Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)/Poll

Premature votes

THIS IS NOT A LIVE POLL YET - PLEASE DO NOT VOTE. (However, for the record, some votes which were placed prematurely due to misunderstanding are recorded here.)

Premature votes

1. usually (rather than always). 2b: this conforms to the accepted format for British peers, but I would be happy with either. 3b (but the 3a form should be a redirect). Though I am British, since WP is international to adopt 3c would apply a GB-centric POV. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC) Okay then. 1(a) - 2 n/a - 3(d) Deb (talk) 19:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC) 1b, 2b, 3a. The "Considerations" listed above as the main rationales pro and con are not, imho, balanced because they seem to assume that the status quo is ipso facto deemed an argument by its advocates and thus inadvertently tilt in favor of certain proposed changes to the status quo (which are given fuller justifications), although clearly Peterkingiron made a good faith attempt. IMO, the stongest argument pro 2b is that substantive titles usually take a recognizable format that distinguishes them (as unique) from titles shared by all children of a ruler (e.g. the titles of two living brothers, Hans Adam II, Prince of Liechtenstein vs. Prince Nikolaus of Liechtenstein). The stongest argument con 3b, 3c and 3d is that they implicitly establish the precedent that "prevalent usage" may be disallowed for article titles because some editors object to it as POV (and I happen not to buy the argument that "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom" is not prevalent, since I consider that "Elizabeth II" is predominantly used as shorthand specifically for "of England", "of Great Britain" or "of the United Kingdom" -- only the latter of which is currently a realm). FactStraight (talk) 21:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC) 1a, 3a SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC) 1a, 3b and 3d. I have removed the 'Considerations' from the vote, they were biased and unnecessary. I doubt anyone will vote without familiarising themselves with the arguments put forward on the main talk debate; the presence of the section was like placing political advertising on the ballot paper itself. PS: I've also fixed up what I think was a duplicate option, and rephrased 3c slightly more clearly, hopefully without disrupting existing votes. Diff —what a crazy random happenstance 04:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Considerations

Considerations for question 1) ("When should the word "King" or "Queen" be included in the title?")

• Answer a) ("never") ensures consistent and concise titles, but makes it impossible to avoid artificial constructions like "Victoria of the United Kingdom" in cases where there is no numeral.
• Answer b) ("only when there is no numeral") avoids these artificial constructions while ensuring concise titles in the other cases, but leads to loss of consistency between the two types.
• Answer c) ("always") ensures consistent titles and avoids the artificial constructions, but leads to loss of conciseness.

Considerations for question 2) ("If the word "King" or "Queen" is to be included in the title, where should it go?")

• Answer a) ("before the name, as in King Henry I of England") leads to names which are more natural and more likely to be used in running text.
• Answer b) ("before the realm, as in Henry I, King of England") leads to names which are closer to official titles, and are similar to the forms already used for articles on other topics, such as nobles, and may avoid confusion with queens consort and (others???)

Considerations for question 3) ("When should the realm be omitted?")

• Answer a) ("never") provides consistency and ensures stability over time.
• Answer b) ("when one monarch is the primary topic for the resulting term") enable the disambiguator to be dropped when it is not needed, providing conciseness and often reflecting real-world usage better.
• Answer c) ("when the realm is Great Britain or the United Kingdom") allows the disambiguator to be dropped in these cases of realms which are not normally present in real-world usage, providing consistency within a set which mostly fall under b), c) or d) anyway. However, different treatment for particular countries is perceived as not being neutral.
• Answer d) ("when determination of the primary realm is problematic") will allow the disambiguator to be dropped in cases where its determination causes problems and it may not be needed anyway, but will lead to loss of consistency and the need to discuss particular cases further.
• Answer e) ("always, but appearing in parentheses if required as a disambiguator").

I readded the considerations here (since someone thinks it's biased to have them on the poll page, though I thought I'd done them pretty neutrally, and they could still be edited). Please still feel free to edit them, even though they're on the talk page now.--Kotniski (talk) 08:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Added 3e. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Format of poll

If we're going to have a poll, I think that we really should not be voting on each issue separately. We should try to have the general solution which engenders the most support, not the solution to each separate question which does, as that might lead to a general solution nobody likes. john k (talk) 21:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a fair point - so how shall we go about compiling a (relatively short) list of possible general solutions?--Kotniski (talk) 11:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

One approach we might use is to choose a small number of representative monarchs (one primary topic with numeral, one non-primary with numeral, one primary without numeral, etc.) and present people with a few proposed options as to how to name them (each option being a list of name forms, so e.g. Elizabeth II, Henry I of England, Queen Victoria,... might be one of the options. People could of course vote for options of their own. I think this will be less confusing to the mass of editors who won't want to twist their brains working out what it is they're being asked.--Kotniski (talk) 08:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Confusion with consorts and others

I take issue with the idea that 1(c) "ensures consistent titles and avoids the artificial constructions, but leads to loss of conciseness." Since some consorts do include the title "Queen", this will introduce some ambiguity and could lead to a lack of consistency. Deb (talk) 12:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It's really 2a) that has this weakness, isn't it? (I've added this as an advantage under 2b; not sure what the "others" are, I've seen something about princes along the same lines.)--Kotniski (talk) 09:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Sole and primary

I originally had two separate options under realm-dropping (one for sole topic, one for primary topic), as in the previous discussion someone was proposing replacing "primary" by "sole/unique", so people may want to vote for sole topic only. Why were these two combined?--Kotniski (talk) 08:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Your weren't very clear with the way you phrased them, I didn't realise one was for sole and one for primary topics. There was a duplicate letter and it appeared as though you accidentally separated one option into two points. My bad. —what a crazy random happenstance 11:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Considerations

May I ask what you intend to do with this section? I think it should not be used in the vote due to unavoidable bias, and it should probably be removed or hidden from this talk too. —what a crazy random happenstance 11:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Why do you consider it biased? In what direction? We should certainly have something of the sort, though, because I don't think people turning up to vote here will want to read the reams of past discussion on these matters, yet we want to ensure that all the pros and cons so far identified are available to inform people's decisions. --Kotniski (talk) 16:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Facts could be over-emphasised or underplayed, and what is insignificant for one may be a clincher for another. Why does 3a "ensure stability" - is that a determination for you to make? It is also very emotionally tinted - what are "natural" names? Why do you note that 3d may lead to "loss of consistency" but fail to note any negatives on 3a? No matter how well-intentioned, there's always going to be bias. It should not be used. —what a crazy random happenstance 09:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

So maybe instead, we could have "statements" by people on various sides of the various fences, briefly setting out the arguments that they find convincing?--Kotniski (talk) 09:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

That is unprecedented. I see no reason why editors can't just overview the dispute before making up their minds; that's how it has always been done. There have been far longer discussions than the one being voted on here, and no one felt the need to campaign on the polls during those debates. —what a crazy random happenstance 14:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure I've seen such "statements" before. Anyway, it makes sense in this case - how else are editors expected to "overview the dispute" when so much has been written about it up to now? --Kotniski (talk) 14:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, I don't find the length of the discussion particularly daunting, it's quite short by usual Wikipedia standards. Editors can easily review or just skim through it. —what a crazy random happenstance 01:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Same named monarchs of different countries

If we adopt article names like Elizabeth II, James I, Gustav III etc, could we consider aswell Henry III (England), Henry III (France), Henry III (Holy Roman Empire) (for example) for the monarchs with indentical names/regnal numbers? GoodDay (talk) 16:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

This might be best included as a new option under question 3 ("when should the realm be omitted?" - "always, but appearing in parentheses if required as a disambiguator").--Kotniski (talk) 16:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how to transfer it there. GoodDay (talk) 21:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Just edit it in (we might not end up asking those questions directly anyway, see thread on poll format above).--Kotniski (talk) 14:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll put it on hold, as it might not be needed. GoodDay (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Put this on hold

Since the community seems to have other things on its mind at the moment, and this page isn't attracting any debate, I propose leaving it for now, possibly to return to at a later time. In any case, that's what I intend to do, although if anyone else wants to pick this up and run with it, feel free.--Kotniski (talk) 13:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The vote was proceeding nicely until you abruptly closed it. —what a crazy random happenstance 11:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, people were voting before we were anything like ready for it (there were even two options marked with the same letter, for ...'s sake). --Kotniski (talk) 12:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

But it shows an interest in the poll. The lull in discussion would seem to indicate that we are done talking, and are itching to vote. Wikipedia may not be a democracy, but we're damn close. :) —what a crazy random happenstance 12:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I think this should be voted on. Monarchs should have their title included in the page name as that is what they are commonly called, and the British Queen is also Queen of several other countries. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Closed choices

Where is choice d) - "Follow the usage of the majority of English-language sources"? OrangeDog (τ • ε) 18:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

If we revive this, then that could certainly be one of the options (though you'd need to explain what to do when that usage doesn't give rise to a unique name).--Kotniski (talk) 18:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Majority doesn't mean unique. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 21:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

We can't have two articles at the same location; all articles, by definition, require a unique name. The entire point of a naming convention is to create unique titles that still match the content as best as possible. —what a crazy random happenstance 06:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)