Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles)/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Monarchy of Hawaii

There seems to have been a dispute over the naming of Hawaiian monarchs this past week that got a bit ugly. Being argued over is whether or not the addition of the appendage "of Hawaii" at the end of the titles are actually necessary. The argument is that the Hawaiian royal names are unique to Hawaii and Hawaii only and therefore the appendage of country shouldn't be needed, much like other non-Western and non-European monarchs are titled on Wikipedia. (See the Japanese emperors: Hirohito, Akihito, etc.).

Also, the titles used for the Hawaiian monarchs seem confusing as they do not reflect the most common names they were known as, especially for the monarchs of the House of Kalakaua. Julia Kapiolani of Hawaii should be listed as just Kapiolani as she is popularly known. Believe it or not, many Hawaii residents don't know that Kapiolani's first name was Julia. David Kalakaua of Hawaii should be simplified to Kalakaua, the official name he adopted upon becoming king. At first I had difficulty finding these articles because of the complicated, confusing titles being used. And as for the "of Hawaii" appendage, they are totally unnecessary I think because again, the names are unique to Hawaii and Hawaii only.

I think it should be defined as policy that Hawaiian names be referred to by their one name titles assumed upon becoming king and queen, respectively....

  • Kamehameha
  • Kamehameha II
  • Kamehameha III
  • Kamehameha IV
  • Kamehameha V
  • Lunalilo
  • Kalakaua
  • Liliuokalani

As opposed to the titles given now...

--James Easton 21:12, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sound okay to me. Note that I reverted some previous moves by an anon editor because they were done improperly using copy-and-paste rather than "move article", not to take any particular position on what the best name for the article is. Some earlier disussion on this topic at Talk:David Kalakaua of Hawaii. -- Infrogmation 21:40, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)


"of Hawaii" is needed, no matter how unique we think the title. At the moment Edward I redirects to Edward I of England. The use of William C. Lunalilo of Hawaii seems insulting if not POV, David Kalakaua ( which is the name I have most often come across) should redirect to Kalakaua of Hawaii for much the same reason. The point about Kamehameha vs Kamehameha I is covered under ordinals royal numbering. --garryq 10:23, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't see garryq's objection to this. Japanese and Chinese monarchs are not following the European conventions. Why should Hawaiian monarchs do so? Having "of Hawaii" in the title is redundant. --Jiang 10:08, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

From recollection aren't the Chinese and Japanese exceptions made because putting "of China" would be an inaccurate description, rather than any uniqueness of title? Timrollpickering 11:39, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Apparently we're still doing it for some dynasties - e.g. Emperor Taizong of Tang China when the convention in Chinese would translate to "Emperor Taizong of Tang" - there was no set term for "China" until modern times. China was thought to be "all under heaven" so the English convention we're using would not make sense in Chinese (historically speaking). I already proposed to drop the title "China" as has already been done for the Ming and Qing dynasties. I don't think specifying "of Japan" would be inaccurate in Japan's case. In both instances the country name is reundant and rarely used.--Jiang 13:06, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Seems to me it's a mistake for any convention not to be worldwide.Indulging parochialisms is less important than uniform equal treatment.--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 04:11, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Other Non-royal names"

Sub item 4 " Honorary Titles" was talking about Bob Geldof (an honorary title). This was amended to Arthur Conan Doyle (a substantive title). To end the confusion I have changed the "Honorary Titles" to "Titles of Knighthood" and included the treatment of both honorary and substantive titles

Monarch titles

My suggestion is to give the regal title at the time of death, eg Queen Victoria would be Victoria, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Queen, Defender of the Faith, then say which Royal House they were born into. Then say the date and place of birth. Then say father's name (and his father). Then say mother's name (and her father). Then say date of ascention and coronation. Then saw length of reign.

This is a much more managable and less biased way of a monarch's page.

Life Peers policy

The life peers policy was flawed (as discussed above). Since no-one objected to the proposal, I have made the necessary changes. -- Emsworth 13:46, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Looks reasonable, - but I only agree if the exceptions are kept as loosely defined as above. On the bright side it does seem the new policy allows us to have John Thurso at John Thurso. 80.229.39.194 13:50, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Strongly disagree with the move of Bill Deedes. He is simply not known as Baron Deedes in the UK. 80.229.39.194 14:15, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree - he looks like someone primarily not known by his peerage title, and should probably be where he should be. It's people like Lord Falconer of Thoroton who should be with their peerage titles, eh? john k 14:22, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Is Lord Deedes exclusively known as Bill Deedes, given that he has been a Baron for almost twenty years? -- Emsworth 14:41, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Yep. You can't just look at a calendar and guess. The moving of Denis Healey is also wrong. 80.229.39.194 14:52, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
And Cecil Parkinson. Please can you stop this. Thanks, 80.229.39.194 14:55, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Feel free to move it back if you believe the move was wrong. I have definitely decided to exclude: Lord Coe, Lord Ashdown, Lady Boothroyd, former PMs, and perhaps others as I come across them. Perhaps something easier to do would be to list below individuals whom you think should not be moved. For now, I will stop making the controverted moves; we can then discuss the individuals listed below as appropriate. -- Emsworth 14:59, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I will look into that. I suspect it would be a big list. I would suggest including all former Foreign Secretaries, Chancellors, and probably actually all former Cabinet members, along with former PMs from the list of ones to move now. I will not be especially bothered by movings of non-cabinet people. 80.229.39.194 15:03, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Obviously, one excludes those who were in the cabinet in the Lords (Lord Williams of Mostyn, Lady Amos, etc.) But the rule decided upon in the hereditary peers poll was that just personal names are to be used in the title when they are used exclusively in speech; the same standard has been applied to life peers. Google gives 2,420 hits for "Lord Howe of Aberavon," plus (most likely) a few from the 88,000 for "Lord Howe." So, how can one say that Lord Howe of Aberavon is exclusively referred to as Geoffrey Howe. -- Emsworth 15:09, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

He is generally known as Geoffrey Howe, I think. Google is going to be biased towards recent press accounts, which will use Lord Howe of Aberavon. At any rate, the idea behind the change was to allow the use of life peer titles in article titles for people who are mostly known by their life peerage title. The default should still be not to use the life peerage title, I think. If the person did famous stuff before they became a peer, they should be at just their name. john k 15:55, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

How about "Nobody whose life peerage is a retirement gift should be placed at their peerage title." That would exclude most of the people 80.229 wants to exclude, I think. john k 16:03, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That's quite a good rule - as a default. I'd quite happy to see someone like Valerie Amos at Baroness Amos even, and the same for Baroness O'Cathain - I had to look up Detta and couldn't find it in any media. Other Lords we wouldn't want to move include Andrew Lloyd-Webber and John Birt. 80.229.39.194 16:07, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Ooh, and another point is we should have a stronger presumption in favour of having the peerage name in the article title, if the peerage title is not the same as their surname. So if all else was equal, we might have John Smith (Baron Smith), but David Jones, Baron Walker 80.229.39.194 16:08, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The problem is that lots of people know individuals as "Lord such-and-such" even when the surname matches the title. The following articles have been moved:

- Talk

wny not redirects to Lord Hailsham (his commonest form) ? At least one is needed anyway between viscountcy and life peerage --garryq 23:13, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think it's been widely thought that no articles should be at the form Lord Such and such. Obviously, someone like Lord Hailsham ought to have a variety of redirects. john k 23:58, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've marked the ones I have an opinion on, agree/disagree. 80.229.39.194 16:19, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Just adding that I have a book by Colin Renfrew, and he should probably be at his name, although I'm not really sure on it. john k 16:27, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

(80.229.39.194 is me by the way as you can verify from the very similar sort of stuff in the contributs list ;) Morwen - Talk 16:52, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've added Gareth Wyn Williams, Baron Williams of Mostyn. john k 23:58, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What the hell is going on!? We had a consistent policy that was working, and now we have a mess arguing over whether someone should be listed at their peerage or not. Why was this policy changed. It makes no sense to me Mintguy (T)

Well, you ought have objected on one of the several previous occasions when the suggestion was brought up. Essentially, the idea was that by never using life peerage titles, we were making articles on some people almost impossible to find, since they're never referred to by their usual names. There were no particular objections to a conservative application of this principle (although I'll agree that Emsworth, at least initially, was too enthusiastic in moving pages), so Emsworth and I decided to put it into practice. At any rate, I don't think anything that insane has happened. In fact, I haven't noted any arguments, particularly - discussion, certainly, and some objections to moves that Emsworth made, but nothing especially serious. john k 19:01, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I also think we may be going too far now, and have marked my disagreements above. Deb 10:14, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
This page wasn't on my watch list. so I couldn't object. There is going to be a whole host of arguments about this, with pages being moved to and fro. There are certain individuals who may not have had widespread national attention before their peerage but were prominent locally. A case in point is Giles Radice was was an MP for something like 30 years. Also people think of individuals differently depending on what generation they are from. Brian Rix for example will be familiar to people today as Lord Rix, and Mencap. But to anyone over 40 he is more familiar as the man behind the Whitehall Theatre farces. Mintguy (T) 11:12, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Just noting that I don't think there've been any serious problems yet. We do need to figure out what to do with people who served in cabinets as both peers and commoners, so I think we ought to work on that. More broadly, we need to figure out how to deal with people who are known both by their names and as peers. For all individual cases where you think a move has been inappropriate, just note your reasons and move it back. john k 11:35, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Can we have a complete list of all those who have been moved? 12:09, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I had thought the list above was substantially complete, although I'm not sure. Lord Williams of Mostyn is the only one I've moved. john k 12:35, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've also moved Robin Butler to Robin Butler, Baron Butler of Brockwell. john k 12:38, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Royalty intro styles

The intro styles in our royalty biographies differ much, and it goes far deeper than inclusion or exlusion of "His Majesty" and the likes. I think this is due to a combination of both lack of policy (although there is some policy on this project page), ignorance of policy, and defiance of policy. A problem with discussing these matters is that it takes some time to find actual examples, let alone get an overview of what styles are common. For this purpose and to try to keep track of the changes made, I have now compiled a semi-complete table of the articles in question with the intros listed at User:Jao/Current royalty intros. I don't know how much help this is, but it might get the discussions going – again. If that's what we want, really. -- Jao 09:55, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

For a start, I think it looks messy to have the full name in bold, especially with the Spanish ones, and I'm not too keen on the "comma, then italic" way it's added on to the proper style. I'd also like the format for current and deceased royalty to be the same, for consistency's sake - "The Prince of Wales" and "The Duke of Gloucester" may be their formal styles, and should be included, but aren't particularly helpful ways to start an article. Perhaps something like:
  • His Majesty King Albert II (Albert Félix Humbert Théodore Christian Eugène Marie Wettin), styled HM The King (born 6 June 1934) is...
  • His Royal Highness Prince Philippe, Duke of Brabant (Philippe Léopold Louis Marie Wettin), styled HRH The Duke of Brabant (born 15 April 1960) is...


  • Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor), styled HM The Queen (born 21 April 1926) is...
  • His Royal Highness The Prince Charles, Prince of Wales, (Charles Philip Arthur George Mountbatten-Windsor, formerly Windsor), styled HRH The Prince Charles, Duke of Rothesay in Scotland and HRH The Prince of Wales elsewhere (born 14 November 1948) is...
  • Her Royal Highness Princess Michael of Kent (Marie-Christine Windsor, born Baroness Marie-Christine von Reibniz) (born 15 June 1945) is...
  • His Royal Highness Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester (Richard Alexander Walter George Windsor), styled HRH The Duke of Gloucester (born 26 August 1944) is ...
  • His Royal Highness The Prince Andrew, Duke of York (Andrew Albert Christian Edward Mountbatten-Windsor, formerly Windsor), styled HRH The Duke of York (born 19 February 1960) is...
  • Her Royal Highness Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Lady Ogilvy (Alexandra Helen Elizabeth Olga Christabel Ogilvy, formerly Windsor) (born 25 December 1936) is...
  • Her Royal Highness Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester (Alice Christabel Windsor, born The Lady Alice Christabel Montagu-Douglas-Scott) (born 25 December 1901) is...
  • Her Royal Highness Princess Louise of Wessex, known as The Lady Louise Windsor (Louise Alice Elizabeth Mary Mountbatten-Windsor) (born 8 November 2003) is...


  • His Royal Highness The Infante Philippe, Prince of Asturias (Felipe Juan Pablo Alfonso y de la Santísima Trinidad y de Todos los Santos de Borbón y Grecia), styled HRH The Prince of Asturias (born 30 January 1968) is...
  • Her Royal Highness The Infanta Elena, Duchess of Lugo (Elena María Isabel Dominica de los Silos de Borbón y Grecia), styled HRH The Infanta Elena (born 20 December 1963) is...
Proteus (Talk) 11:30, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for joining in already! I agree that the full name bold looks messy. Your suggestion is acceptable but has the minor aesthetic flaw of two parentheses after each other (maybe I'm just picky?), so I think I would prefer keeping the commas and italics, just dropping the bold. I don't think having different standards for living and deceased royalty is necessarily a bad idea, though. With living people, it is a very encyclopedic question how they should be correctly addressed. Seldom if ever (unless they're writing a history novel) will people come to Wikipedia wondering whether or not Richard III should be "His Majesty". At least I think they don't. The other way around would be to constantly begin the intro with the name as it is in the title, e.g.: "Charles, Prince of Wales ..." (with no HRH in the beginning and then "styled HRH The Prince of ..." just as you suggest), but personally I don't like this. Your suggested intro would unfortunately force "Her Royal Highness The Princess Edward, Countess of Wessex ..." (wouldn't it?), and that will do nothing but confuse people, I'm afraid. As for "The Prince of Wales" not being particularly helpful, people will already have seen the word "Charles" in the article title, so I think they get whom it is about. My own proposal (subject to change if more good arguments arise, which I hope they will) would be:
His Royal Highness The Prince of Wales (in Scotland His Royal Highness The Duke of Rothesay), Charles Philip Arthur George Mountbatten-Windsor (born November 14, 1948) is ... -- Jao 12:00, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I agree that honorific styles are pretty much irrelevant for the mediaeval period, but other issues of style do arise, such as the difference between Elizabeth I of England ("styled The Queen of England") and Mary I of Scotland ("styled The Queen of Scots"), with such modern comparisons as The King of the Belgians. There are also issues like "styled The King of England, France and Ireland", where the style differs from the actual territory ruled. I have to say I have no problem with adjacent closing and opening brackets, but that's a matter of personal taste. As to The Princess Edward, Countess of Wessex, I admit it does look a bit unfamiliar, but it is her legal name, and I can't see anyone being confused when it gives "(Sophie Helen Mountbatten-Windsor, formerly Rhys-Jones)" immediately after it, and the title of the article is Sophie, Countess of Wessex. People are familiar with "Princess Hisname" titles because of people like Princess Michael of Kent and Princess Arthur of Connaught, so it should be obvious what's going on. Above all, it informs people of her actual name, and informing people is what we're here to do. The real problem I have with "His Royal Highness The Prince of Wales" is that it would be inconsistent - not only with the articles on dead royalty like Frederick, Prince of Wales (which can hardly start "His Royal Highness The Prince of Wales") but also on articles on peers - we have "Gerald Cavendish Grosvenor, 6th Duke of Westminster", not "His Grace The Duke of Westminster (Gerald Cavendish Grosvenor)" - and it strikes me as odd to use such a different style for royalty as for nobility. As long as we give their styles, I feel their full legal names should be given prominence. Also, my method would get "Prince Andrew", "Prince Charles", "Prince Edward", etc., into the bold bit at the beginning, which can only be helpful for someone with a limited knowledge of British royalty. Proteus (Talk) 13:15, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I must admit I hadn't thought about the issue of royalty vs. (non-royal) peers. You do have a very good point there. -- Jao 13:32, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)
By the way, what's the point in not translating the Spanish words for prince and princess? When I talk about Victoria of Sweden (on Wikipedia) I say "Crown Princess Victoria", not "Kronprinsessan Victoria". When I talk about the Swedish Naval Inspector (on Wikipedia) I say "Rear Admiral Jörgen Ericsson", not "Konteramiral Jörgen Ericsson". Why treat Spanish titles differently? Or are the meaning of infante/infanta really substantially different from other princes and princesses? -- Jao 09:07, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)
It's just tradition, I suppose, because most English speakers are familiar with the titles Infante and Infanta, while they probably wouldn't be familiar with the terms for Prince and Princess in other languages. It's similar to how all non-British noble titles are translated into English (like "The Count of Monte Cristo") except French ones, which generally remain in French (like "The Marquis de Sade"). Proteus (Talk) 19:51, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

A few points:

  • I don't think that we should include surnames of British royal peers, or of Sovereigns. I always believed that, in law, neither have any surnames. Furthermore, these surnames are never used. AFAIK, Her (Britannic) Majesty belongs to the "House and Family of Windsor," but does not have the surname Windsor.
  • As to "HRH The Prince Charles, Duke of Rothesay" and "HRH The Prince of Wales"—I've always felt that these styles are inconsistent. "The Prince Charles, Duke of Rothesay" correlates with "The Prince Charles, Prince of Wales," and "The Duke of Rothesay" with "The Prince of Wales." So, if HRH The Prince of Wales is styled as "HRH The Prince of Wales" outside Scotland, should he not be "HRH The Duke of Rothesay"? The latter would be in line with other Royal Dukes, as well.

In the vein of my last bulleted remark above, I would like to propose moving all Princes of Wales and Princesses Royal since 1714 from "Charles, Prince of Wales" to "Prince Charles, Prince of Wales" or "Anne, Princess of Wales" to "Princess Anne, Princess of Wales." "Prince of Wales" should be treated like other peerage dignities; we use "Prince Andrew, Duke of York," not "Andrew, Duke of York." In any event, the full style would be something like, "HRH The Prince Charles, Prince of Wales." -- Emsworth 22:38, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC) -- Emsworth 22:33, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What has happened to the royal pages??? The layout that was clear is now a mess.

  • The reason the personal name was bold italicised was to avoid double bracking (this)(followed by this) which looks very ugly and is normally avoided in layouts. Italicising personal names avoided brackets and left brackets to be used simply for birth and death dates.
  • Secondly in some systems and particularly in history personal name gets as much attention as regal title, eg, Charles Stuart, James Stuart, Henry Windsor, etc.
  • Thirdly, a small minority of wikipedia made an issue of taking offence at the use of regal titles, suggesting that they were imperialistic, etc etc, they on occasion raiding royal pages to "de-imperialise" them by making Edward VII Edward Windsor, Constantine II Constantine Gluckberg or Umberto II Umberto Savoy.

So the regal title (in its simplified form) was used in bold, with the personal name following a comma in bold italics, then dates in brackets.

The new system, including styles at the start, long titles and personal names in long brackets produces clumsy and often badly worded openings that run too long and push the date into the text. It lacks the visual clarity that the plain regal title, personal name (dates) provided and is a step away from professional page layout. The detail, such as the long title and style, etc should be stated elsewhere, not cluttering up the first line. One of the golden rules of text is an opening that is short, simple and clear, communicating the essentials. Using, Elizabeth I of England, Elizabeth Tudor, (1234-5678) achieves that. A longwinded sentence starting with a style that pushes her dates down into the second line of a text is reader-unfriendly and makes it less likely that new people will want to read on. And starting with a style like Her Majesty makes no sense when we do not start the equivalent article on a president of a republic with a style, eg, Her Excellency Mary McAleese, President of Ireland. The styles on heads of state should be consistent. They were but are not anymore.

Re the other changes - it is simply wrong to say that The Princes Charles, Duke of Rothesay is the equivalent of The Prince Charles, Prince of Wales. According to his office, the former is the correct form in Scotland. The latter is the wrong form anywhere. The changes to the article on Charles have moved away from accuracy to serious inaccuracy in terms of title by mis-understanding that Charles has two different forms of title based on the regal naming traditions of heirs to the throne in the former English and Scottish kingdoms, with HRH The Prince Charles, Duke of Rothesay a scottish, not english, feature and HRH The Prince of Wales an english, not scottish feature. FearÉIREANN 18:14, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Papal ordinals

When it comes to popes, whether Roman Catholic, Coptic or elsewhere, the format to be used is "Pope {papal name} {ordinal if more than one} of {episcopal see}". Popes of Rome shall not be linked with their episcopal sees: Rome is understood. Besides popes should not be entered as personal name. So Pope John Paul I, neither Albino Luciani nor Pope John Paul I of Rome....

But it says "ordinal if more than one", and "I" isn't more than one. What should it say? (- unsigned)

Until there was a Pope John Paul II, Wikipedia would call Pope John Paul I "Pope John Paul". We refer to him as Pope John Paul I now that there has been a second pope with his name. (Note that, for better or worse, Wikipedia has adopted the British system, in which there is a "Queen Victoria" but no "Queen Victoria I" until there's a "Queen Victoria II". Most non-British systems of ordinal numbers simply give a "I" to the first monarch of any name (i.e., it's properly King Juan Carlos I of Spain, even though Wikipedia insists on calling him Juan Carlos of Spain, because it insists on mapping non-British monarchies onto the British model). - Nunh-huh 03:04, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Then I hereby propose that the policy be revised to reflect local practice. I agree that we should not use British ideas for non-British monarchs. If John Paul I's papal proclamation is any guide, all Popes would use ordinals. (Listen to [url removed]—one would hear "Johannes Paulus Primus.") -- Emsworth 22:43, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I disagree. This was looked at before and applying local rules proved unworkable. Put in Juan Carlos I and someone who sees it thinks then Victoria is wrong and changes it to Victoria I. Someone then corrects Victoria and removes Juan Carlos's ordinal, only for it to be put back, then put back in Victoria, only to be removed again . . . Been there. Done that, and got thoroughly pissed off trying to mediate between the ordinal and no ordinal brigades the last time. :-)

This sort of war went on on wikipedia at the start of the debate. It simply proved unworkable, especially as some people from Spain insisted that the I ordinal was wrong, others that it was right (not to mention the Greeks who squabbled over whether the last king was Constantine II, Constantine XII or Constantine Gluckberg!)The only workable rule to follow, and which stopped all the squabbles, was to apply the simple rule - what do english language users do, given that this is an english language encyclopaedia? (And follow french linguistic rules on ordinal usage on French wikipedia, etc etc) The answer is simple. In practice english language users tend to follow anglo-centric ordinal numbering, and that is why it was decided not to use the I ordinal unless there was a monarch who had been II. Once you don't step too far away from a recognisable cultural form (by for example applying chinese imperial naming to non-Chinese royalty) one unified rule on ordinals is workable. Everyone do their own local version isn't, because it simply produces endless edit wars. As to Pope John Paul I - his decision to announce his new name to the cardinals as Johannes Paulus Primum led to his ridicule by critics privately who said in effect "typical of that man that he doesn't even know you don't call yourself the first." (source: a senior church figure I interviewed once.) Going back to the ordinal madness of everyone do their own thing (or what they think is their own thing and which they presume is the correct version that should be applied in all articles) would simply be a step back to a nightmare we went through before and had escaped. Please don't go back there. FearÉIREANN 17:35, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Exceptions for Wilhelm II of Germany etc. Suggest we follow the usage in the London Times

The general rule may be the following: "use the most common form of the name used in English if none of the rules below cover a specific problem."

However, there are obvious exceptions that would not sound right. Wilhelm II of Germany should not be disfigured to William II of Germany. There are many other similar problems of disfigurement. Many people would say that Pedro II of Brazil should not be disfigured to Peter II of Brazil even though that disfigurement is mandated by the general rule.

I propose the following rule for handling many exceptions for people living after 1785. Wikipedia should follow the usage of the London Times. Your local university library can get access to the digital London Times after 1785. Accordingly, en.Wikipedia.org should use the monarch's name that is commonly used in the popular English press as manifested by the usage in the London Times.

Specifically, since the London Times uses Pedro rather than Peter in referring to Pedro II of Brazil, Peter II of Brazil should be moved to Pedro II of Brazil. Similarly, Peter I of Brazil should be moved to Pedro I of Brazil. ---Rednblu 17:02, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • I can vouch from 19th century USA sources that he was known as "Pedro" rather than "Peter" in USA English in addition to the UK. I don't know of any time/place where his name was commonly anglisized to "Peter". Keep the article back at the original "Pedro". -- Infrogmation 23:52, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Discussion copied from User talk: Jao

Thanks for assisting so quickly our quandary over the proper name for the page on "Pedro II of Brazil." I moved the page name back to "Peter II of Brazil."

But I have a question. Should I move Wilhelm II of Germany to William II of Germany? ---Rednblu 08:46, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That would seem consistent, but probably not appreciated. This is from Talk:Juan Carlos of Spain: "Wiki doesn't translate things into english, it uses the form used in english. English speakers call him Juan Carlos not John Charles so that is why he is called Juan Carlos here. Ditto with Wilhelm II of Germany, who though often called William was regularly called Wilhelm in english also, so there is no need to translate his name. But nobody in English called Tsar Nicholas II Nikolai so he is in as Nicholas, as is his brother Michael II, not MIkhail, just as Juan Carlos' father-in-law is in as King Paul of Greece, not Pavlos." And this is from Talk:Haile Selassie of Ethiopia: "Modern monarchs are all in the form of [[{Name} {ordinal if more than one} of {name of state}]], with the name used in english unless a native name is used also in english or there is no english equivalent. (eg, Tsar Nicholas II of Russia not Tsar Nikolai II, Kaiser Wilhelm II not Kaiser William II)." So there are exceptions to the rule, and Wilhelm seems to be one. And so perhaps I was a bit rough, and Pedro/Peter should be an exception, too? I just haven't seen any arguments for Pedro being the more common name for him in English. Where does the Britannia put him, for example? That could serve as a guideline. -- Jao 09:15, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

---

"Consistent, but probably not appreciated." Yep. That sounds right to me. :)) Britannica puts both Peter I and II of Brazil under "Pedro." But they also put a lot of early Pedros of Portugal under Peter. So they have a very relaxed set of rules. My cursory sampling of monarchs' names in the Britannica would be consistent with giving monarchs Anglicized names if they have been dead for over two hundred years. So maybe you have accurately stated the rule: "Consistent, but probably not appreciated" with the understanding that the cost-benefit balance between "consistent" and "not appreciated" shifts somewhere around 150 to 200 years. :)) ---Rednblu 14:08, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

After consulting the digital archives of the London Times for the 1800s and finding many, many references to Dom Pedro of Brazil and none for "Peter of Brazil," I propose the following. First, "Peter II of Brazil" should be moved to "Pedro II of Brazil;" similarly for his father "Peter I of Brazil" should be moved to "Pedro I of Brazil." Second, that Wikipedia should adopt the Anglicized monarch name if the London Times did at the time; similarly Wikipedia should adopt the native monarch name if the London Times did at the time. ---Rednblu 16:45, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The London Times solution might be a bit flawed, as the tendency is towards non-anglicized/non-normalized names for living people. At least it has been so for some time, I don't know really about the 19th century. But I think it might be quite right to have the Pedros of Brazil at Pedro. My comments on the talk page were more a reaction to the French analogy (which was seriously flawed) than anything else, really, and if evidence is Pedro is the more common usage in English, then Pedro it should be. Perhaps this discussion should be copied to Talk:Pedro II of Brazil and Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles) alike, so it will be more visible for those interested. -- Jao 17:37, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

---

I am copying this dialog right now. I also posted a comment to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles. ---Rednblu 17:54, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Capitalisation

While the examples given in the recent edit under "All Titles" are unobjectionable, it should be made clear that the general principle articulated in the Chicago Manual of Style reflects American usage only: British usage is to use capitals even when it is not attached to the name of a person, when that person is referred to: e.g. "The Prime Minister today visited the Queen at Balmoral" Andrew Yong 11:32, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • The Chicago Manual of Style uses silly phrases like "queen of England." It should be completely and utterly ignored, at least when it comes to the UK or to royalty in general. -- Emsworth 14:25, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • The current edition of the Chicago Manual of Style uses no such phrase. - Nunh-huh 01:32, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Naming conventions

I preface my comments by stating that I have a strong interest in genealogy, and that is how I came to find Wikipedia - by searching for names of interest. Having skimmed through a lot of the previous discussion on naming conventions, particularly for Royalty, I find that most of the talk has ignored the fact that all individuals have a 'birth' or 'baptismal' name that sticks with them throughout their lives. Some individuals acquire various titles at birth and others at stages through their lives, some are more commonly known by short forms and nicknames, some have no surnames or family names, but all are named in some way at birth, almost universally by their parents. Some people become better known by the title, the name of their office, their reputation, or some other appellation, but their birth name cannot be ignored.

Therefore individuals should be primarily indexed under their, usually, unique birth name. This is the only truly consistent method to adopt. It is also the only way that searches of a huge volume of data, such as Wikipedia, can find all the references to that individual. No matter what stage of their life they may hold whatever office or title, they still retain their birth names, as has been indirectly indicated in previous discussion. It is not possible to compile a comprehensive record in any other way - there will be too many ambiguities.

Thus, using the example given previously, the place where the biographical details of the person known to most British citizens as the Queen Mother should reside would be under a heading "Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon". Of course there would be numerous cross-referencing from her other appellations, but the primary article should be under her birth name.

I am also involved in compiling and using many other database applications, and the above is consistent with sound practice elsewhere.

Another comment should be made in reference to the 'anglising' of foreign names - in my opinion this should not be done. Carl Josef was not named Charles Joseph, neither was Carlos named Charles. It is presumtuous and incorrect. Have all the Mexican-Americans named Pedro been renamed Peter by the US Government? No, they are recorded as Pedro. Why would Wikipedia presume to change people's names?

Well, I certainly agree with you. Deb 14:15, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

So Lord Salisbury should be found at Robert Arthur Talbot Gascoyne-Cecil? Also, what about people who change their names, and are much better known by their second name? Bob Hope, for instance? Or, you know, Bill Clinton and Gerald Ford? john k 15:40, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Maybe it's not my place to defend the above, but I took the comments (specifically the word "primarily") to mean that there would be exceptions, but that in the majority of cases the birth name would be used. Note that he doesn't say the full birth name, and in fact gives the example of Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, which was not her full name but was the name she used before she acquired any other names or titles. I particularly agree with him on the question of foreign names, though I've always gone along with the standards that had already been established before I arrived here (which is rather a long time ago now). Deb 17:26, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, does the suggestion then mean that Lord Salisbury should be at Robert Gascoyne-Cecil? At any rate, in terms of foreign names, I'm very uncertain. Especially as you go back further, finding a "birth name" becomes rather difficult, as in the Middle Ages and early modern times, when these kinds of things were much less standardized. For the most part, it is in those situations that we use Anglicizations (or, sometimes, Latinizations). Should Erasmus be at Geert Geertsen? In what cases do we inappropriately anglicize? Personally, cases where English usage is normally to use the native language name (Pedro I of Brazil, or whatever), that have been in the wrong location, I just feel free to move to the proper location. But the idea that this is clearcut is pretty pernicious. john k 00:32, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I disagree that titles should be ignored, for many individuals are universally known by them. Robert_Stewart, Viscount_Castlereagh is always "Castlereagh," not "Stewart." HRH The Prince of Wales is so known; one would not reasonably use "Windsor." -- Emsworth 12:33, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

But this is an argument for using the name by which people are most commonly known, rather than an argument for always appending a person's title. - 17:10, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It is an argument for not always using "birth name", which is what the original poster suggested. I don't think we're going back to arguing about whether or not all peers should be listed by their title - that seems to have been decided pretty strongly in the negative. john k 18:32, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Always using birth names would just make us look silly. To pick an extreme example, we'd have to move Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington to Arthur Wesley, and that's so obscure it's not even a redirect. Proteus (Talk) 18:44, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Request for comment: Princess Olga of Greece and Denmark

On Talk:Princess Olga of Greece and Denmark an objection is being raised to referring to Princess Olga of Greece and Denmark as such, on the basis of "neutrality". This seems quite silly to me (I believe the name is correct under current naming conventions), but other opinions and further input would be welcome there. - Nunh-huh 20:36, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Pope format inconsistency

I find the format of Pope (Name) very much inconsistent with other titles on Wikipedia. Using a different standard for Popes than for example Kings seems like bad form. I propose that all Popes with a name not shared by anyone else be moved to an article with strictly that name, and in cases where the name is shared for the title to read as (for example) John II, Pope, just as Kings named John II are listed at John III of Portugal. I really can't see a reason to use a different syntax for Popes than for Kings. Sarge Baldy 01:26, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

I can see a couple of reasons for the current practice. One, it's a whole lot easier to link to Pope John Paul II than to use the alt-text to turn "John Paul II, Pope" (which would never be used in that form) into "Pope John Paul II". And 99% of the time, when a pope is named in an article, it's going to be with the honorific, at least the first time. Also, we have scores of pages like Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger and Cardinal Cajetan that are going to have to be changed for consistency's sake. If some Popes have the honorific and some don't, it is going to make writing Church History articles a real bear, as you will have to see what convention is followed by which pope -- with the Kings, you at least know "Reginaldus XXXVI of Boznia" and "Reginaldus XXXVII of Boznia" follow the same pattern, where the current changes might well leave us with "Stephen I" being a disambiguation page, "Zephirinus" being directly correct (along with "John Paul I"). I think it is important to be consistent, whatever we decide, and the current practice is at least consistent within itself and matches usage for other "Clerical titles".
Responding to myself, I think the reason Kings are different is that you can easily do King George III of England without much thought or difficulty, and it looks fine in the article as well (unless you have scores of Kings running around), but since there's no "of xxx" on a Pope to automatically disambiguate, Popes would be plagued by convoluted link syntax. Mpolo 07:41, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
I wouldn't deny it's more of a pain on the editor, but it's what's done already for other titles and I don't see why it need be different for Popes. I also realize it's a lot of work, modifying redirects so they're pointed in the correct location, though I for one don't mind monotonous service tasks in order to straighthen things out. In short I certainly agree it's a big task, and a little more taxing on future editors (though I don't really see any more mislinks for Kings than I do for Popes as it now stands). Admittedly the name change is a little confusing but people eventually get used to it as long as the standard remains mostly consistent. And I don't particularly find difficult work past or future a reason not to initiate a change that would more properly fit the more common Wikipedia standard outline by the Manual of Style, particularly since I'm offering to make the changes necessary personally and then double back and fix the redirects (both old and new) to fit the new standard. Sarge Baldy 07:50, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
My 2c is that "Pope" on the front is easy to remember - few are sufficiently well-versed in royalty to know if there is more than one "Paul VI" in the world, and the usual rule in running text will be to include the "Pope" anyway. So what you're advocating is to make more work and difficulty for editors, to satisfy a notion that all titles should look more alike. If you really wanted to be consistent, you'd say "Paul VI of the Roman Catholic Church" anyway (or "Paul VI of the One True Church" if you want to stir up some trouble :-) ). It really seems like you're trying to solve a non-problem - can you find anybody besides yourself that is unhappy with the current convention? Stan 15:43, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I just don't see that it matters it's easier, King Henry VIII is easier to remember than Henry VIII of England, but the latter works better. Using the title at the start is very un-encyclopaedic because in the theoretical existence of an index they'd be sorted by title rather than name. Having just done a little research, I've found that other encyclopaedias, including both Encyclopaedia Brittanica and Encarta, avoid the title and as a result Wikipedia's format for these comes across quite unprofessional as well as inconsistent. I don't know that there's others that feel the same way, I kind of expected that if there is I'd find them here. Sarge Baldy 16:23, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

First point - Britannica and Encarta don't have the problem of articles having the same name - they can have numerous articles with the same title. For instance, articles on both Sisi and the Queen Mother are titled Elizabeth in Britannica. Second point - Henry VIII of England provides information that King Henry VIII does not. Specifically, what country he was from. Calling him Henry VIII of England is perfectly natural, and doesn't cause many problems. On the other hand John Paul II, Pope not only looks ridiculous, but provides no information not provided by Pope John Paul II. I don't see what's wrong with the current convention. There is, at any rate, no index, so that doesn't work. And, at any rate, all articles of people with last names would have to be recalibrated with an index, as well. Are you also advocating articles at Kerry, John and Bush, George W.? john k 16:59, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I hardly think the point of the alternate naming convention is to whow additional information, the point is to avoid including a title since it isn't part of the name. President George W. Bush would include more information, but it isn't used because it isn't part of his name, just as Sir Lancelot is at Lancelot, Jesus Christ at Jesus, doctors, Mrs., Ms., Miss, Mr. at their respective articles. Outside of Popes and Saints, these titles are very rarely or never used, and in no other encyclopedia are titles ever found. You point out that Encyclopaedia Brittanica lists multiple articles in one; on Wikipedia the natural solution to having more than one article with the same name is a disambiguation page (as you can see in Wikipedia's own Elizabeth) and is similarly the format used by Encarta. My point about the index I agree is sufficiently countered. Sarge Baldy 19:22, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

Did I miss something? This suggestion seems to be under discussion (and I don't see any consensus to change the current policy), and yet dozens of Pope articles have been moved to [[Name]] from [[Pope Name]]. Proteus (Talk) 19:36, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ah, it seems I did miss something - the moves were made before the start of this discussion, which only seems to be taking place because some people noticed and pointed out that the moves contravened policy. Oh well. Proteus (Talk) 20:00, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
That was an err on my part, I rather hastily began moving based on the criteria listed on the Manual of Style (which I felt at the time made the situation fairly cut-and-dry) without having actually discussed the situation beforehand (and having stopped at the first interjection to the move). Sarge Baldy 20:06, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
That section of the MOS seems to be very out of date (Saint Stephen is now at Saint Stephen, for a start, and Jesus Christ is at Jesus due to POV complaints), and simplifies a rather complicated situation to such an extent as to be effectively worthless. I'll bring this up on it's talk page when I have a bit of time. Proteus (Talk) 20:12, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The form "Pope John XII" is consistent with the most fundamental of all Wikipedia naming conventions: use the name by which the person is best known. - Nunh-huh 06:03, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I agree with that convention, but titles are not part of someone's name and can therefore be separated. Sarge Baldy 13:53, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
Does it matter at all that, in the majority of cases, these are not even their real names? Adam Bishop 04:38, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Not to me, I accept psedonyms as if they were alternative legal names (keeping Samuel Clemens at Mark Twain, Natalie Hershlag at Natalie Portman, etc.) and feel they should be used if clearly the more dominant form. Sarge Baldy 06:26, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

Is "of England" part of Henry VIII's name? For disambiguation purposes, various popes (the early Johns, for instance, the Leos, and so on) need to have something in the article indicating they are pope. For consistency purposes, it makes sense to just do this for all popes. I don't see what the problem is. john k 04:56, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No, but "of England" is not an honorific either, which is what I'm more specifically against. Although under necessary circumstances I find them tolerable listed after the name, where its purpose can obviously shown to be descriptive of that person in a way to distinguish him or her from others. For instance, Leo I (emperor) feels more neutral to me than Emperor Leo I of the Byzantine Empire, the latter feeling too much like a demand for respect and too little like a neutral descriptive title. The title Pope listed before the name likewise demands a certain amount of respect which I find somewhat unsuitable in an encyclopedia. That it remains the only title still commonly listed before a name makes it also appear a format anomaly. In a way that makes it feel even more POV to me because it sets one honorific above all others. Sarge Baldy 06:26, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
Personal feelings about titles shouldn't be the basis for changing the names by which these people are most commonly known. There's nothing non-neutral about referring to popes as popes, and it's downright confusing not to. "Pope" is also not the only title that comes before names in Wikipedia (e.g. some princes and princesses), and "pope" is not an "honorific" - any more than "emperor" is. You'd have a complaint if someone wanted to title an article "His Holiness Pope John XXIII, Vicar of Jesus Christ on Earth, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Patriarch of the West, Primate of Italy, Metropolitan Archbishop of the Province of Rome, Sovereign of the State of Vatican City, Servant of the Servants of God", but "Pope John XXIII" is a simple recognition of historical reality, not an obsequious paean. If we're not using the most common name of a thing as its article title, it's a pretty good indication that we're NOT being neutral, and the converse is also true. - Nunh-huh 04:05, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
But we don't always use the most common names. For instance, Henry VIII is more typically called "King Henry VIII" than "Henry VIII of England" (14,700 results for the former vs. 70,900 for the latter). Would you argue then that that's POV? "Pope John XXIII" might be a representation of historical reality but by placing Pope prior to the name it's still promoting his status by suggesting that his title is inseperable from his name, whereas an article title such as "John XXIII, Pope", "John XXIII, Roman Pontiff", or "John XXIII of the Holy See" make it clear the title is indeed seperable and unnecessary as a correct form of address or reference and that the additional information is only listed to disambiguate the person from others with the same name. As for the issue of princes and princesses, from what I could see this is only the case among modern members of royalty, and should be changed to match the same standards of older monarchs. Sarge Baldy 05:34, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)
The names used for the various kings/queens are indeed not the most common name, at least partly because we couldn't figure out/agree what that was as there were so many competing versions (James I, King of England, King James I of England, King James VI of Scotland, James I/VI, King of England and Scotland, etc.). One could well make a case that the current system, which introduces article titles one would never use in referring to people, is less than ideal. But it's servicable. For popes the most common name is also a name that doesn't require disambiguation, and removing "Pope" because of a point of view that you don't like it will introduce ambiguity, and make it less likely that links will be created correctly. You are right that Princes/Princesses could be more consistent, but we have trouble putting them all into the same form, more because the contingent history that created the titles differs (rather than regnant/non-regnant, modern/older) - i.e., the idea of "prince" has different meanings when applied to different people (a monarch, a child of a monarch, the head of a formerly ruling house, a specific created title such as Prince of Wales, etc.). -- Nunh-huh 06:17, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Hmm, I don't really see that as the main reason behind the conventions myself. The point as it seems to me is to put the focus on the person and not on their status to make it clear the two are distinct, and to keep it neutral. This is an abnormality in terms of convention and that makes its POV even more suspicious. I also have my doubts moving Pope to the end would cause much more ambiguity, since many people clearly do not expect the title listed first. Look for instance at the current list of pages linked to Pope John Paul II. There are approximately 80 links to the redirect page, which is admittedly less than the amount to Pope John Paul II, but considering that many misdirects exist the Pope designation obviously isn't clear-cut to people just what the format is, and I don't really see that a different format would be any more of a mess than it already is. Sarge Baldy 21:21, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

"Royalty other than monarchs"

For "royalty other than monarchs" I assume this means people who are not kings or queens, and my question refers mainly to medieval entities - should all non-kings and non-emperors be under "Name, Prince of Place" (or count, duke, etc)? Right now the medieval ones are kind of a mish-mash: we have, for example, Theobald III of Champagne (who was a count), but Eudes I, Duke of Burgundy. Should it be "Theobald III, Count of Champagne," because otherwise this implies Champagne was a separate kingdom? What if some of these states are pretty much independent? The Crusader states for example - the kings of Jerusalem are fine according to this policy, because they are kings, but the princes of Antioch and counts of Edessa and Tripoli are all listed as, for example, Bohemund I of Antioch. Should all of these be moved to "Name, Prince of Antioch"? (If these are all misnamed, then there are dozens to be moved, and hundreds of links to change, but if it must be done...) Adam Bishop 20:54, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think it actually refers to people who are not autonomous. This would mean most (but, of course, not necessarily all) kings and queens, as well as Grand Dukes, Princes of Antioch, and others. Thus, there isn't really a problem. I think. No?
James F. (talk) 01:11, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This can be highly problematic, though. Who is Maximilian I of Bavaria? Or Frederick Augustus III of Saxony? I think sub-king monarchs should have their title included in the article. So Maximilian I of Bavaria is the king, and Maximilian I, Elector of Bavaria is the elector. john k 01:16, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ah, I see. How about "Maximilian I of Bavaria"/"Maximilian I, Elector of Bavaria" being the standard first-stab at disambiguation in, Emperor > King > Prince > Grand Duke > Elector > Duke (? - precedence at a guess), but that we, by the "normal" guideline, only deviate from the standard naming when needed to disambiguate?
James F. (talk) 01:43, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, well alright then, I guess I will do nothing at all and assume everything is fine the way it is :) Adam Bishop 02:21, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, the problem is that then for the same office you'll have articles with different titles. So Maximilian I, Elector of Bavaria is succeeded by Ferdinand Maria of Bavaria is succeeded by Maximilian II, Elector of Bavaria. john k 03:21, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Noble names

New subject because I don't want to get lost in the monarchs. Deb and I want to discuss translations of titles, including the numbers. I put up a number of articles of the form X, 3e vicomte de Y, which is the standard form (used in English by Britannica, for example) AFAIK. In my field (modern French history) in the U.S., we never translate the titles ("The duc de Broglie did blah...", not "The duke de Broglie" or "The duke of Broglie"), but we rarely refer to the numbers. It seems to me that the tendency is for mediævalists to translate all titles, but for modern historians to leave them in the native language. This is a bit problematic for Wikipedia, since we span both premodern and modern; for the mediæval nobles, which "native" language is hard to say, too, because we would be making a political statement with either duc de Lorraine or Herzog von Lothringen, and I'm not interested in refighting the Franco-Prussian War. OTOH, it would be truly bizarre to translate vicomte and marquis for modern nobles: imagine "Marquess of Lafayette"!

So... I have to things to suggest. First, we need to determine where to draw the line between modern and premodern nobles. I'm not exactly sure where, but it is probably possible at least for France because most of the old duchies, for example, did not survive into the early modern era, and the new ones should use the modern style from their creation.

Second, for the modern titles, there ought to be a policy on titles. There are four ways to do this (using French as an example):

  1. Translate everything (Louis, 4th duke of Noailles)
  2. Translate all but particle (Louis, 4th duke de Noailles)
  3. Translate only number (Louis, 4th duc de Noailles)
  4. Translate nothing (Louis, 4e duc de Noailles)

I know about consistency, hobgoblins, and foolish minds... but I think consistency is a good thing in an encylopedia. The middle two of these styles seem to me inconsistent in translating only part of the title and leaving part untranslated. The first just seems extremely old-fashioned in a British Empire sort of way (from the era when English writers would use things like John-James Rousseau). That is why I prefer the last -- leaving the whole title untranslated.

Tangent: I notice some articles delete accents from French names. I presume this is just due to unfamiliarity with the names; if we don't translate Jean-Jacques Rousseau to John-James Rousseau we should not translate Jérôme Bonaparte to Jerome Bonaparte, right?

--Tkinias 11:54, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'd prefer Forename Surname, 4th Duc de Somewhere, except for the very old sovereign titles, like Duke of Normandy, which are usually translated into English. I know it's French practice not to capitalise the title, but it's generally the practice everywhere else (including the Embassy of France in the US, which calls La Fayette Marie Joseph Paul Motier, Marquis de La Fayette. Proteus (Talk) 12:48, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The French Embassy citation is popular, but it does not conform to normal academic or encyclopedic practice. Capitalizing duc is something I would mark wrong on a student's paper; it is the same as downcasing Herzog. La Fayette is discussed widely in nonacademic writing, but how many nonhistorians know the duc de Mouchy or the marquis de Noailles? To a student of French history, the downcased form is normal and the capitalized form is as jarring as an incorrectly capitalized de. (The BNF is probably the most authoritative source on names for French persons, BTW; it often gives the "international scholarly form" of a name.) --Tkinias 13:03, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Addendum: I would much rather see anglicized ordinals than capitalized titles; the ordinals aren't as commonly used with French titles as with British ones, so 4th doesn't produce a jarring effect, just a vague sense of inconsistency... --Tkinias 13:15, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
We don't conform to "academic" practice. We conform to English-language practice. Most English speakers would refer to "the Marquis de Sade" and "the Marquis de La Fayette", and if confronted with an unknown French nobleman like the Duc de Mouchy would most likely do the same with him. (I'd also like to point out that in matters of style and usage like this, there is no "correct" version, which is what you seem to be implying we should use. If we decided to call the aforementioned ducal personage "the Duke of Mouchy", it wouldn't be "wrong", it would just be odd.) Proteus (Talk) 22:25, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'm not talking about Swahili-language academic practice, but English ;). And please note that I am also talking about encyclopedic practice, which is surely a useful guideline for an encyclopedia, is it not? And I'm not sure following uneducated practice is the best idea; most English speakers do not understand that the de and von in noble names do not form part of the surname, getting us usages like "De Sade wrote..." or "The Marquis De Sade". They are common because people don't know any better, but that doesn't mean we should imitate such things. It is one thing to follow commonly-used practice; it is quite another to do things (whether objectively "wrong" or not -- it is true, there is often no such thing) which appear to the educated reader to indicate a lack of familiarity with the subject matter. --Tkinias 22:41, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
In re La Fayette: FWIW, the form of his name used by the French Embassy is incorrect according to the BNF. They give La Fayette, Gilbert Du Motier, marquis de. (Complete given name: Marie Joseph Paul Roch Yves Gilbert.) More importantly, his article is under Marquis de Lafayette, which violates the rule about not putting people under just noble titles (e.g., we don't put Lord Salisbury under that, but under Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury, even though he is known more-or-less exclusively as Lord Salisbury). --Tkinias 22:41, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

My particular problem was only with the ordinals -- see my note at 13.1 above. Apart from that, I don't have a particular preference. I can see that it's a vexed question. Deb 12:11, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

OK, how about this:

Sovereign nobles (some of the premodern French dukes, the sovereign German princes) get translated as monarchs do, and take the form:

John, Duke of Foo

Nonsovereign nobles are not translated except for the ordinal, and take the form:

Jean Le Febvre, 4th duc de Bar

or

Johannes Schmidt, 4th Herzog von Bar

Given that titles are part of legal names in contemporary Germany and we don't translate those (Johannes Schmidt is not John Smith), those shouldn't be translated, and abruptly changing things at 1919 doesn't make much sense. There are also many German titles which are misleading or just weird and alien-looking if translated (e.g., the Fürst/Prinz confusion -- is Prince Eugen a Fürst or a Prinz? -- or "Burggrave", "Altgrave", etc.).

Capitalization should follow standard encyclopedic usage, capitalizing British and German titles, but not French.

This seems like a fair compromise, no?

For the sake of brevity, we may want to use only the "main" Christian name in article titles, if those can be determined. The first line should, of course, give the full name. --Tkinias 13:29, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 22:34, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)) Translating 4e to 4th looks ugly to me. If you're keeping Duc and de, you should be keeping the ordinal too.

WRT ordinals for French nobles, I'd suggest that if possible we not use them at all. They are rarely used when discussing French figures at all. They're even less used for Germans, as far as I'm aware. On the other hand, if there's a need for disambiguation, the problem comes up, so we should presumably come up with a standard. For the French, I'd say the French is more normal, personally. For Germans, I'd suggest a non-ordinal method of disambiguation, if possible. As to the rest of this, Tkinias, I'm glad that someone else has taken an interest in this stuff. I've tried occasionally to bring up forms for non-English nobility and royalty, but it's never gotten very far. I think most of your proposals are sensible. I think the Germans are still going to be troublesome. For instance, does an 18th century Prince of Oettingen get "Karl, Prince of Oettingen-Oettingen", while his son in the 19th century gets "Karl Fürst zu Oettingen-Oettingen"? This would be just as abrupt as changing in 1919 (which, under your proposal, as I understand it, we will still be doing for the sovereign German houses). I do think that for monarchs of less than royal status, the title should be included in the article title. (That would, however, mean moving Jean of Luxembourg to Jean, Grand Duke of Luxembourg...I think this is probably better anyway, as "Jean of Luxembourg" strikes me as distinctly ambiguous, and could quite possibly refer to, say, a medieval poet, or some such. john k 06:33, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I know it's not common to use ordinals to refer to French nobles, but for our (Wikipedia) purposes it helps in two important ways. First, it disambiguates, because there are nobles who have basically the same name, and the nonsovereign nobles don't use reignal numbers; the only other alternative sometimes would be to have five or six Christian names in the article title, which just gets insane. Second, it's very helpful for sorting in the Category pages; this makes the nobles of a line appear in order there, which cannot be achieved any other way AFAIK. If it were up to me, we'd use 1er/2e for the French and 1./2. for the Germans, but it seems that provokes too much resistance.
For the Germans, there's no easy answer. I would make the change either when the house is annexed to Prussia or the Second Reich, or at 1919 when the title becomes part of the legal name. I'm leaning toward 1919 at this point, because it is a pretty clear breaking point. Nonsovereign houses would always use the titles untranslated.
I agree completely that nonroyal sovereigns should have their title in the article title; following the sovereign rules, though, would yield John, Grand Duke of Luxembourg (translate Christian names for sovereigns).
--Tkinias 09:10, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hmm...the sovereign rules perhaps need to be changed. After all, monarchs of kingly level and above translate the name or not on the basis of common English usage. The same ought to be done for monarchs of lower levels. (i.e., we don't have John Charles of Spain). Some flexibility as to translating names seems in order. In terms of categories, you can certainly get them in order without having the numbers in the article title [[Category:French noblemen|Noailles, Joe, 3 Duke of]] works perfectly well, even if the article is at Joe, Duke of Noailles. As to the Germans, I think the ruling houses that continued to exist and rule until 1918 should clearly be treated as sovereigns up until that point. The houses that were annexed by Prussia in 1866 are more difficult. Should we have Alexander Frederick, Landgrave of Hesse or Alexander Friedrich Landgraf von Hessen, for instance? But this seems not too hard. What's really problematic, imo, are the houses of the Holy Roman Empire that were mediatized at the beginning of the 19th century. The Princes of Leiningen, or of Hohenlohe, and so forth. john k 16:31, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ah, I forgot about the exception for Juan Carlos of Spain. I'm not the best judge of these things because IMNSHO wikipedians and English writers in general are overzealous in translating names... To sort names, BTW, you would need [[Category:French noblemen|Truc, 1er duc de, Jean]] -- that is, with the number before the Christian name. As far as Germans go, this whole thing would be a lot easier if we didn't insist on translating the sovereign princes' names and titles in the first place. There's just no good reason for it if we have redirects -- it's not like I can't find the Landgraf under Landgrave if there's a redirect. But anyway, for the mediatized houses, they clearly are not sovereign at the point of mediatization. However, there might be some good in "fudging" and treating all the houses, including the mediatized ones, as sovereign until 1918/9. --Tkinias 01:26, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I would say that the real problem with anglicization is that it's very unclear what standard practice is. Is it Kaiser Wilhelm II or Emperor William II? Both are used pretty commonly in English, and have been for a long time (English language newspapers were already inconsistent on this question in 1914). On the other hand, his grandfather, I think, is much more commonly William I than Wilhelm I. As to translating German names, I really don't think that sovereign titles should be untranslated. How many people would know what a Fürst or a Herzog is? How often is the Duke of Brunswick who led the Prussian army to Valmy referred to in English as the Herzog von Braunschweig? I would venture "not very many" and "practically never" as the answer to these questions. As to mediatized houses, indeed they were not fully sovereign. But they were close enough, imo. The Prince of Thurn and Taxis was certainly approximately as sovereign as any other German ruler in this time period. john k 05:58, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Use All of a Peer's Given Names,Within Reason!!

I have to say I have been absolutely disgusted with the Wikipedian practice of moving articles on peers to titles which use only one given name. All my Encyclopaedia Britannica editions unite,for example,in listing the 3rd Marquess of Salisbury with "Robert Arthur Talbot Gascoyne-Cecil" in the article title,not just "Robert Gascoyne-Cecil". If some names trigger a length limit (like the Earl of Mar from 1930-32,John Francis Hamilton Sinclair Cunliffe Brooks Forbes Goodeve-Erskine) I can see some relaxation,but with all the Earls of Mar who have been some form of "John Erskine",the additional names should not be considered any more optional than the number.I've already expressed to Proteus that I have zero respect and zero tolerance for this policy and will only contribute or improve articles I am sure do NOT observe it...but the problem is the existence of this "bright idea" in the first place.If a particular given name is the most used,that should be mentioned in the article text, but there is no reason for a reference that aspires to be authoritative to be less than completist in the article title.Letting the full names be only in the text is putting the cart before the horse.--Louis Epstein/le@put.com/12.144.5.2 18:10, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If a peer is best known by a shortened form of the name it should be used - see Talk:Charles Ronald George Nall-Cain, 3rd Baron Brocket for one discussion on this. But I agree there are some peers, usually in the higher ranks and from later inheritances, who should have fuller versions of their names than they've been moved to. Flexibility and individual talk page discussions are best here. Timrollpickering 16:30, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/a/m/Wikipedia_talk%7ENaming_conventions_%28names_and_titles%29_Archive_4_7701.html"