyone can make a claim. My point and proposals are based in making a claim based on the line and rules existing at the time when the monarchy was abolished. Duarte Pio of Braganza and family follow the rules of succession in place in 1910 (when the monarchy in Portugal was abolished), hence why Maria Francisca places below her brother Dinis, even though she is older, because in 1910 the law preferred males succeeding. I really like and agree with the rest of your comment. Following the logic presented, in the case of Duarte Pio, they all seem to be in good terms. However, this might be tricky for situations like the Savoys and Aostas, or the several lines of the Romanovs. However, I do think the pretender box should still apply in these cases. Thanks for your clear comment! GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 21:36, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Also, although Maria Francisca, Duchess of Coimbra and Dinis, Duke of Porto do not directly claim the throne (by not being first in line), they claim other titles of Infante of Portugal and the dukedoms. Titles that existed during the monarchy. My proposal to use the pretender box is to be applied to these cases as well and applied to individuals following the succession laws present at the time of abolishment (which the Braganzas seem to be complying). Not to someone pretending or claiming a title that never existed, for example. GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 21:42, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
I feel it's incorrect to use the Royalty Infobox for descendants multiple generations down from an abolished monarchy. It would be more correct to not use the royal infobox for these other people as it implies a currently reigning royal family exists and by definition they are not royal. Agree 100%. Unfortunately many of the biographies of such people were originally written in a fantasist style, with lots of fake titles, unsourced, unencyclopedic family trees, and poor quality in-universe sourcing. This doesn't so much require a policy as it requires competent editing by people with a lot of time and energy .... --JBL (talk) 21:10, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
The highlighted comment is a personal opinion. Should the option be to use "Person infobox" then like he suggests? But then what would be the point of a "Pretender box" then? What would be the difference? Would the "Pretender box" only be applicable for someone born during a monarchy time and had those titles for a time, but then the monarchy ceased to exist (e.g. Pavlos, Crown Prince of Greece? Please, be more specific. GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 21:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
@170.76.231.175 I would like to leave this user's contribution here, as he left on Afonso, Prince of Beira:
The infobox parameters include “Throne(s) claimed”. He is currently not claiming a throne, his father is. When his father dies, then it can be said that he’s claiming a throne, but until that happens, it doesn’t seem accurate to list him as such. It may be true that the royalty template might not be accurate in this case, but I’m not sure the pretender template, as currently defined, would be accurate either. As pointed out elsewhere, there are many other people in a similar position in being members of a non reigning royal family without being the head, so some consistency should be worked out in how what infobox should be used, as brought up in the wiki project talk page. GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 21:20, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
That being said, there is the issue of whether a new infobox format could be used, as proposed by the OP or if the existing infobox should be amended. Either way, both would require a larger consensus. 170.76.231.175 (talk) 21:26, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Your comment above: That being said several people who indisputably pretenders don’t have that box, so that’s another whole can of worms. In regards the collateral members, they have the "royalty box". This should not be the case, as they are not royals. Like I said above, I Proposethat the "pretender box" should be used to anyone making a claim to a defunct title, regardless of position on the line of succession (if there is one). GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 21:30, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
This doesn't so much require a policy as it requires competent editing by people with a lot of time and energy
A policy would avoid a lot of edit warring and endless repetition of this discussion. It would mean we can have something to point to that is generally agreed upon. D1551D3N7 (talk) 21:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Proposal to the usage of the “Pretender” Infobox:
- Applicable to a claimant of an existing or defunct title of an existing or defunct monarchy
o Claimant needs to:
§ Have used the title during his lifetime and ceased using it e.g due to abolishment of monarchy.
§ Be first in line to the succession of the throne, either existing or defunct.
§ Be the son or daughter of a sovereign or claimant to the title of King/Queen (e.g. claimant to the title of prince of the realm, whatever realm/country it is)
§ Be eligible based on the succession rules in place at the time of abolishment (e.g. Princess Maria-Olympia of Greece and Denmark was not born during the monarchy, but if she was, as the daughter of a male Greek prince, she would be a princess)
§ Claimant to any other title, based on the place in the (possible) succession line, e.g.Dinis, Duke of Porto, being the second son of the possible King, can claim the title of Duke of Porto.
§ If there are different possible branches/claims and/or claimants to a succession/and or title, consider the claim/pretence based on that possible alternative line (and rules derivative from that). GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 22:12, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Infobox pretender should only be used for people who are widely known as making an unsuccessful claim to a throne. See pretender for a definition of the word. If we use it for people like Princess Maria-Olympia of Greece and Denmark, then we are making a statement that her claim to be a princess is false, which it isn't since she is a princess of Denmark even if you think the daughter of the Crown Prince of Greece isn't a princess. Nor is she claiming to be an actual princess of Greece. She knows that Greece is a republic and there is no attempt by anyone to restore the monarchy or claim the Greek throne.
There are too many edge cases to apply the pretender infobox to dispossessed royalty as they are all intermarried with or descended from real royalty and most of them don't make claims to a throne. Wikipedia shouldn't be making value judgements about whether someone's title is valid or invalid unless citations are very clear on the matter. We should simply report that the titles are in use by courtesy or not legally valid in relevant jurisdictions, assuming such statements can be cited. Infobox person should be used for any cases where we can't come to a clear distinction between royal and non-royal. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:36, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
In the case of Duarte Pio, Duke of Braganza children, would the option then be the Pretender box? GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 14:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
I wouldn't even use it for him. He claims to be "His Royal Highness The Duke of Braganza". He's not actually claiming to be "His Majesty The King of Portugal". It is reasonable to claim to be the head of the house of Braganza, given his bloodline. Whether he's accorded the courtesy style Royal Highness as a descendant of a real monarch or the title Duke of Braganza as the head of the house is not for us to decide. Celia Homeford (talk) 16:02, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
So what should be done with his and his relatives' articles in regards to the infobox? 98.228.137.44 (talk) 00:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
They are also claimants. Moy not be to the throne directly, but they still claim the Infante and Dukes titles, therefore pretenders. GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 15:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
Some of the other users here seem to disagree on using that box. 2601:249:9301:D570:928:1581:7D4F:E386 (talk) 19:57, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

IMHO, there should be no infoboxes for pretenders. GoodDay (talk) 20:00, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Are you suggesting the pretender infobox be deleted and we just use person infobox for the people in question (for both living and historical pretenders)? Please clarify what you mean as it's a bit unclear. D1551D3N7 (talk) 22:10, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
My choice would be to just use a 'person infobox'. I realize though, this wouldn't be adopted, as we've got pages like Paul, Crown Prince of Greece, Alexander, Crown Prince of Yugoslavia, etc. GoodDay (talk) 01:34, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Was Constantine, emperor of Russia?

An editor seems to believe that Grand Duke Konstantin Pavlovich of Russia was Emperor of Russia from 1-26 December 1825. Historians (and Konstantin's 1823 renounciation) says otherwise. See Konstantin's bio page & List of Russian monarchs, etc. GoodDay (talk) 07:08, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Notification of discussion here

I am just notifying editors of this discussion here, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 08:26, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Zog I of Albania#Requested move 14 March 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Zog I of Albania#Requested move 14 March 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Векочел (talk) 01:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Otto II, Holy Roman Emperor#Requested move 27 February 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Otto II, Holy Roman Emperor#Requested move 27 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Векочел (talk) 14:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Swedish Royal children

I have noticed that all the children of the Prince and Princess of all Royal families in Europe have their own articles. While the articles on the children of Princess Madeleine, Duchess of Hälsingland and Gästrikland and Prince Carl Philip, Duke of Värmland have all in AfDs in the part been redirected to their parents articles. Why? And for consistency I propose that we re-create their articles as well. BabbaQ (talk) 07:47, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Probably because of WP:INHERIT and WP:INVALIDBIO. "Consistency" is not desirable in this. It should be determined case-by-case. DeCausa (talk) 08:52, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Pharnavaz I of Iberia#Requested move 6 February 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Pharnavaz I of Iberia#Requested move 6 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 00:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Isabella I of Castile#Requested move 29 February 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Isabella I of Castile#Requested move 29 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Векочел (talk) 13:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Redirects converted back to articles

I noticed that Princess Mathilde of Schönburg-Waldenburg, Princess Augusta of Schwarzburg-Sondershausen, and Theodora of Hesse-Darmstadt which each had AFDs that agreed on turning them into redirects as seen here, here, and here, had them turned back into articles that are more or less article to their previous versions. 98.228.137.44 (talk) 00:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know. I have redirected again and warned the editor. DrKay (talk) 07:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Mark Phillips#Requested move 27 March 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Mark Phillips#Requested move 27 March 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Catherine, Princess of Wales § Simplicity and concision

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Catherine, Princess of Wales § Simplicity and concision. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:52, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Backlog of requested moves

Several of the requested moves listed on the main page have been open for several months. 98.228.137.44 (talk) 03:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. See this AN thread. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Sarukhan, Bey of Magnesia#Requested move 9 March 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Sarukhan, Bey of Magnesia#Requested move 9 March 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 14:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Template:Hanoverian princes

Editors are invited to contribute to the discussion at Template talk:Hanoverian princes to decide whether all princes born after March 1914 should be removed from the template, and that similar edits should be made at other navboxes. DrKay (talk) 16:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

The question is not, whether individuals born after March 1914 should be removed. The question is, whether people should be added to the template, when even very specific sources like Lines of Succession or Burke's Royal Families of the World does not support the claim that those individuals are to be titled as Prince of Hanover. There is consensus (at least from my point of view), that any individual can be added when there are proper sources for such claim. --Theoreticalmawi (talk) 17:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
The template is for Hanoverian princes not the heads of the house. DrKay (talk) 17:37, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
I never suggested that it is for heads of the house. I have no idea how you come to this claim. I explicitly agreed to add any individual, even born after 1914, when a proper source verifies this claim. I did not wrote Lines of Sucession or Burke's Royal Families of the World and do not know which principles they followed by attributing this titles. But for Lines of Succession I can assure you, that it is not Heads of the House.--Theoreticalmawi (talk) 17:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves § Adding hyphens to French personal names

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves § Adding hyphens to French personal names. Ham II (talk) 05:38, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) § Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) - RfC drafting for reversion of the November 2023 change

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) § Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) - RfC drafting for reversion of the November 2023 change. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

What is going on with article titles?

I know we had this massive discussion, but that, I think, ended with the initiator pulling out and resulted in nothing. Now we have articles being moved left, right and centre, and quite frankly, I know a lot of editors, including myself I will admit, are tired of seeing articles break convention and removing consistency on Wikipedia. Why do Margrethe II and Frederik X not have the "of Denmark", but Frederick VIII of Denmark and Christian IX of Denmark do? Why does every single Dutch monarch have "of the Netherlands", even though many of them do not have the same name as any other monarch? Why should Nicholas II of Russia be moved to "Nicholas II" because he is the primary topic, even though that would make that article completely inconsistent with all other Russian monarchs articles? It is clear that monarchs without the "of {country}" are monarchs that have ruled in the past 200 or so years, so isn't this bias from Wikipedia, favouring the present? On Wikipedia, it used to be customary for all monarchs' articles to have "of {country}" (unless of course there is an alternate common name like Charlemagne or Alexander the Great). British monarchs were always an exception and to me that seems fair enough since this is the English Wikipedia and they are going to be of most interest to English-reading viewers. I am bringing this to light because I think it is time that we have a proper discussion. I am not calling for an RFC (not yet, at least) nor for an argument, just for a simple discussion so we can commence talks. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 23:12, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I guess it depends. So if you are living in Denmark you might consider Queen Margrethe as "Margrethe II" only using the number to differentiate but maybe for those living outside of Denmark they might use "Margrethe II of Denmark", to differentiate from other world royals. The point is, if you are living in said country, maybe there is no need to us the "of Country", because you are already in that country. I propose all English translated pages use the "of Country" designation. However, this would be difficult for monarchs of multiple countries (e.g. the UK and Commonwealth monarchs). GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 21:00, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Oppose further discussion of this topic - As the initiator of the RfC that is mentioned in the original post, I would like to say the following both to share my experiences with this matter and give a "friendly warning" to other users.
As a human being, I personally agree with what is being expressed. Yes, it is frustrating that not every Wikipedia article on European monarchs follow the same format. But as a Wikipedian, I must respectfully disagree with trying to go back to the (Name) of (Country) format across the board. As noted on WP:COI, Wikipedians must place the interests of the encyclopedia and its readers above personal concerns. And as frustrating as the RfC outcome that started this recent tidal wave on retitling European sovereigns' articles may be, it was a reflection of WP:CONSENSUS, which is the core of how decisions should be made on Wikipedia.
Furthermore, concerning the proper discussion that is recommended in the original post, I have already started two of these. They did not change the consensus of the community.
Finally, I would like to note that one move discussion each on the Peter Krešimir IV and Ferdinand VI articles were subject to a move review, where the decision to move away from the (Name) of (country) format was upheld.
Now, if after reading this post, a fellow user would still like to start another RfC or other Wikipedia-wide discussion on the titling matter, you are welcome to do so. But expect strong opposition from the community, including from myself. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 17:14, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
The change made at WP:NCROY (via RFC) is the cause for all these 'monarch' pages ending up inconsistent, even with monarchs of the same country. GoodDay (talk) 17:20, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
I have called for a revision of the RFC at WT:NCROY. The RFC was narrowly carried by a handful of royal enthusiasts who happen to be watching the NCROY page. The wider Wikipedia community did not participate in it and have been surprised and strenuously opposed it at individual RMs. It is precisely the concern for readers that is driving widespread opposition to this change. They see this change as detrimental to readers. So it definitely needs to be discussed, as this change seems to be rammed through by the interests of a few editors against the wider Wikipedia community and against the interests of readers.
The closure at Ferdinand VII did not endorse the change but only upheld the NCROY policy qua policy rather than going RM by RM. They expressed concern that the RFC did not reflect consensus and recommended the RFC should be revisited. So I have brought it up at NCROY.
Supporters of the change should welcome discussion, as it gives them a chance to explain how their preferred title shortening improves Wikipedia and is supposed to be helpful to readers. Because that is currently not obvious to the rest of us.
I am not sure where the correct location for a new RFC should be, but would like to ensure a new RFC discussion would draw in a wider audience to better evaluate where consensus actually lies. Walrasiad (talk) 05:25, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
Are you still seeing this? I hadn’t been tracking, but my impression is also that the massive discussion you mention about how (or if) to actually change titles was stopped. So some folks perhaps took the preceding RFC to change guidance, resulting in a 14 for vs 8 against, and went into random RMs. But perhaps it’s just showing that RFC had not captured consensus, and/or that as a guideline it should sometimes be ignored. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Briannemartindale and articles about royals/nobles

I'm wondering if anyone from this WikiProject might be interested in taking Briannemartindale under their wing and possibly helping them out when it comes to creating articles about nobles/royals. I came across this user at WP:THQ#spelling and grammar help and they seem to need the assistance of someone familiar with this type of article, how its sourced and how to best establish its Wikipedia notability. They seem to be arguing that the Wikipedia notability of the subject's they're trying to create articles about is inherited because they're relatives of someone Wikipedia notable (that's exactly not really true WP:NRVE), but their might be other reasons that some of the subjects being written about are Wikipedia notable. Part of the problem seems to be that Briannemartindale looks to be mainly creating one or two sentence stubs with very few sources cited (e.g. Henry Wentworth, 3rd Baron Wentworth) and then asking others to clean things up on the articles talk pages (e.g. Talk:Henry Wentworth, 3rd Baron Wentworth); I've seen others try to do something similar before and it usually doesn't work too well when it comes to article creation. Many of these articles already seem to have been draftified (probably justified in most cases) to give Briannemartindale a chance to work some more on them, but they don't seem to like that. Given the types of articles and content Briannemartindale appears to be interested in, perhaps they would be interested in becoming a member of this WikiProject. Briannemartidale has already been warned several times over the years about stuff and even seems to have ended up at ANI a few years back. One of the most recent warnings issued is related to poor translating, which actually can lead to problems per WP:TFOLWP and WP:OTHERLANGS if done poorly. Anyway, if someone wants to try mentoring this user a bit, then that would be great. They seem to mean well, and perhaps they be able to turn things around with the help of someone more experienced with these articles. They do seem to need a bit of specialized guidance that probably is something the more general noticeboards like the Teahouse or Help Desk is going to be able to provide. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

yes help is what im needing since my spelling and grammar is very bad due to my strokes that i had several years ago Briannemartindale (talk) 21:28, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
There is absolutely no problem with your "spelling and grammar"? Your problem is not understanding the concept of notability. Theroadislong (talk) 21:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Royalty_and_Nobility/Archive_11&oldid=1258768934"