Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)

RfC: Should the guideline explicitly accept Elizabeth II, Carl XVI Gustaf, etc titles?

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.

The result of the discussion is consensus in support of the proposal to update the guideline to explicitly endorse the use of shorter titles where no disambiguation is needed.

Discussion focused around article title WP:CRITERIA and current practices.

• Recognizability was brought up as an argument against the proposal. This was rebutted, editors point out that titles should be recognizable specifically to someone familiar with the subject.

• Precision was discussed as an argument against the proposal, but this was also rebutted, as it specifically suggests the lack of a need for disambiguation (natural or otherwise) when there is primary topic or no ambiguity.

• Consistency was brought up as an argument against the proposal but this idea was mostly rebutted. It was pointed out that disambiguation (including natural disambiguation) is explicitly not an area where consistency is generally applied, and examples including heads of state were brought up as a comparative example. Ultimately this was the strongest argument in favor, as one editor pointed out (in the Statement by AndrewPeterT below) that WP:TITLE allows for topic-specific naming conventions. However, overall it is still not a strong argument in favor, both because of the aforementioned rebuttals and also since it's so tightly coupled to the proposal so as to nearly be begging the question.

• As pointed out by editors, concision is a clear argument in favor of the proposal, and no effective rebuttal based on WP:CRITERIA or other policy was provided.

• Finally, editors pointed out that the proposal reflects current practice, which suggests an very strong consensus the other way would be needed to reject the proposal.

Based on the strength of argument from existing policy, and existing practices amongst editors, as well as the preponderance of opinions, there is a strong consensus to adopt the proposal.

I will point out that based on points raised in this discussion, the proposal is very much in line with existing policy, namely WP:CRITERIA. My own opinion is that it may benefit editors to have this guideline updated to better reflect that policy, rather than be laid out as "exceptions to exceptions" to that policy. It could be an opportunity to simplify the guideline. However that note is explicitly not an outcome of the discussion and just my own interpretation of the state of the guideline with respect to the discussion. (non-admin closure) —siroχo 09:46, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

---

For over a decade now the titles of articles about British monarchs have been at Elizabeth II, George VI, Edward VIII, etc. Likewise it has been 13 years since Maria Theresa of Austria was moved to Maria Theresa (discussion) and Louis-Philippe I of France to Louis-Philippe I (discussion), longer still since Napoleon I of France was abandoned for Napoleon. Three years ago the country qualifiers were dropped for titles such as Juan Carlos I and others (discussion), Carl XVI Gustaf and others (discussion), Elizabeth I (discussion) and others, Louis XIV and others (discussion), etc.

This year multiple attempts to move articles back to the Name Number of Country format failed: Alfonso XIII to Alfonso XIII of Spain and similar (discussion), Napoleon III to Napoleon III of France and similar (discussion), Elizabeth II to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom and similar (discussion)

Should a point be added to WP:SOVEREIGNS to reflect these changes and explicitly endorse the use of shorter titles where no disambiguation is needed? Surtsicna (talk) Surtsicna (talk) 07:50, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

• Query. Just to be clear: is the proposal to set out a list of articles where this exception applies or is it a statement added explicitly accepting that exceptions can be agreed locally at each article (without listing the articles). The former would be quite unusual, I think. DeCausa (talk) 08:10, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

DeCausa: it is an open proposal, where hopefully we can hammer out the best course of action in a joint effort. I am not fond of the former option you listed; it does not help make the guideline relevant again. See my comment below for my idea on how to approach this. Surtsicna (talk)

DeCausa: I have now included an explicit proposal of action in the opening for clarity and simplicity. I still invite everyone to share alternative ideas. Surtsicna (talk) 09:30, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, I believe the guideline should be updated to reflect the present (and long-standing) reality. As it stands now, NCROY is out of touch and consequently largely irrelevant. The change could be as simple as listing some of the examples under point 2 of the Sovereigns section; alternatively (and preferably), we could add a new point explicitly endorsing the disambiguation-less format for subjects with unambiguous or primary-usage names. Surtsicna (talk) 08:23, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
• Query I was bought here by a notification at an article I watch. Please be more specific about which part of WP:NCROY is under review and the specific text that might be changed. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:48, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

  WP:SOVEREIGN; the question is whether the guideline should be modified to take into account the apparent preference for shortening the biography titles over the past decade. What specific text could/should be changed is open for discussion; see my idea above. Surtsicna (talk)

Cinderella157: I have now included an explicit proposal of action in the opening for clarity and simplicity. I still invite everyone to share alternative ideas. Surtsicna (talk) 09:29, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

• Yes but where there needs to be distinguishing, then you could use the longer terms unless there is a clear WP:PRIMARY case for leaving it alone (like Charles III). The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 09:17, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

The C of E: I have now included an explicit proposal of action in the opening for clarity and simplicity. I still invite everyone to share alternative ideas. Surtsicna (talk) 09:29, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

• Already the guideline says "If there is an overwhelmingly common name, use it: William the Conqueror, John Balliol, Peter the Great, Henry the Fowler, Mary, Queen of Scots, Gustavus Adolphus, Eric of Pomerania, Charlemagne. This is in line with WP:COMMONNAME." So, maybe all that's needed is to expand on the treatment of British monarchs in this way, such as Queen Victoria. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:22, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Andrew Davidson: I have now included an explicit proposal of action in the opening for clarity and simplicity. I still invite everyone to share alternative ideas. Surtsicna (talk) 09:29, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, omit the country name in general, with two exceptions that I can think of. The first, already mentioned above, would be where the use of the country name or the like would be necessary for disambiguation, e.g., with all the various ones named Charles IV. The second would be where someone is overwhelmingly known by such a name, and such would therefore clearly constitute the common name. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:57, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
• Yes, but per Seraphimblade's suggestion. The addition of the country is often clunky and unnecessary. It should be added "when neccessary" (per Seraphimblade) rather than the default with permitted exceptions. DeCausa (talk) 10:25, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
• Yes Project naming conventions should provide context specific guidance but remain consistent with the superior WP:P&G (WP:AT). Disambiguation is only required when there is an actual conflict in titles. Concision is preferred over unnecessary precision. When there is more than one fourth (IV) Henry, we have WP:PRIMARYTARGET. A preferred pattern of disambiguation ("{Monarch's first name and ordinal} of {Country}") should only be applied when necessary. The guidance at WP:SOVEREIGN should be amended such that it is in harmony with WP:AT in every respect. By my reading, this is more than just a simple copy-edit but a general review. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:22, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
• Yes. Current guideline language (normally have article titles in the form "{Monarch's first name and ordinal} of {Country}") is misleading by omission. The community has upheld "{Monarch's first name and ordinal}" across a range of articles, a pattern which cannot be swept under the rug as exceptions. Even something as simple as, "in most cases, they have article titles of the form '{Monarch's first name and ordinal} of {Country}'...; in other cases, they have article titles of the form '{First name and ordinal}' (examples: Elizabeth II, Napoleon III)", would be a helpful start. I'm not proposing to bring back the overly rigid-sounding prescriptive language ("if xyz is unambiguous, use xyz") from 2–3 years ago. Rather, the problem is that the guideline should be more accurately descriptive of actual practice. Spending some words on this is not unnecessary creep; it's a significant point that has naturally arisen repeatedly. Adumbrativus (talk) 11:27, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
• Yes. As said above, it’s already the precedent without disambiguation. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:10, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

No. It’s a slippery path to the worse outcome. The expense is poor adherence to CONSISTENCY and RECOGNIZABILITY. The loss of “King”, “Queen”, and “of <country>” hurts RECOGNIZABILITY, and has created frequent conundrums of inconsistency, the worst being that non-regnant queens are given more formality than regnant queens. This path was, is, tempting, because sources tend to use shortforms. However, sources, whether primary cotemporary sources, or modern biographies, are written from a perspective of high familiarity. Unfortunately, the real world sources do not have consistency in referring to royalty, and so this is an unusual case of Wikipedia having to choose a consistent style. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:21, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Elizabeth II/Archive 48#Requested move 30 July 2023 is an interesting discussion. I haven’t read it thoroughly, but I believe it does make the case that there is a problem, even if the solution was rejected. I don’t know the solution, but I suspect that “of <country>” should be for non anglophone countries. For the Anglophone countries, the country could be assumed to be of the language of this Wikipedia, and the anglophone country name changes too often, over centuries. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:31, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I don’t see why we need “formality” from spelling out everything in the title. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:37, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

We don’t. Is that the slippery slope fallacy you’re applying. If it’s not minimalist, it’s ridiculously long? SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:05, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

How is this a slippery slope? I’m simply responding to the worst being that non-regnant queens are given more formality than regnant queens; why is that bad? I don’t understand your third sentence. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:35, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

You used the construction “spelling out everything”, which sounds like going to an extreme. Some princesses have many names and titles. It sounded like you equate putting in anything unnecessary means putting everything in the title and making it ridiculously long.

Maybe I misunderstand you. What do you mean by “formality”. For me, formality for title for royalty is something that contributes consistency and connection to reliable source usage.

On non-regnant queens getting more “formality” than regnant queens, I am referring to how a non-regnant queen is more likely to be titled with her title, and worse he childhood title, than is a Queen regnant. For example, I think the comparison of Matilda of Flanders and Empress Matilda is confusing. Which one would you guess was queen of England? Which one would a reader not encultured to Wikipedia guess? SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:54, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

You are not supposed to guess which one was queen of England from the article title. That is what the lead sentence is for. Recognizability means that a reader familiar with the subject would recognize that they arrived at the correct article upon seeing the title. Someone familiar with Matilda of Flanders would know that they are at the right place because that is her common name. Ditto for Olav V, Louis XVI, Edward III, etc. Surtsicna (talk) 17:32, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Agree you are not supposed to guess.

Someone familiar with Queens of England might be hindered in Matilda being titled by origin not highest notable rank.

I know the purpose of a lead sentence. Can you state the purpose of an article title? SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:01, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article titles: Article titles should be recognizable, concise, natural, precise, and consistent, with "recognizable" defined as recognizable to people familiar with the subject. On preciseness it explicitly says Saint Teresa of Calcutta is too precise, as Mother Teresa is precise enough to indicate exactly the same topic. So according to that policy we should just drop the origin unless there is a clear need to disambiguate, which I don't see with Queen Victoria. The other three are way less well-known than the one of the UK. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:17, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Extreme cases make bad law. Mother Theresa and King Carl XVI are extreme at the end of extremely notable. I don’t think there is serious disagreement on Mother Theresa or Carl XVI, unless someone argues that there can be only on e suitable article title.

Matilda of Flanders is a more middle of the road example. Obscure to most readers, passingly familiar to many English historians, familiar to very few. Is there a kernel of agreement between us that her article title is non-ideal? Someone bluelinked Matilda, Queen Consort of William I of England. I suggest Matilda, queen consort of William the Conqueror might be the best title, by using the current Wikipedia article title of her husband king. Put into the title text her substantive highest position, in a way that might be suitable for consistency and easy recognisability with all other historical Queen consorts. There are a number of other possibilities, all with pros and cons, but all are non-minimalist. To note one piece of annoying noise, her COMMONNAME probably uses “Maud”. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:24, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I get what you were saying in the reply right below this one now. However, none of the royal consorts mention that they are a consort in their article title, partly because "you are not supposed to guess". For someone familiar to queen consorts Matilda should also be recognizable. I have no clue on English royal history so would you kindly enlighten me on why COMMONNAME would be Maud? Aaron Liu (talk) 01:18, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Maud is the diminutive form for Matilda. She seems to have been actually called Maud. It’s like Harry for Henry. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:58, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

COMMONNAME is not about arbitrary nicknames, it’s about what most modern people known the subject as. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:18, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I didn’t mean to suggest otherwise. I noted that it looked like in her time she was actually called Maud, but you’re right, modern sources overwhelmingly call her Matilda. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:04, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Additionally, I didn’t mean absolutely everything; I think adding title, position and origin is already “spelling out everything”. Wikipedia prioritizes COMMONNAME way over formality. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:03, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Title, position, and origin, agree that would be too much.

Carl XVI is minimal, unambiguous, but it is too little.

Prominent cases should set good example. Minimal titles are unworkable for the general case, the work for unusual names, which tend to be obscure cases.

Queen Victoria is an excellent example. England/Britain/UK/Empress of India can be assumed, for the English Wikipedia.

Queen Victoria of Sweden would be a good future title. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:58, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

What I do not understand is why Carl XVI Gustaf should need "of Sweden" appended to his name for recognizability if Park Geun-hye, for example, does not need "of South Korea" appended to hers. Surtsicna (talk) 12:54, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

You do not understand why there is a separate guideline for royalty and nobility? Or you don’t understand why a national President is not considered royalty? I don’t think you are being genuine here.

The question you appear to be alluding to is whether the style of titling should indicate royalty.

Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden looks reasonable. I think King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden has a strong line of merit. But why not Kung Carl XVI Gustaf?

President Park Geun-hye of South Korea? I agree, Park Geun-hye of South Korea looks wrong, unlike Carl of Sweden, but both are shorthand, hurting recognisability, and making it really hard to have consistency between well known cases and obscure cases.

I submit that title RECOGNISABILITY and CONSISTENCY are much more valuable to readers than brevity, and have no pretence that there is an easy answer to this persistent problem. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:25, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Fairly obviously, Surtsicna isn't raising either of the 2 questions you pose. The question is why should a monarch have a country designation and a non-royal head of state should not? The answer is they shouldn't - unless disambiguation is needed. It's unnecessary otherwise. DeCausa (talk) 13:59, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Fuzzy — I prefer to add the title first (especially for Queen Victoria as vs. Victoria — what if someone seeks a London train station, a Canadian provincial capital, or an Australian state?); and retaining it for the article title (Queen Elizabeth II) even when relatively unambiguous (as in Elizabeth II).

On the other hand, adding the country name where one rulet is overwhelmingly sought is just clumsy (to non-enthusiasts). When someone outside the Wikiverse seeks King Henry VIII or Tsar Nicholas II she or he normallly wouldn't think to add "of England" or "of Russia". There was a long drawn-out debate before "of the United Kingdom" was dropped from Queen Victoria.

—— Shakescene (talk) 14:16, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

We don't currently add King or Queen except in rare circumstances like Queen Victoria - it's not part of the existing guideline. DeCausa (talk) 14:19, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

For royalty and nobility, titling is a confusing mess. COMMONNAME does not align with cases where there is no COMMONNAME. This is a problem to be solved. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:07, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, and not just heads of state. If we argue that Carl XVI Gustaf needs "of Sweden" for recognizability while a simple personal name (e.g. Björn Ulvaeus) suffices for all other unambiguously named Swedes (so no Björn Ulvaeus of Sweden or Björn Ulvaeus of ABBA), we come to the absurd yet inevitable conclusion that the king of Sweden is the least recognizable Swede on Wikipedia. Surtsicna (talk) 14:49, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

We're discussing the existing guideline, so that's hardly a reason it itself to stop proposing changes. —— Shakescene (talk) 15:36, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Surtsicna, you appear to be operating under the assumption that a short Wikipedia title implies an important subject, and a long Wikipedia title implies an obscure subject. Is that right? What makes you think readers understand this convention? SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:09, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

The simple logic that titles are usually made longer only to disambiguate from more well-known subjects. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:20, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

“simple logic” is a term usually indicating a starting point for analysis, not the end point.

It seems to me that an awful lot of backroom Wikipedians, as soon as “disambiguate” is mentioned, abandon consideration of the balancing of the five titling criteria.

Titles should be made longer as required to better fit a balance of the five titling criteria, and the simple logic explanation does not align with the five titling criteria.

- SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:30, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

It's either precise or natural, and precise is the more likely of the two unless there are other reasons you'd like to mention. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:13, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

DeCausa, there is a real world convention, historically, for royalty to be suffixed “of country”, but not for civilian leaders. That’s a reason to do it. There are reasons to not do it. Why do you say it shouldn’t? What are your working assumptions?

Unless disambiguation is needed it is unnecessary. Those are commonly repeatedly words, but a lot of good things are unnecessary. Is necessity a criterion? What about CONSISTENCY and RECOGNIZABILITY? A few more words in short titles, like Edward VIII could dramatically improve CONSISTENCY and ROCOGNIZABILITY. “of the United Kingdom” is problematic due to the country having several different names over the course of the multiple King Edwards, which means CONSISTENCY is lost, for that suffix. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:05, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

There is a real world convention, historically, for royalty to be suffixed “of country”. No there isn't. That's just an unsupported assertion. "George V of the United Kingdom". Nope. What you're missing is the regnal number does all the heavy lifting where there's no need for disambiguation. (Lack of a regnal number may be one of the circumstances where more is needed eg John, King of England.) Otherwise it's just clunky and pointless. DeCausa (talk) 22:30, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Unsupported assertion? Do you read history?

eg “Queen Mary of Scotland and Prince Francis of France”

eg “Mary of Teck”

Are you really denying familiarity with this convention, it’s existence?

Regnal number is another convention, with its own pros and cons.

Clunky, an aesthetic quality, yes, avoid clunky. Carl XVI of Sweden is not clunky.

Pointless? No, “of country”, you may dislike it, is but “pointless” really your claim? SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:47, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

That is not just because it's their origin country, it's because it's their house. Teck is not the country (which is Germany), but the house name is the Duke of Teck. An equivalent for King Carl would be "Carl XVI of Bernadotte" which doesn't disambiguate or add to recognizability much. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:24, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

WP:RECOGNIZABILITY says the article title should be the name which someone familiar with the subject will recognize. Someone familiar with Louis XIV will recognize the title Louis XIV. Recognizability is not a factor here. Surtsicna (talk) 22:55, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Title policy as written today may not be the font of all wisdom.

Louis XIV is an extraordinarily notable example.

What about King Louis X? There is only one. I am familiar with the Kings of France, and I find King Louis X ambiguous because I don’t know all other Louis X were not king.

I think the prominent examples should align with obscure examples, and minimalism can’t do that. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:11, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

On review, I’d like to alter my “no” to “tentatively only”.

My problems with this guideline is almost entirely with consorts, and I’m not seeing this proposal apply to consorts.

I think with all the examples of shortened Tes to be noted, there was a good COMMONNAME justification. It doesn’t follow that all titles should be shorted where disambiguation is not needed.

explicitly endorse the use of shorter titles where there is a COMMONNAME justification.no disambiguation is needed

SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:20, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

• I think there are two scenarios where no disambiguation might not be needed. In some cases the name is unique and there have been no other monarchs with that name (ex. Louis XVI). In other cases there have been rulers with a similar name but one subject is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (ex. Henry VIII). I think we should definitely cover this matter in some form in NCROY guidelines because the issue has been raised multiple times recently. I'm just not sure how it can be worded. But overall I agree with the nominator's proposal. Keivan.f^Talk 14:56, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
• No "explicitly endorse the use of shorter titles" No the shorter title are highlyy problematic, since they do not mention either the country or the person's title. Dimadick (talk) 17:59, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
• Name # of country- Is the style I have & continue to support, for all the monarch bios titles. GoodDay (talk) 22:34, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
• Yes "a point [should] be added to WP:SOVEREIGNS to ... endorse the use of shorter titles where no disambiguation is needed", since that is the proper kind of titling to use per WP:DAB and WP:CONCISE. This rarely consulted guideline page should not be confusing anyone to the contrary.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:23, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
• Yes we should definitely update this naming convention to align with actual practice, which tends (quite rightly) to be much closer to WP:AT. As Cinderella157 points out, this will entail a general review of the guideline, not just a simple copyedit. Rosbif73 (talk) 17:05, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
• Hard no - these titles should not be endorsed. They are abhorrent. They explicitly went against the existing guildeline, and should not be the norm, not be an exception and should not be encouraged. Some article titles have become worryingly western-centric and systematically biased, which is not something I wish to enshrine into a guideline which really needs to be shown a bit more respect, and not stamped on by the ever-irrelevant WP:COMMONNAME. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:16, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

  And why is the existing guideline better? Titles only have to be recognizable to those in their field, they don't have to be recognizable to everyone. The bias argument only applies when it is prioritized over other similar titles, which the proposed also avoids. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:39, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

  The field of kings and queens, nobles and royalty, is extensively familiar, I don’t think restricting the scope of relevant readers works here.

  I think Anglophone bias on en.wiki is ok.

  I think “abhorrent” is extreme exaggeration, but agree that the trend, to case by case minimalism, is not beautiful. Technically, it is to completely abandon consistency as a criterion, it is unbalanced, which is ugly if not quite abhorrent. Consistency in the reader-facing result should not be confused with a simple consistent rule.

  No one need argue that the existing (the old) guideline is better. The old guideline did not work well. The reason, I submit, is that it was based on mixing primary source usage with expert jargon (or “shorthand”).

  I think a changed guideline is needed. Ideas include: different rules for anglophone vs nonanglophone; use of King Queen etc for regnants; use of native language titles for foreign monarchs and nobles; something, I make no claim that the answer is obvious. Perhaps a tertiary work on global royalty and nobility should be studied for style possibilities. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:37, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

  For current regnants, sure, and these already usually have COMMONNAMEs. For past ones they are likely to be not familiar to non-historians, so I still think no additional dab is better. Probably add country to each one if a past anglophone name conflicts with another one. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:16, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

  I honestly do not understand this reasoning. The community has been consistently rejecting the superfluous disambiguation preached by this guideline for over a decade. Do you think that this guideline burying its head in the sand will do anything to restore in practice the format that you like? The allegations of bias are just preposterous. Surtsicna (talk) 09:31, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  That's not true. A recent RM for George I and George II of GB failed. An RM for Victor Emmanuel III of Italy failed. How much more unambiguous can you get than "Victor Emmanuel III"? Franz Joseph I of Austria has failed twice in RMs. Vasilis I, II and III of Moscow all failed. Eystein I was moved to Eystein I of Norway. Haakon IV and Haakon V were moved without discussion, but Haakon II of Norway and Haakon III of Norway were left alone. Charles X is a French king, but Charles XI is a redirect to a Swedish king and Charles IX is a dab page. Srnec (talk) 05:49, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

  RMs that are half and half split between "remove disambiguation" and "keep disambiguation" indicate that a guideline is unnecessary. See the bigger number of RMs in the opening statement. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:19, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, the guideline should reflect how articles are actually named, and not omit examples because they don't fit with some editors' ideas of how they should be named. Andejons (talk) 06:14, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
• No, these titles should not be accepted. I thank the nominator for opening this RfC, as I have also noticed how problematic this issue has become. I am in a hurry right now, so my response will be brief for the time being. However, when I have a spare moment, I will present a detailed argument with plenty of policy-based and discussion evidence to substantiate my answer. Hurricane Andrew (444) 16:53, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
  • I have posted my detailed rationale at the bottom of this discussion. Hurricane Andrew (444) 00:04, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
• Yes, there is clearly a consensus that monarch article titles that are the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for their WP:COMMONNAME do not need the "of country" natural disambiguator in the article title. This consensus has become well established in many WP:REQUESTED MOVES discussions over the past 13+ years, and this guideline should explicitly acknowledge that community consensus. The "of country" designation is a perfectly good use of WP:NATURALDISAMBIGUATION, but it should only be used when it is needed (i.e. when there is no primary topic for a certain monarchical name). Rreagan007 (talk) 03:11, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
• No, or at least not as specifically proposed. While I prefer "Name # of country" for all monarchs as it improves WP:RECOGNIZABILITY. And while I agree that articles like Carl XVI Gustaf and Alfonso XIII are WP:PRIMARYTOPICS and do unambiguously define their scope, I fear that those could not as easily be recognized without "of Sweden" or "of Spain". At the same time, I also understand that Elizabeth II, Louis XIV, Napoleon, and Maria Theresa are all relatively well-known figures and I am comfortable with those being exceptions to a rule. I would even be comfortable with moving some articles at the "Name of # country" format, such as Nicholas II of Russia, where Nicholas II accomplishes the same task. But will readers be able to understand who Gustav III was.

In general, I don't think we should encourage shorter titles as that could harm RECOGNIZABILITY. For me, its comparable to the idea that Obama, for example, is a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to Barak Obama, but we wouldn't entertain the idea that his article should just be "Obama" because it harms RECOGNIZABILITY, even if it is WP:CONCISE and WP:PRECISE.

In short, I don't think a point saying to use the most concise possible title should be added, but I wouldn't be so opposed if we better ensured that concision was balanced with RECOGNIZABILITY. That also being said, a large number of the present exceptions come from Britain, and I cannot say as of now how I would feel about a blanket proposal covering them. estar8806 (talk) ★ 20:14, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

• Agnetha Fältskog is just as much "of Sweden" as Gustav III is. This argument is based on an incorrect understanding of the recognizability criterion. This criterion does not mean defining the subject in the title. It means, by the definition of it, that the person familiar with Gustav III will recognize that "Gustav III" refers to Gustav III; and they will because that is what Gustav III is called and there is no other. Surtsicna (talk) 17:51, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

• No. It's sheer laziness. The whole change to the conventions was flawed and still is. Deb (talk) 10:38, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

  Which change? Aaron Liu (talk) 14:41, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

  The one that removed the need to differentiate between countries. Deb (talk) 14:54, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

  1. You're talking as if it has been implemented.
  2. It seems like this RfC has expired already. I'll be filing a closure request soon.
  Edit: Someone has already filed one... Aaron Liu (talk) 15:17, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think you understand. There was a convention, as in Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, but the common namers managed to get it overturned. This was years before your arrival on Wikipedia. Deb (talk) 17:07, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

  The guideline has not changed since September 5, and even those changes were just changing examples and capitalization of explaining the guideline, not the rules. If we ignore these, the guideline hasn't changed since [1]. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:34, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

• Yes in the case of Elizabeth II, because the disambiguation page shows there is little scope for confusion, it mainly referring to things named after her. Other cases will need to be judged on their merits, according to how much scope there is for ambiguity. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:16, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
• Yes per WP:CONCISE. Note that the proposal is to endorse the use of shorter titles where no disambiguation is needed (emphasis added). The arguments in favor seem to cite WP:CONSISTENT, which explicitly says Wikipedians have consistently shown that consistency does not control: Disambiguation. For instance, just because Georgia (country) exists, there is no reason to have articles titled, for instance, Azerbaijan (country), Armenia (country), etc. This applies to natural disambiguation, as well; the existence of Querétaro City and Chihuahua City does not mean we have to retitle Guadalajara to Guadalajara City (emphasis in original). WP:CONCISE and WP:CONSISTENT say we should avoid unnecessary "of Country" disambiguation. HouseBlaster^talk 20:11, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Statement by AndrewPeterT

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.

Well, the RMs are popping up & a few unilatteral page moves have begun, in these last few weeks. GoodDay (talk) 19:13, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, they have. And quite frankly, this is becoming a matter beyond which an RfC at this time can resolve. Hurricane Andrew (444) 19:36, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Requested moves to shorter titles

In light of the RfC about changing this guideline to endorse concise titles such as Elizabeth II, I have proposed several moves regarding articles about English kings (from Edward I to Edward V). Please see Talk:Edward I#Requested move 5 November 2023. Surtsicna (talk) 19:47, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Well this push to eliminate "of country" from monarch bios page titles, is certainly in full swing. I'm guessing, heirs-apparent/presumptive & others in line of succession, will be next. GoodDay (talk) 19:20, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

That seems like a bit of a slippery slope. 2601:249:9301:D570:8D44:DAF4:3F4B:EDC7 (talk) 21:07, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Then there's the consorts. GoodDay (talk) 15:15, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Then there's dukes, counts et al. When are they going to be trimmed? But apparently those titles can stay, unless they're Italian for some reason?

I regret not realizing this RFC was on at the time. I would have opposed it vigorously. What a disaster it is wreaking. Walrasiad (talk) 09:38, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

User:GoodDay - I think the moral shown is ‘Do not discard long-embedded practices.’ It just winds up being an incomplete change and directly degrades respect for the guidelines. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Re-open the RFC

There is a plethora of monarchical names being closed over the strong opposition of the community, citing the recently-changed RFC above. This is causing severe disruption of long-stable article titles across Wikipedia.

The recent closure of the RM on Ferdinand VI of Spain over vigorous and overwhelming opposition seems to indicate that wider community opinion is not in line with the recently-changed guidelines. Neither I, nor many others, were aware nor participated in this RFC.

Most of these pages has been stable for 20 years - never proposed to move. That is an indicator of wider community consensus than the few people that happen to monitor the NCROY page. The RfC change slipped through on a 12-8 vote. The Ferdinand VI of Spain was opposed on 8-3, a bigger margin. It seems to me anomalous that a small group can engineer and overturn a long-term wider community consensus by ramming through a change in a guideline page, that affects a massive amount of pages, destabilizing Wikipedia and overriding long-standing community consensus. The wider community's opinion should not be treated as irrelevant because it was not expressed in the right location and right time.

It has been recommended that I should take this up here. So I would request the RFC be re-opened, and the matter revisited, so the wider community can participate. Walrasiad (talk) 06:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Anyone is welcome to open a new RfC at any time. I would however note that RfCs and RMs are not about counting votes but weighing up policy-based arguments, as exemplified in the closer's rationale: Based on the strength of argument from existing policy [...] there is a strong consensus to adopt the proposal. Likewise, for the specific example you mention (Ferdinand VI), the closer noted that none of the Oppose votes are actually based in policy.

The fact that the majority of recent RMs to remove "of country" have passed is itself a strong indicator of community consensus, opposition notwithstanding. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:06, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Where did the last RfC take place? Here? Then, I think any new RfCs should be opened at a place when the wider community can contribute, not just people who are interested in WP:NCROY guidelines. This new set of guidelines is affecting WP:TITLECON in many instances, which is a policy. Keivan.f^Talk 14:52, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not convinced a new RfC is justified, but agree that if one is held, it should be notified to relevant prominent places such as WT:AT or WT:BIOG to get wider input. I also agree with User:Srnec below that a pre-RfC discussion would be highly advisable before embarking on a widely publicised RfC.

Incidentally, WP:TITLECON is an essay, not a policy. Did you perhaps mean WP:CONSISTENT? Rosbif73 (talk) 13:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree we need to reconsider the NCROY change, particularly given the contentiousness and lack of consensus apparent in the spate of RMs it's prompted. I also agree that greater participation would be extremely helpful, since (again as the RMs suggest) the wider community doesn't seem to be nearly as on-board. Though a bit cumbersome, mass pings to the participants of RMs associated with the change might be good. ╠╣uw [talk] 12:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I support a new RFC, but I think we should have a pre-RFC discussion to identify the issues that need sorting and if there is perhaps a middle ground position, since I doubt there is community support for moving, e.g., Elizabeth II anywhere. Srnec (talk) 04:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. This is one of those situations where neither extreme — nation on all or nation on none that are unambiguous — will give us the optimal results. The former would mean moving Liz, and you’re right that that’s probably a non-starter; the latter would mean keeping the nation off of even lesser-known monarchs, which the contentiousness and only scattershot success of recent RMs shows is also not working. The most successful path is probably going to be a compromise somewhere in the middle. ╠╣uw [talk] 14:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

• The RFC should be reopened. There's no shame in RFCs that make the wrong call due to an accidentally skewed turnout or the like, but when an RFC maybe made the wrong call, then a reconfirmation RFC is merited. I don't really want to be the one to spearhead it myself. But this is something where the needs of readers needs to come first and requires wide input, so should probably be advertised on CENT.
  • As a side procedural comment, @Rosbif73:, the whole point of RFCs is indeed to change policy. So an argument of "it's against policy" is meaningless here - RFCs are how policy is set, reflecting community consensus. And I'd argue it can hardly be argued the old RFC showed great consensus behind it, as its RMs have been radioactively controversial every time. I'm not saying whether this is right or wrong, just the sheer raw fact that it created this has to be acknowledged, which doesn't happen for truly non-controversial changes. SnowFire (talk) 22:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  Regarding the procedural comment: NCROY is not a policy, it is a guideline, supposed to set out best practices for applying policy. A guideline must comply with policy, and an RfC about a guideline must take policy into account. Rosbif73 (talk) 20:16, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Going through the post-RFC multiple RMs in progress & closed. It appears the RFC-in-question's decision, isn't proving to be easily applied. GoodDay (talk) 00:08, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose further discussion of this matter - I will defer readers to what I have written on what I have posted on the WP:ROYALTY talk page. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 17:33, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

@AndrewPeterT I am going to reply here. You quote WP:COI: "Wikipedians must place the interests of the encyclopedia and its readers above personal concerns. It is the interest of readers that is precisely what is driving the concerns about this. Because most do not see this change as beneficial to readers, but rather as detrimental to them. This RFC was driven through by a handful of royal enthusiasts who happen to watch this page. It ignored the wider Wikipedia community, and did not take the interests of readers into consideration. That is what needs to be addressed.

I should also remind that this concern and a revision of NCROY was recommended by those who upheld the Ferdinand VII closure. Walrasiad (talk) 05:09, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

The inconsistencies among the monarch pages, continues to grow. Isabella II of Spain got moved to Isabella II & now is about to be moved to Isabel II. At the moment we've got Ferdinand VII (which was previously Ferdinand VII of Spain). Will that page 'next' be moved to Fernando VII? -- GoodDay (talk) 16:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Of course it won't. Monarch's names were systematically translated until the mid-to-late 19th century, but rarely thereafter. Reliable English-language sources continue to refer to him as Ferdinand, so no change is needed. Rosbif73 (talk) 16:42, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Of course it will. Nationalism is a perennial poison in Wikipedia history articles, and should never be underestimated. It has only been by watchfulness and strenuous effort that it has been prevented to nativize all monarchical names, and keep their recognizable English translations. Defenders of readers and accessibility will eventually be worn down by dogged nationalists eager to propound their unique spellings of "their" monarchs. Walrasiad (talk) 17:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm still at loss as well, concerning intros to current queens consort. Most use just the one name, except for the current queen consort of Spain. But that's another 'inconsistency' topic. GoodDay (talk) 17:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I am getting extremely fed up of articles on the ENGLISH Wikipedia getting moved to non-English names. Royalty and nobility articles are extremely inconsistent in the titling of their pages. On Wikipedia, the title of all monarchs' articles used to be "Name of [country]". Nowadays, different articles, very particularly those of the Spanish and Danish monarchs, have dropped the "of [country]". Why? The reason that "of the United Kingdom" is not included after British monarchs is because this is the English Wikipedia and for much of the English-speaking world (the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc.), the British monarchs are the monarchs! Not Isabella II or Frederik X. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 22:35, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

What a UK centric point of view you have! This is English language Wikipedia yes but it's not UK or Commonwealth Wikipedia. The reason Elizabeth II for example doesn't have "of the United Kingdom" is because there is only one primary article, there's no need for a disambiguator - not because "the British monarchs are the monarchs". You'll notice for example the article for Henry I is Henry I of England because there is Henry I of Austria, Henry I of France, Henry I of Cyprus etc.

Regarding the "non-English names", people do have names that aren't English. Names aren't typically translated and Wikipedia should not be assigning people new names based on an arbitrary translation. D1551D3N7 (talk) 00:58, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

He's right though. The only reason Elizabeth II is shortened is because of British nationalism (or rather Canadian nationalism - this whole mess started because of a dumb quarrel a couple of years ago between British & Canadian editors, the latter of whom took umbrage at the suggestion that Canada was being subordinated by having the title "of the United Kingdom". So their only resolution was to omit it entirely). Walrasiad (talk) 18:28, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

That is hardly a fair summary of the RfC that led to Elizabeth II's article title being shortened. The fact that she was queen of other realms was indeed raised, but what you are calling "nationalism" was actually based in policy, namely compliance with WP:NPOV. Other policy-based rationale also contributed to the decision to override the guideline as it stood at the time.

Similarly, the question of whether monarch's names should be translated is nothing to do with nationalism. Modern practice in general is to keep the "native" spelling of given names, but not to change the spelling of names that entered the English-language history books in translated form. Wikipedia follows that practice by referring to people by the name under which they are commonly known in reliable English-language sources. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but that is not her common name. Nobody calls her simply "Elizabeth II" (certainly not outside of Britain). She is at the very least "Queen Elizabeth II" (even if that is also the name of a ship), and Britain is almost always mentioned (if not in context). So by the common name criteria she should be at least "Queen Elizabeth II", not "Elizabeth II", just like we have "Pope John Paul II" not "John Paul II".

But early on, Wikipedia NCROY decided to not include titles like "king" and "queen" in article titles (unless they're solo, e.g. "John, King of England"). Instead, we decided that we can omit king/queen and leave only "of country" in the NCROY, feeling that is sufficient to identify the royal in the article title. That has been the norm for the past 20 years. And that worked very well for readers for the past 20 years.

This recent shortening change started as nationalism and has been driven by nationalism, joined by royalist aficionados and aesthetic minimalists, with little or no regard for Wikipedia readers, whose needs are being disregarded and left in the dust.

None of these shortenings are helpful to readers, but all are to serve the agendas of editors. That is the unfortunate reality of Wikipedia articles - and especially marring in history articles. If we have to pretend the British "Charles III" is somehow special because it satisfies the self-regard of British nationalists or royalist geeks, then we'll have to figure out a way to work with that. If that is necessary to contain the damage being done across Wikipedia, it is a compromise we'll have to consider. Walrasiad (talk) 09:44, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Spitballing a compromise:

• If the title is completely unambiguous (e.g. Edward V, because there are zero articles titled Edward V of <Different Country>), we drop the <Country>.
• If the title is utterly primary, use the shortened form (e.g. someone at Nicholas II is not looking for Nicholas II of Saint-Omer, someone at Charles III is not looking for Charles III of Anjou; and people are almost certainly not looking for something named after the monarch).
• Otherwise, use {Name} {Number} of {Country}.
• I think we should explicitly note that this is preemptive disambiguation, and thus WP:CONSISTENT does not control (just because Georgia (country) exists, there is no reason to have articles titled, for instance, Azerbaijan (country), Armenia (country), etc. This applies to natural disambiguation, as well; the existence of Querétaro City and Chihuahua City does not mean we have to retitle Guadalajara to Guadalajara City). For example, Jimbo II should not be at Jimbo II of Wikipedia solely because of how Jimbo I of Wikipedia is titled. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 15:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

How is this a compromise? That seems just like a restatement of the currently modified NCROY? Walrasiad (talk) 16:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

The intended difference is the "utterly" part. Namely, it would need to be more than "merely" a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (and the burden would be on people dropping the country to show it is unnecessary). HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 16:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

And how would they do that? What exactly is the difference between "utterly" and "non-utterly"? Walrasiad (talk) 17:29, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

It is really a I know it when I see it thing (and I would be interested to see if you have a bright-line rule in mind?). Probably not for even Mary I of England. What I am trying to get at is the difference between cases like Mary and Elizabeth II. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 17:39, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

FWIW - "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom" was moved to "Elizabeth II" a few years ago, due to some editors not liking the UK getting top billing over their own countries. It was like the umpteenth RM held on that matter, until they got their own way. GoodDay (talk) 17:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Ah, the joys of relentless nationalism. Walrasiad (talk) 17:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Edit-conflict: A bright-line rule I'd prefer is dropping country only for popular household names. So that would fit Louis XIV of France, but not Edward V of England. (with the stipulation that it includes households "outside of the country of origin" - so a Romanian monarch which may be a household name in Romania but not outside of Romania wouldn't cut it.) Walrasiad (talk) 17:52, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I could live with that replacing my "utterly" suggestion. I still think there is no reason for completely unambiguous (not just a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, but when e.g. Edward V (disambiguation) is a redlink) to use of {Country}. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 17:57, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

The trouble is that "utterly primary" and "popular household name" are both somewhat subjective, and the latter is also likely to raise worldview issues. Many readers will be utterly familiar with British monarchs and see them as household names going back centuries, whereas many other readers won't have a clue who the same monarchs are. Rosbif73 (talk) 18:08, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

That's why I included the stipulation "outside of country of origin". British monarchs may be familiar to British households, but not necessarily to non-British. The burden of proof would be to show it used that way in non-British sources. Walrasiad (talk) 18:18, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Well the mess gets worse. This RFC is proving inoperable. "Necessary disambiguation" is apparently in the eye of the beholder. We now have an eager editor spamming RMs, declaring French kings are "primary topic" over Swedish kings. Big countries are "more important" than small countries. So France doesn't need disambiguation, only Sweden does. And why not? Who cares about Sweden? It has only 10 million people, France has 70 million. And a lot more people are interested in French history than Swedish history. Swedes don't really matter.

This NCROY shortening nonsense is asking Wikipedia editors to pick which countries are "important" and which are "not important", it is introducing prejudices of "big countries" over "small countries". This is not something Wikipedia should be doing. This NCROY is not only opening the door to nationalist POVs, now we are now adding imperialist POVs into the mix. A curious but inevitable result of a poorly-thought out NCROY. This really needs to revised.

Deciding which country is or is not important is not the kind of judgment calls we should be making. Indeed, one of the great benefits of retaining "of country" in the titles in NCROY was precisely that it puts all on an equal neutral NPOV level. We won't get drawn into the unsavory nationalist-imperialist games of deciding whether France is more important than Sweden, whether Britain more important than Georgia, whether Russia more important than Ukraine. Walrasiad (talk) 18:51, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

At least personally, I don't see it as a question of which countries have primacy over others. I see it as a question of which individuals are most commonly known by a given name, in line with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 19:19, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

It is effectively the same thing. "Charles IX of France" is much better known than "Charles IX of Sweden", simply because France (and French history) is bigger. So it is asking us to pick countries, giving bigger ones primacy over small ones. Walrasiad (talk) 19:36, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

There is no question of making judgement calls about monarchs or countries. Whether or not a primary topic exists for a given name, and if so which one, are determined based on objective criteria set out and agreed by the community at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Different countries are often primary for different ordinals, e.g. the UK is for Charles III, France for Charles X, Sweden for Charles XI... Rosbif73 (talk) 19:49, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

What "objective" criteria? Its all contextual. In books on Swedish history, Charles IX of Sweden is primary, in books on French history, Charles IX of France is primary. There happen to be far more books on French history than Swedish history because France is a much bigger country. So your "objectivity" is merely appealing to (and reinforcing) POV prejudices about certain countries being more important than others. This is not something Wikipedia should be doing. Walrasiad (talk) 19:59, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I guess Paris should be moved to Paris, France? Because it's discriminatory to prioritise the French city over the countless other places with the name Paris or the mythological figure? UmbrellaTheLeef (talk) 17:09, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I totally support re-opening the RfC. Too many of these controversial moves have been closed by non-admins who have claimed they are enforcing the guidelines whilst ignoring the guideline that says they shouldn't be closing controversial discussions. Then they can expect support from other non-admins and this is apparently enough to overcome the real consensus in the actual discussion. It should be obvious that there is more than one guideline involved and one such guideline shouldn't take precedence over all others. Otherwise it would be a policy, not a guideline. Deb (talk) 17:16, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Correct article title for Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex

A summary of Talk:Prince_Harry,_Duke_of_Sussex#Proper_title_correction_needed.,

• In 2018, "Prince Harry thus becomes His Royal Highness The Duke of Sussex" on the royal.uk site [2]
• He has continued to be called Duke of Sussex on the royal.uk since then royal family, the duke of sussex
• Based upon Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility), it seems the correct title for him now is "Harry, Duke of Sussex" (styled similar to his brother's article William, Prince of Wales.

It is confused by Wikipedia:Official names#Common_name, since he continues to be called "Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex" or "Prince Harry": Newsweek, CNN, Royal Observer.

Would you please help us sort out the correct article title for Harry?–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:07, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I think the WP:RM route, is what you're looking for. GoodDay (talk) 20:11, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

FWIW - We have Prince Andrew, Duke of York, Prince Edward, Duke of Edinburgh, Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester, Prince Edward, Duke of Kent, for sons & sons of sons of British monarchs, with ducal titles. GoodDay (talk) 20:15, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

What is your suggestion for the requested move? Based upon your examples, it sounds as if you are suggesting "Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex" which would not require a move. And, don't we need consensus - or a decision here - before requesting a move?–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:23, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

IMHO, the page title should not be changed. He's still a British prince, as he's a legitimate child of the British monarch & previously a male-line grandchild of a British monarch. As for his older brother? William already has "Prince" in his page title, though albeit in the same style as his paternal aunt - i.e William, Prince of Wales & Anne, Princess Royal. -- GoodDay (talk) 20:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Excellent! Thank you!–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Fine as it is. He is still overwhelmingly referred to as Prince Harry. As pointed out above, Prince William, Prince of Wales, is unnecessary and weird duplication, hence the difference. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. We don't need to have the word "prince/princess" repeated twice. Other examples are Leonor, Princess of Asturias, Catharina-Amalia, Princess of Orange, etc.

With regards to Harry not being "Prince Harry" anymore, I have already given references from the London Gazette, dated after his marriage, at Talk:Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex. Examples were also given on other sons of British monarchs, including Harry's father and uncles. The whole thread over there was started by an IP without any solid evidence. Keivan.f^Talk 23:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

After GoodDay's response, it is my understanding that

• William, Prince of Wales is correct, because he is a prince, son of a British monarch, and not a duke
• Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex is correct for sons & sons of sons of British monarchs, with ducal titles, like one of the four examples provided, Prince Edward, Duke of Kent

Does that make sense?–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Trust me. There'll be no consensus to rename Harry's page. GoodDay (talk) 00:31, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Makes sense. If there is a consensus on the article talk page, the issue would need to be brought up here again. And, it would seem to me that the guideline would need to be changed to rename the article title - with that logic applicable to other similarly-situated royal family members - likely requiring other moves / renaming.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Before his elevation, William, Prince of Wales was Prince William, Duke of Cambridge. He is still colloquially referred to as Prince William (just as his father was colloquially referred to as Prince Charles before he became King). "Prince Foo" is usually correct (e.g. Prince Michael of Kent, who is also a prince but not a duke or holder of any other title), but Prince William, Prince of Wales would just look weird. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:01, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Question on naming convention in regards to Polish sovereigns

During the Middle Ages, many Polish sovereigns were never crowned, and as such only used the title of "duke" or "high duke" for their entire reign. However these rulers still ruled over the Kingdom of Poland, just without the title of king. For these rulers, which format should be used: X, Duke of Poland" or X of Poland? UmbrellaTheLeef (talk) 07:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

How are they most commonly referred to in English language reliable sources. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Title of the guideline

As the guideline is biased towards Europe as is most of Wikipedia, and restricts its coverage of non-European monarchs to a few bullet points essentially saying "there is no convention, look at WP:AT", I think this guideline's title should be changed to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (European royalty and nobility). Thoughts? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:56, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

As a note for the record, I have responded to this proposal here: diff AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 18:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

SOVEREIGN point 3 contradicts point 2

SOVEREIGN point 2 says "Use the most common, unambiguous name," and point 3 says "Only use a territorial designation (e.g. country) when disambiguation is needed." Sometimes, the most common name in English sources uses a territorial designation. Point 3 should be changed to "Only use a territorial designation (e.g. country) when disambiguation is needed or the name with the territorial designation is the most commonly recognizable name in line with WP:COMMONNAME. --JFHutson (talk) 16:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Of course it contradicts. Because the November RfC that changed the wording was a poorly-thought-through disaster. And needs to be revised. Walrasiad (talk) 12:06, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

BOLDly addressed. Good? —В²C ☎ 23:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I fear that this change leaves SOVEREIGN even more open to interpretation and dispute. Do we have any actual examples of sovereigns whose regnal name would be unambiguous without a territorial designation but whose common name unequivocally includes one? Rosbif73 (talk) 07:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Not offhand, but I don’t see why that’s relevant. With or without the clarification I added, and you reverted, the same WP:CRITERIA apply, just as they do for any other titles:

• If the subject’s most common name is unique, or is ambiguous but for which the subject is primary, then that’s the title. Otherwise we disambiguate.

That applies equally regardless of what the COMMONNAME is, including whether it includes “of country”.

Let’s not get confused by the fact that adding “of country” is often how we disambiguate these titles, when disambiguation is necessary.

None of this is affected at all by whether “we have any actual examples of sovereigns whose regnal name would be unambiguous without a territorial designation but whose common name unequivocally includes one”. So why are you asking for such examples? And why does the ability to produce such have anything to do with the clarification I added and you reverted? In other words:

If a sovereign’s most common name includes a territorial designation,

then that would be the title, even if their regnal name without such designation is unique.

Otherwise, territorial designation is included only if needed for disambiguation.

Whether there are any actual examples of sovereign’s with most common names that include territorial designations is besides the point. Maybe there are none… then we always use territorial designation only for disambiguation. Maybe there are a few… then we include the territorial designation in those titles respectively. 🤷‍♂️ Either way the same language is just as effective. В²C ☎ 12:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

The problem, as I see it, is that people will then argue (and indeed already have attempted to argue in some recent RMs) over whether the common name of a particular monarch includes the "of country" or not. In other words, your bold change merely diluted the general "use the territorial designation only for disambiguation" intent of last November's RfC. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

It’s not dilution. It’s clarification. After all, “use the territorial designation only for disambiguation" means “use the territorial designation only for disambiguation of the subject’s COMMONNAME when disambiguation is necessary because the COMMONNAME is ambiguous and this use is not primary for it.”

Regarding the need to argue about which is the COMMONNAME, good. That’s what title decision-making should be focused on: determining which is the COMMONNAME based on usage in RS. And the CONCISION razor settles any ties. —В²C ☎ 19:51, 14 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) 05:37, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Closed early in the light of universal opposition and the opening editor blocked as a sock puppet. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:07, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
RfC: Policy clarification/ change for WP:NCBRITPEER Should the policy for WP:NCBRITPEER be clarified/ changed? UnicornSherbert (talk) 13:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC) In what manner? GoodDay (talk) 13:54, 5 May 2024 (UTC) I was literally just typing a paragraph which your edit disrupted and now which I have got to rewrite all again... UnicornSherbert (talk) 14:01, 5 May 2024 (UTC) Support as the current policy is both incoherent, inconsistent and refers to peers incorrectly at times. The current policy has proliferated these inconsistencies and there has been significant disputes at times both on peer's articles as well as on job articles. This would be a prime time to finally address this and correct the wrongs in the policy. For instance: David Cameron, Bertrand Russell and Margaret Thatcher are referred to by their personal names but then Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma and Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington have their titles included. This is compounded by peer's lesser titles being wrongly used such as William Petty, 2nd Earl of Shelburne when in fact he is 1st Marquess of Lansdowne, or where courtesy titles have been wrongly used such as Frederick North, Lord North when he is in fact 2nd Earl of Guilford. This RfC could address these persistent errors and save users time from significant disputes, some which take weeks, months or years. UnicornSherbert (talk) 14:11, 5 May 2024 (UTC) What change are you supporting? Deb (talk) 14:18, 5 May 2024 (UTC) I am proposing the entire policy be rewritten so that peers are correctly referred to, which would create a clear, coherent and consistent Wikipedia, and would prevent heavy discussions over something as simple as a peer's name. UnicornSherbert (talk) 14:21, 5 May 2024 (UTC) I would oppose this. The current guideline essentially states that articles about peers should include their peerage in the title except where it is not part of their common name. Lord North, for example, is at 'Frederick North, Lord North' rather than 'Frederick North, 2nd Earl of Guildford' because he is far better known by the courtesy title he used during his premiership than by the peerage he inherited two years before his death. A.D.Hope (talk) 14:30, 5 May 2024 (UTC) Also, are you aware of WP:COMMONNAME? Deb (talk) 14:19, 5 May 2024 (UTC) Of course I am, but this should not apply to peers for obvious reasons. UnicornSherbert (talk) 14:20, 5 May 2024 (UTC) What obvious reasons? A.D.Hope (talk) 14:23, 5 May 2024 (UTC) The most obvious is that they are a peer... UnicornSherbert (talk) 14:25, 5 May 2024 (UTC) You'll have to explain to me why someone should be exempted from WP:COMMONNAME just because they hold a peerage. A.D.Hope (talk) 14:31, 5 May 2024 (UTC) That's not obvious to me at all. Thryduulf (talk) 14:40, 5 May 2024 (UTC) I do not propose to entertain the last two points and refer them to my message timed at 14:25 UTC. UnicornSherbert (talk) 14:53, 5 May 2024 (UTC) They are not obviously a peer? —Tamfang (talk) 04:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC) Wouldn't that only fortify the case for the policy to be amended, to distinguish between someone who is a peer and someone who is not? UnicornSherbert (talk) 11:22, 6 May 2024 (UTC) The most important of the article titling criteria are to define the subject recognisably (i.e. by the name they are most commonly referred to in reliable sources) and in a way that readers will naturally use to search for the subject. Being a peer is not an exception to that. If titles were supposed to systematically include all the distinguishing characteristics of article subjects, we'd end up with titles like Barack Obama, 44th President of the United States of America. Rosbif73 (talk) 11:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC) This solely concerns British peers and the policy pertaining to them. Moreover, some peers, as I have said, are referred to by their number in the peerage as well as their title: for example Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston. Your point is not of assistance. UnicornSherbert (talk) 20:19, 6 May 2024 (UTC) This solely concern British peers and the naming guidelines pertaining to them, which are subservient to the article titling policy and must remain consistent with that policy. So COMMONNAME still applies and quite correctly orients how the naming guidelines are written. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:13, 7 May 2024 (UTC) So basically, you want the article title to match the article intro. GoodDay (talk) 14:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC) I propose for the entire policy to be rewritten for the reasons I have given above. Far too much time is spent by users wrangling over someone's title and whether to include it. Surely this time would be better spent on providing quality edits... I think I have made the case that the policy is not fit for purpose and requires to be significantly rewritten. I would propose that a peers correct title be included in the lead as it currently is, in the infobox, and in the heading. I would further propose that for their job articles, their proper title be used. WP:COMMONNAME does not assist the submission made by the above editors as this is overtaken by the fact that they are peers. If it was the case that a peerage does not change this, why would there be two separate policies for people and then for peers? The policy also conflicts with WP:CONSISTENT. These too are yet other reasons why the policy is not fit for purpose. Where a peer is better known by a different name or title, they could have the resolution like in the article for Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston which says his name and correct title but then says "known as Lord Palmerston". UnicornSherbert (talk) 14:58, 5 May 2024 (UTC) (Summoned by bot) Oppose. No clear proposal, no clear rationale. It is not "obvious" why being a peer should be more important than WP:COMMONNAME and it wouldn't be a good rationale even if it were. No prejudice against a new proposal that has been clearly thought out and clearly articulated if presented alongside a clear rationale for change and evidence of WP:RFCBEFORE. Thryduulf (talk) 14:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC) Oppose. To be fair to the proposer, s/he probably isn't aware of the long debates that have gone into the formulating of the present policy, but without any kind of firm proposal or rational explanation, of course no one can be expected to support it. Deb (talk) 16:17, 5 May 2024 (UTC) Previous discussions have resulted in this position we are in today, which is untenable. The proposal and the rationale is set out above, particularly at 14:58 UTC. UnicornSherbert (talk) 16:38, 5 May 2024 (UTC) WP:DUCK. Rehash of this. SPI filed. DeCausa (talk) 18:04, 5 May 2024 (UTC) Best to suspend this RFC, pending an SPI investigation. GoodDay (talk) 18:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC) Please see my talk page and the investigation page. UnicornSherbert (talk) 22:59, 5 May 2024 (UTC) Oppose due to lack of policy-based rationale and absence of a specific proposal. Rosbif73 (talk) 11:56, 6 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) 07:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Titles of European monarchs

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Titles of European monarchs. Although previous participants in related discussions have been pinged, others who watch these guidelines may also be interested. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:06, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Baronage discussion

@DrKay: Thank you for your contribution to the article. I noticed that you have reverted my edit regarding the title of the baronage section. I'd like to understand your reasoning for not following the general article titling policy in this case.

Could you please explain why you believe the baronage titles should not adhere to the standard titling conventions used throughout the rest of the article? I'm happy to discuss this further so we can reach an agreement. Daniel Plumber (talk) 20:41, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I think you misread my edit summary. We should follow the general article titling policy. There is no need for a separate convention. DrKay (talk) 21:34, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh yeah, you are right. My apologies.

Regarding this, I think I would have to disagree with you there:

"The dignity of baron is protected by the Scotland Act 2000 and recognised by the Crown as a title of nobility with the status of minor baron. The title Baron of X becomes part of the legal name as a title of nobility and is included in British passports for official documents."

Baronage titles, due to legal precedent and being titles of nobility, as a rule should follow peerage format on Wikipedia. Moreover, the distinctive natures of these titles (Baron of X as opposed to Baron X in England/Ireland and recognised by the Lord Lyon as forming part of the name, similar to territorial designations) make it necessary to be separately noted, and not just following general policy. Daniel Plumber (talk) 22:24, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Not sure if we're talking about titles in the Baronage following the peerage convention or the general convention. If the former, it should in my opinion be stated clearly in the naming convention. If the intention on the other hand is to treat these titles differently, I would warn against it: Treating the Scottish baronage differently to that of the the rest of the British nobility could lead to inconsistencies in how British nobility is portrayed. We need to be really, really careful to avoid Anglocentric bias on Wikipedia.

AFAIK, these titles are included in the holder's passport. Upon ascending to a title, the holder's surname is changed to include the territorial designation. It would require some really strong arguments should we have a fixed policy to ignore this.

I would certainly suggest a default policy in line with that of other British peerages, with exceptions only where the individual is clearly not known publicly by the title. For Chiefs and Chieftains and many other Barons, the title is literally how they are known to their followers and others. Charliez (talk) 23:31, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

We don't use legal names, and because baronages can be bought and sold as property some of the owners aren't British, so they don't have British passports. British passports also include other titles, such as 'Doctor', 'Professor', 'Ms', etc. in the same field as that used for baronages and we don't include these on wikipedia, nor should we. The 'Observation' field of the passport is not the person's legal name. It is a descriptor. DrKay (talk) 07:18, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

The points you raised are valid, but I don't believe they sufficiently address the question of why baronage titles should be excluded. By convention, Scottish barons are addressed in a similar manner to peerage titleholders, they are recognised as "titled nobles" under Scots law, and they occupy a place in the Scottish order of precedence.

Unless there is a compelling argument for denying the status of Scottish barons, I don't think it would be appropriate to apply an "Anglocentric perspective" on Scottish nobility, as the above editor noted. The Scottish nobility system is far more complex than the rest of the United Kingdom. Daniel Plumber (talk) 12:19, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

@DrKay and fellow editors, thank you for the ongoing discussion. I appreciate the perspectives shared and believe it's important to find a solution that respects both Wikipedia's guidelines and the unique nature of Scottish baronage titles.

@DrKay has raised valid points regarding the consistency of titling across Wikipedia. However, I believe the edit that was reverted deserves reconsideration due to the distinct historical and legal status of Scottish baronage titles.

The edit in question was:

"Titles in the Baronage of Scotland as a rule follow the peerage format above. The Scottish baronage predates the peerage and coexists to this day. The dignity of baron is protected by the Scotland Act 2000 and recognised by the Crown as a title of nobility with the status of minor baron. The title Baron of X becomes part of the legal name as a title of nobility and is included in British passports for official documents. The most famous baronial title holder is Prince William holding the title of Baron of Renfrew. There are around 30 Scottish clan chiefs who are also barons, styled in the baronial format. For example, Lorne Maclaine, Baron of Moy or Peregrine Moncreiffe of that Ilk, Baron of Moncreiffe."

The fact that the heir to the British throne—Prince William—holds the title of Baron of Renfrew highlights the continued relevance and recognition of these titles.

In comparison, there are many foreign holders of peerage titles that don't live in Britain, to name few:

Alexander Montagu, 13th Duke of Manchester (Australian)

Filippo Giambattista Rospigliosi, 12th Earl of Newburgh (Italian)

Simon Abney-Hastings, 15th Earl of Loudoun (Australian)

Peter St John, 9th Earl of Orkney (Canadian)

Nevinson de Courcy, 36th Baron Kingsale (New Zealander, and possibly has never visited Britain)

In their Australian, Canadian, NZ, and Italian passports, their titles of nobility are not recorded, but this does not diminish the recognition or importance of their titles within British nobility. I don't believe anyone is suggesting that we alter the way these titles are presented on Wikipedia based on their passport status.

Regarding British passports, there is an important distinction between "THE HOLDER IS ALSO KNOWN AS" and "THE HOLDER IS." The former is used for a stage name or foreign title, that are not officially recognised as part of the legal name. In contrast, "THE HOLDER IS" refers to the UK-recognised full legal name, including nobility title, which is verified through HMPO’s review of a Lord Lyon letters patent (the monarch's representative in Scotland decreeing the holder's legal name with baronial title for all official purposes) or a Burke's Peerage genealogical profile that verifies the same. This is a significant recognition by the Crown, reflecting the legal and noble status of the title. Moreover, to have "Doctor" added to the observation field, evidence is required—observations are not taken at face value without verification.

However, this is not about professional titles like 'doctor' or 'professor.'

The focus here is on guidelines for titles of nobility on wikpipedia. Scottish baronage titles, which are hereditary titles of nobility recognised by the Crown as noble and ranking below a Lord of Parliament but above a Scottish Laird in the British system. As Sir Thomas Innes of Learney noted, Scottish Barons have historically been considered equivalent to Continental barons, underscoring their significance.

While it’s true that baronial titles can be bought and sold, the market for selling barony titles is a tiny one - there might only be 1 or 2 sales a year sometimes none and multiple years of no sales - they're actually nearly impossible to buy as they're not for sale at any price from these families in most cases. The current holders are not selling they're family heirlooms. For example, there are some 30 scottish clan chiefs that are barons. Some of the titles come with hereditary offices like Sheriff or Constable of a Castle, pageantry and ceremony of state. Some had historic power over life and death with criminal courts. Some still today operate a Baron's court with officers appointed like a Barron Ballie that can can get a special coat of arms from lyon etc and hold civil courts and a lot of charitable community involvement.

Additionally, there are more Scottish barons who own gentry estates than Scottish peers, with hereditary titles typically attached to these estates, ensuring they are passed down through the generations.

Returning to the main point, the topic in question is not the legal name of a baronage title holder, but rather the title of nobility itself, which predates the Scottish peerage and coexists to this day. It is a respected, honorable rank within the nobility, with the baronage being one of the original three estates of Scotland. Therefore, just like Scottish Clan Chiefs, I believe Scottish barons are notable on Wikipedia. This important cultural history is valued and should, as a rule, follow the peerage style format on Wikipedia, mirroring British society.

Given these factors, I suggest that Scottish baronage titles should of course follow the peerage format on Wikipedia, reflecting their noble status and historical significance. This approach would not only preserve the integrity of the titles but also ensure that we accurately represent the rich tapestry of British nobility, avoiding any unintentional Anglocentric bias as @Daniel Plumber @Charliez rightly points out.

To address this more comprehensively, it may be worth considering the creation of a dedicated project page for the Baronage of Scotland, akin to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Clans_of_Scotland. This would allow for a more focused effort in documenting the histories and significance of these titles, ensuring that they are presented with the context and respect they deserve.

I encourage others to share their thoughts on this, as a consensus that reflects the broader community's view will be crucial in guiding how we move forward. Kellycrak88 (talk) 12:37, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I certainly agree with your points. The edit we're discussing seems quite comprehensive to me and, I believe, establishes a style of address that aligns these Scottish titles with other British titles.

In my opinion, a compelling argument (beyond avoiding discrimination against traditional Scottish titles) is that many of these barons are primarily known by their traditional titles, making it logical to use those titles when naming articles. I'd support reversing the removal of this policy. Charliez (talk) 13:10, 18 August 2024 (UTC) — Charliez (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I support including the Scottish Baronage as a separate entry on this list. I am deeply uncomfortable discriminating against these traditional Scottish titles. Alvise Figà Talamanca (talk) 15:04, 18 August 2024 (UTC) — Alvise Figà Talamanca (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

gentle DrKay, I am new to wikipedia and I am registered with my name, I made a comment in a topic in which I am very interested for personal reason, that I can demonstrate, but really I don't understand what meatpuppets mean. Can you please explain, is it a welcome to new users as per wikipedia policy? Thanks in advance for the kind answer Alvise Figà Talamanca (talk) 17:12, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

You can read here: WP:MEATPUPPET D1551D3N7 (talk) 20:19, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Quoting from that page: The term meatpuppet may be seen by some as derogatory and should be used with care, in keeping with Wikipedia:Civility. Because of the processes above, it may be counterproductive to directly accuse someone of being a "meatpuppet", and doing so will often only inflame the dispute.

Regarding the allegation, I want to reassure everyone that I have not been recruited by anyone, and I am not involved with multiple accounts. I am participating in this discussion independently.

I have provided my opinion at length and in a professional and courteous manner, carefully addressing each of @DrKay's concerns - who also appears to be (currently) the only user in the thread against the consensus. Consensus building is a fundamental part of Wikipedia, and the fact that multiple users agree with my point of view should not be dismissed or met with accusations. Instead, I encourage a continued focus on the content of the discussion and a constructive approach to resolving any disagreements. Kellycrak88 (talk) 20:51, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I have added a note on @DrKay's talk page to which I haven't yet had a reply. While I understand the concerns meatpuppet cause, I believe it may not be entirely fair to tag a 20-year-old account that posts on a variety of subjects as both a meatpuppet and a Single Purpose Account.

While contributors will always have some bias for certain subjects or editorial directions, I always aim to approach topics with an independent and neutral perspective. Agreement over an editorial direction is not in itself a sufficient indicator of "meatpuppet" accounts. I certainly do not consider myself a puppet... Charliez (talk) 20:54, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

When multiple accounts make the same false ignorant claim, that is highly indicative that they are the same editor. It is unlikely that so many editors would make an identical error. The title Baron is not part of the legal name for Scottish feudal barons. It can only be recorded in the Observations field of the passport not the field for legal name. This is explicit in the government guidelines. Only members of the House of Lords and knights and dames can record titles in the name field. See https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/titles-included-in-passports/titles-accessible#bookmark121. Scottish feudal barons are only permitted a territorial designator (such as "of that Ilk"). They are not permitted the title of Baron anywhere other than the Observation field, which is the same field used for stage names and professional titles. Scottish feudal baronies are not the same as peerages. They are commodities not honours. DrKay (talk) 21:19, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

@DrKay, thank you for your clarification. Your comments make more sense to me when considered in the context you describe. However, I believe you might have misread the HMPO guidelines. Please see: Titles in Passports https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/titles-included-in-passports/titles-accessible. It clearly states under Scottish feudal baronies: "The correct form will be for their surname to change to include the territorial designation as part of their surname. For example: Surname: (surname) of (territorial designation) Forename: (forenames)." This is the current practice, and I think this may explain why multiple users have shared the same opinion.

As I mentioned, my account is 20 years old and has contributed to a wide range of topics. Although I may not have posted frequently, and while you may be a significant contributor to this site (for which we are all grateful), I believe I should be allowed to hold an opinion contrary to yours as long as it is discussed in a sensible manner and in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. Charliez (talk) 21:30, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

@DrKay I would kindly ask you to reconsider your statement, as I am not involved with multiple accounts. I believe this accusation is unfair and detracts from the constructive nature of this discussion. Please refer back to my message above regarding British passports, which you seem to have overlooked. I would appreciate it if you could review my previous response before replying again.

HMPO reviews a Lord Lyon letters patent (the monarch's representative in Scotland) decreeing the holder's legal name, including the baronial title for all official purposes. This document, as demonstrated here [link: http://www.scotarmigers.net/ssagallery/albums/userpics/10001/lindsay-grant.jpg], confirms the baronial title as part of the legal name. Btw this is only issued if the Lord Lyon judges if the person is a virtuous and deserving person.

The reason the title is not in the surname field is simply due to space limitations, especially when a territorial designation is involved. To provide an example, as you reference peers, they also have "THE HOLDER IS John Jason Smith, Duke of London" in the observation field, with the title "Duke of London" in the surname field. The family name "Smith," though not in the main personal details page, still remains part of their legal name—it's just placed in the observation field due to space constraints.

With all due respect, I believe it is important to fully consider the points I’ve raised. This conversation should remain focused on factual information and collaborative discussion. Kellycrak88 (talk) 21:32, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Actually, on re-reading your comment I see that you're specifically talking about the word "baron" not the "of X". This is correct, but I would certainly consider "of Townsname" a title. Charliez (talk) 21:35, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Peers don't have territorial designations, while all Scottish Baronets have territorial designations, and a mixture of Scottish Barons have them. However, HMPO don't make a distinction and apply a territorial designation to all barons - hence the spacing issue. It doesn't mean Baron of X is not their legal title. Much in the same for a peer it doesn't mean their family name is not part of their legal name. Kellycrak88 (talk) 21:40, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't really care about what HMPO has to say (although both you and fellow editors made valid points) because in Wikipedia we do not use legal names. If a person is known as a baron, they should be accorded baron of the realm. Period.

As you know, Wikipedia is not a circus, yet pure comedy gold comes from you. It's not just comedy gold, but also a pure blatant hoax from you. You say a barony, which was granted in the same manner as peerage titles (by the Charter of the Great Seal of Scotland), the only difference being that it is assignable (remainder to heirs and assignees), is not an honour? You do know that baronies were granted as a gift of the king to loyal vassals. How on earth is it, not an honour, as you say? If by "honour" you mean recent gifts from the sovereign, it may fit into the "dignity" category, but again, most hereditary peerage titles would fit into the "dignity" category too.

And about "commodities," may I ask what proprietary rights/interests do baronies have? As far as I know, nothing. All rights were stripped away in the 2004 Act, retaining only the dignity of the baron. Now, some of you might say, "oh, it can be sold, so it must bring some monetary value to the soon-to-not-be-a-baron anymore." If you give something to someone, you get something in return. That's basic logic - no one's going to be rich by selling their own baronies. Unless you have any authoritative scholarly sources that state Scottish baronies aren't honours but commodities instead, your assertion would still not be entertained. I'm confident I have some that say otherwise.

Need I remind you all that no one has been able to make counter-arguments against my previous contentions? Therefore, I remain entitled to my view. Daniel Plumber (talk) 01:27, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

The suggested text says "The title Baron of X becomes part of the legal name as a title of nobility and is included in British passports for official documents." but the source given to support this[3], section "Scottish feudal baronies" doesn't support this: their legal name will change from "John Smith" to "John Smith of Glenfiddich", not "John Smith, Baron of Glenfiddich" ("Surname: (surname) of (territorial designation) Forename: (forenames)"), and the "baron of" part is only in the observations, not in the name. Fram (talk) 10:57, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

In the spirit of not repeating myself, I want to reiterate that I have already addressed this issue above. The legal name, including the title "Baron of X," is granted by a previous monarch and the current holder gets recognised by the Crown through the Lord Lyon (the letters patent example link I shared above), and this title is an official part of the individual's legal name. The reason the title "Baron of X" appears in the Observation field of a passport, rather than the surname field, is due to space constraints of territorial designations. For example, "Livingston of Bachuil, Baron of the Bachuil" or "Agasim-Pereira of Fulwood and Dirleton, Baron of Fulwood and Dirleton" are too long to fit in the surname field, which is why the full legal name is placed in the Observation field.

As I mentioned earlier, this does not diminish the legal recognition of the title by the Crown. If you review my previous comments, you'll also see that peers often also have their family name in the Observation field, yet it remains part of their legal name (I know this because I've gone into contract with peers they use their family name with their full name and title). This distinction in the Observation field for stage names or UK-recognised full legal name is important, and I’ve explained it in detail in my previous responses.

However, I do acknowledge that the discussion about passport entries may be a distraction from the main issue of reaching consensus on the edit in question. If the passport comment is creating confusion or contention, I am happy to suggest a compromise: we could remove the reference to passports and leave the rest of the proposed edit intact. As @DrKay has already noted, Wikipedia does not necessarily follow legal names, even though the baron title is legal. Therefore, removing the passport mention could help keep the conversation focused on the primary issue.

The consensus here is that the Scottish baron edit should be reverted to avoid potential Anglocentric bias and to accurately reflect the status of these titles. I encourage others to avoid confirmation bias and re-evaluate the information presented with a more open approach to the discussion, focusing on the facts rather than dismissing differing perspectives. Kellycrak88 (talk) 11:47, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I have seen no evidence that the baron name as suggested is legal, and I see a lot of claims in the above discussion about the importance and long history of the title, which seems to ignore the division / duplication created, with one title having a long history and importance, and the "feudal" one split of recently and having little to no value (apart from a financial one). For example the old title Lord Balvaird and the new Lord of Balvaird: until recently they were the same title, for the same person. Or Lord Hailes, which became extinct upon the death of Patrick Buchan-Hepburn, 1st Baron Hailes, compared to Lord of Hailes, the bought and sold other title. Fram (talk) 12:09, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

@Fram I would like to point out that the Lord Lyon letters patent example I provided above is a clear demonstration of the legal recognition of a baron's title. As the monarch's representative in Scotland, the Lord Lyon's authority to recognise these titles on behalf of the crown is well-established.

Regarding your other point, it's important to note that the vast majority of these titles—around 95%—are "Baron of" titles, which are not linked to any peerage titles as far as I'm aware. I do acknowledge that anomaly titles "Lord of" and "Earl of" titles in the Baronage of Scotland can sometimes have a connection to extinct or extant peerages, but this is not the case for the "Baron of" titles we are discussing many of which have a very rich and dynastic hereditary history. Along with cultural heritage in Scotland.

The Declaration of Arbroath in 1320 is a letter sealed by about 40 barons of the kingdom of Scotland to the pope, asking him to recognise Scotland's independence and acknowledge Robert the Bruce as the country's lawful king. Kellycrak88 (talk) 12:22, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Baronage titles (I'd rather not mention the word "feudal" as feudalism was abolished) and peerage titles are not the same. They are separate entities, usually held by the same person, and have identical designations due to historical circumstances.

A baronage title was erected by a charter of erection, and peerage titles were granted by charters of gift (the Scottish term for letters patent) (both were under the Great Seal). The peerage title is the reason that the holder was entitled to attend Parliament and the House of Lords in modern times, after a 1428 act lifted the burden of barones minores to attend Parliament. The baronage title is the reason for why the holder had jurisdiction over their tenants and feudal rights until 2004. Both types enjoy the same historical significance as each other, so saying baronage titles are insignificant compared to peerage titles is somewhat unfair. Daniel Plumber (talk) 12:30, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Lord Lyon then published a list of clan chiefs and "heads of territorial houses" in the Edinburgh Gazette. In this list, Lyon listed some surnames that incorporate "Baron of X" with the surname, for example "THACKER, BARON OF FETTERNEAR." So yes, they do form part of the name.

As for why HMPO doesn't include "Baron of X" in barons' passports, they are not very consistent regarding titles as I observe. For example, they still include territorial designations for barons regardless of whether the baron still holds the territorial designation. Meanwhile, genuine territorial designation holders (lairds) do not enjoy the same privileges, even if they are entitled to it. Lyon is the final authority in Scotland regarding aristocratic name changes. Daniel Plumber (talk) 12:42, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

@Fram you said "I have seen no evidence that the baron name as suggested is legal" in regards to strictly legal may I point you to:

"Abolition of Feudal Tenure etc. (Scotland) Act 2000, 63

Baronies and other dignities and offices: "nothing in this Act affects the dignity of baron or any other dignity or office (whether or not of feudal origin)" "dignity" includes any quality or precedence associated with, and any heraldic privilege incidental to, the noble quality and use of title as covered in the Scottish Law Commission Report that led to the act".

UK Government Legislation Website. 16 June 2004. Retrieved 16 June 2004. Kellycrak88 (talk) 13:01, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

The title and the legal name are not the same, or at the very least that isn't clear from what you post here. For "true" barons, the surname is changed to "The Lord" + title. For the feudal baronies, this isn't done (they are also the only group not included in the "How to record titles of nobility in a passport" section, but separately). Fram (talk) 13:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

@Fram, I believe we’re getting sidetracked by the passport discussion, which is irrelevant to the guidelines for Scottish barons on this page. The legality of these titles has been established through Acts of Parliament and the Lord Lyon’s letters patent, as I’ve demonstrated. It seems my detailed points on passports in previous responses have not been fully acknowledged, but I think it’s time we move on from this particular topic.

Let’s refocus on the main issue, which is reaching a consensus on how these titles should be represented on Wikipedia. The key point here is ensuring that Wikipedia accurately reflects the legal and historical status of these titles, without getting bogged down in side issues. Kellycrak88 (talk) 13:34, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Article titles at the very least have little if anything to do with the "historical status" of these titles, and the legal status of these titles at the moment is comparable to e.g. baronets, i.e. they are real but have no other importance. And I disagree that the passport discussion isn't important if the proposed inclusion reads in part "The title Baron of X becomes part of the legal name as a title of nobility and is included in British passports for official documents." Without actual evidence for this (not the legality of the title, but "baron of X" becoming part of the legal name, which is a different claim), this bit at the very least has no business being in a manual of style.

As an aside, above you qoute Section 63: "dignity" includes any quality or precedence associated with, and any heraldic privilege incidental to, the noble quality and use of title as covered in the Scottish Law Commission Report that led to the act": but the linked text says "“dignity” includes any quality or precedence associated with, and any heraldic privilege incidental to, a dignity;". I can't find your quote (the second part) anywhere apart from other Wikipedia articles. Fram (talk) 13:49, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

@Fram feel free to click the link to read the original act, that part is not quoted it's not in quotations, it's giving context context based on the Scottish Law Commission Report that led to the Act that I previously sent to you on another Talk page.

It seems my responses are being overlooked or not fully read :( as I already mentioned in my response above to you:

If the passport comment is creating confusion or contention, I am happy to suggest a compromise: we could remove the reference to passports and leave the rest of the proposed edit intact. Kellycrak88 (talk) 13:57, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

You provide a quote which is incorrect, and then claim "that part is not quoted"? Then why include it? If it isn't in the law, you shouldn't posted it as if it is part of that link. And no, your responses aren't fully read, as they are confusing, internally contradictory, and as seen here, can't be trusted to be factual. Fram (talk) 14:07, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

@Fram I want to clarify that the information I provided is certainly not incorrect. The context I offered was explained the meaning of "dignity" as understood in the Scottish Law Commission Report that led to the Act. The text after the quotation is not a direct quote (hence not in quotations), and I apologise if that wasn’t clear, the link was provided to encourage you to click through and read it yourself.

Regarding your comment about my responses being "confusing, internally contradictory, and not factual," I respectfully disagree. I have made a consistent effort to provide accurate information supported by evidence, and I believe my points have been clear and straightforward. The legal status of these titles and the recognition provided by the Lord Lyon are well-documented, and I’ve provided multiple references to support this.

It seems that this critique is more about disagreeing with my point of view and not liking the facts I’ve provided, which prove the legality of these titles. If there's any specific part of my responses that you find unclear or believe to be incorrect, I’m open to discussing it further. However, I believe it’s important that we keep the discussion focused on the facts and work towards a constructive resolution. Kellycrak88 (talk) 14:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Your literal text, right above here, for anyone to see, ""dignity" includes any quality or precedence associated with, and any heraldic privilege incidental to, the noble quality and use of title as covered in the Scottish Law Commission Report that led to the act" with a link to the UK gov website, which has the first part of your quote (and it is a quote, in quotes), but not the second part. Why you insist that "The text after the quotation is not a direct quote (hence not in quotations)" when it clearly was written otherwise is not clear. Fram (talk) 14:40, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

@Fram I appreciate your attention to detail, again, I apologise for any confusion caused, but I hope my immediate follow-up clarification helped. Let’s move forward and focus on reaching a consensus on how these titles should be represented on Wikipedia. Kellycrak88 (talk) 15:03, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

You insist on the legality of these titles, which I don't believe anyone has disputed. Discussion are about how we should title these, about the exact text of the potential section included for these, and more in general about the importance of the current ones and their status compared to the older ones. Perhaps it would be helpful if we had 5 or so current articles and a discussion about what the name would be in these cases. Looking at Baronage of Scotland, it seems we have very, very few articles which would be affected by this proposal, so perhaps nothing needs to be done anyway per WP:CREEP. Fram (talk) 15:12, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Facts matter, Fram. I agree with Kellycrak88 that all topics, niche or not, should be approached with an open mind. We should seek consensus and resolution. I do think that Kelly has tried their best to provide us with credible sources here, as no one is perfect we should expect inconsistencies to occur.

Personally, I'd like to seek a settlement that would satisfy all parties. The noble aspects of Scottish baronies, though still arguable about their position in the Scottish nobility hierarchy, are undeniable. Daniel Plumber (talk) 14:26, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Can we stop arguing about HMPO stuff? It's pointless, as the main topic is concerned with naming conventions rather than something else. Daniel Plumber (talk) 14:12, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Then start by changing your proposed text and exclude "The title Baron of X becomes part of the legal name as a title of nobility and is included in British passports for official documents." You are the one that included it in the naming convention, please don't blame others if they take a critical look to what you want to include. Fram (talk) 14:40, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

My apologies. If this is what we want then I'm happy to omit that part from the text, provided that the text is allowed to be in the article. If no one opposes the idea then I will bring the text back to its place. Daniel Plumber (talk) 14:47, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I’ve been following this discussion, and I was thinking that appears that their is no dispute about whether the titles are legally recognized ( in the UK), and their appears to be no dispute about whether the title is mentioned on British passports, their only appears to be a dispute about whether it is the “legal name”. Can we just say that the title appears on British passports under the observation section and leave it at that. Muirton (talk) 15:33, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

@Fram thank for sharing, you raise a valid point that WP:CREEP might be sufficient for now, however there has been discussion to create a wiki project similar to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Clans_of_Scotland to create dedicated pages for barons especially the most historic and prestigious supported by credible sources links of course, that could possible eventually be 300-400 pages, if there enough interest and contributors got behind it. It does seem to me that is some appetite among editors for this kind of project. It might be worth revisiting adding guidelines once this project is off the ground? Kellycrak88 (talk) 15:26, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

If such pages are created, and there turns out to be discussion about the titles, then adding guidance may be helpful. It seems to be as if most of these have a more substantial or important title anyway, in which case there is no problem as the feudal barony won't be part of the article title anyway. Fram (talk) 15:28, 19 August 2024 (UTC)