Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is a naming conventions guideline for Wikipedia, reflecting how authors of this encyclopedia address certain issues. This guideline is intended to help you improve Wikipedia content. Feel free to update this page as needed, but please use the discussion page to propose major changes.

Shortcut: WP:NCNT

As royalty often use titles rather than surnames, and often change titles, using a clear and agreed nomenclature can sometimes be difficult.

The following is a set of conventions that have emerged from a detailed discussion on Wikipedia. For the discussions, see the corresponding talk page and, earlier, Wikipedia talk:History standards. If there are wikipedians out there who know more about this subject, please add to the discussion.

Some additional rules for article content are on Wikipedia:History standards.

Most general rule overall: use the most common form of the name used in English if none of the rules below cover a specific problem.

Most of the conventions below are intended for medieval and modern European and Muslim rulers and nobility, since in these civilizations several countries share the same given names, so some disambiguation is often required, and disambiguation by territorial designation is convenient. Elsewhere, territorial designations are usually unnecessary in names and in article titles.

How to use titles and names in articles themselves, check Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies).

1 Monarchical titles
2 Other royals
- 2.1 Past royal consorts
3 Clerical names
4 Other non-royal names
5 Non-European and non-Western (names and titles)
6 See also

[edit] Monarchical titles

Pre-emptively disambiguate the names of monarchs, of modern countries in the format "{Monarch's first name and ordinal} of {Country}". Examples: Edward I of England; Alfonso XII of Spain; Henry I of France.
- This is an exception to the general rule of most common English name. Nevertheless, Monarch's first name and Country should both be the most common form used in current English works of general reference. This convention is not applied to Roman or Byzantine Emperors, or to the older monarchies of antiquity.
Where there has only been one holder of a specific monarchical name in a state, the ordinal is used only when the ordinal was in official use. For example, Victoria of the United Kingdom, not Victoria I of the United Kingdom; Juan Carlos I of Spain, not Juan Carlos of Spain. The use of ordinals where there has been more than a single holder of a specific monarchical name is correct and appropriate. For example, William I of England, not William of England, as William II of England and William III of England hold the same monarchical name.
Take care to use the correct name of the state at the time when a monarch reigned. So it is
1. with the British: monarchs of England only up to 1707 (e.g., Henry VIII of England), Great Britain from 1707-1800 (e.g., Anne of Great Britain), the United Kingdom since 1801 (e.g., Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom). "England", "Great Britain" and "United Kingdom" describe different historical states covering different geographic areas, and so they do need to be clarified.
2. with German monarchs: Holy Roman Empire until 1806 (e.g., Henry V, Holy Roman Emperor), Germany from 1871 (e.g., William I, German Emperor), Austria after then, etc. Germany is especially complex; when in doubt, refer to List of German monarchs.
3. But if an obscure official name of a state exists alongside a clearly understood one, it is fine to use the more widely known version. For example, Kings of Greece rather than the technically correct Kings of the Hellenes.
Where a monarch has reigned over a number of states, use the most commonly associated ones. For example, Charles II of England, not Charles II of England, Scotland and Ireland; William I, German Emperor, not William I of Prussia, although there should be redirects from these locations. When several states are so associated, it is proper and often desirable to give the others compensating prominence in the intro when one gets the name of the article.
European monarchs whose rank was below that of King (e.g., Grand Dukes, Electors, Dukes, Princes), should be at the location "{Monarch's first name and ordinal}, {Title} of {Country}". Examples: Maximilian I, Elector of Bavaria, Jean, Grand Duke of Luxembourg.
Do not apply an ordinal in an article title to a pretender, i.e., someone who has not reigned. For example, use Louis Alphonse, Duke of Anjou, not Louis XX when referring to the legitimist pretender to the French throne. A person may however be referred to if they have a title, for example, Victor Emmanuel, Prince of Naples for the last Italian Crown Prince. But he should not be referred to as Victor Emmanuel IV even though Italian royalists call him so. Where someone has a disputed title, for example, "Henry V" — whom French Legitimists believed became the real king of France in 1830 after Charles X and his son's abdications — could be referred to as such in the article. Alternatively a disambiguation page could be created, redirecting enquiries about "Henry V" to the page where his biography exists, that is, Henri, comte de Chambord.
Former or deposed monarchs should be referred to by their previous monarchical title with the exception of those who are still alive and are most commonly referred to by a non-monarchical title; all former or deposed monarchs should revert to their previous monarchical title upon death; for example, Constantine II of Greece not ex-King Constantine II or Constantine Gluckberg, Edward VIII of the United Kingdom not the Prince Edward, Duke of Windsor, but Simeon Saxe-Coburg-Gotha not Simeon II of Bulgaria.
No family or middle names, except where English speakers normally use them. No cognomens (nicknames) in article titles — they go in the first line of the article.
Make redirects from other plausible names that people might search for or link to, even if strictly incorrect. For example, Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom should have redirects from Elizabeth II of England, Elizabeth II of Great Britain, Elizabeth Windsor, Queen Elizabeth II etc.

Exceptions:

These conventions do not apply to Eastern and Polynesian civilizations. See also: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (China-related articles), Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles), Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Thailand-related articles).
Roman Emperors do not need the "of the Roman Empire", nor would Pericles be "of Athens" nor Algirdas "of Lithuania" — their names already indicate where they were from. The first line of the article can say when (and which empire) they ruled. Otherwise, we get stuck with Roman Emperor, Western R. E., Eastern R. E., Byzantine E., and (under the Carolingians) Roman Emperor (again). See also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ancient Romans)
It has been proposed that leaders of a people, rather than a country or nation, (for example, the late antique Germanic tribes) should be called "of the Goths", etc., or have no ethnic disambiguation at all. "Of the Goths", "Picts", "Lombards", are not widely used, but this is a reasonable suggestion when disambiguation is necessary.
If a monarch or prince is overwhelmingly known, in English, by a cognomen, it may be used, and there is then no need to disambiguate by adding Country. Examples: Alfred the Great, Charlemagne, Louis the Pious, Henry the Lion, Skanderbeg, etc...". But there must be consensus so strong that it would be surprising to omit the epithet; and the name must actually be unambiguous. For example, although Richard the Lionhearted is often used, Richard I is not unusual, so he is at Richard I of England; again, if two kings of different countries are both known in English as Name the Great (for example Louis the Great of Hungary and Louis the Great of France), do not use the epithet but disambiguate them by country (those two are at Louis I of Hungary and Louis XIV of France).
- This exception also applies, but is less common, to persons less than sovereign.

These conventions will lead to most rulers and their consorts having no title in the name of their article. However, there is no Wikipedia convention that an article called Name of Place implies the subject is royal; Hildegard of Bingen is one example.

[edit] Other royals

For royalty other than monarchs:

If they hold a princely substantive title, use "{first name}, {title}". Examples: Charles, Prince of Wales, Anne, Princess Royal, Felipe, Prince of Asturias.
If a prince(ss) holds a substantive title that is not princely (a peerage, for instance), use "Prince(ss) {first name}, {title}". Examples: Prince Andrew, Duke of York and Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex. Numerals are not used. Example: Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester, not "Prince Richard, 2nd Duke of Gloucester".
Use "Prince(ss) {first name} of ..." where a prince/ss has a territorial suffix by virtue of their parent's title, e.g., Prince William of Wales, Princess Beatrice of York, Prince Arthur of Connaught, etc.
Where they have no substantive title, use the form "{title} {name} of {country}," e.g., Princess Irene of Greece. Use only the highest prefix title the person ever held. Deceased royal consorts should not have a title mentioned, e.g., Anne of Denmark. Using royal titles for more junior royals will enable users to distinguish between royal consorts and others. A prefix title can be used only when it was held and used by the person. This means that roughly before the 17th century, prince/ss would not be prefixed automatically.
When dealing with a Crown Prince(ss) (however not consort) of a state, use the form "{name}, Crown Prince(ss) of {state}" unless there is a clear formal title awarded to a prince which defines their status as crown prince (e.g., 'Frederik, Crown Prince of Denmark', but 'Charles, Prince of Wales', 'Felipe, Prince of Asturias', etc)
Do not use styles as part of a title of an article; e.g., Princess Irene of Greece not HRH Princess Irene of Greece.
Do not use 'surnames' in article names. Most royal families do not have surnames. Many that do have different personal surnames from the name of their Royal House. For example, different members of the Royal House of Windsor have a range of surnames: Windsor, Mountbatten-Windsor, etc. Charles, Prince of Wales, for example, is not Charles Windsor but Charles Mountbatten-Windsor, as are his siblings and all their children. But many of his cousins are Windsor or other names. Similarly, the House of Habsburg is different to the surnames of some members of the Habsburg/Habsburg-Lorraine family.
Incorporate surnames if they are known in the opening line of an article, e.g., Charles Philip Arthur George Mountbatten-Windsor. But don't automatically presume that a name of a Royal Family is the personal surname of its members. In many cases it is not. For visual clarity, an article should begin with the form "{royal title} {name} {ordinal if appropriate} (full name (+ surname if known, but not for monarchs)" with the full name unformatted and the rest in bold (3 's). In practice, this means for example an article on Britain's Queen Elizabeth should begin "Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary)". Using this format displays the most important information clearly without an unattractive excess of formatting. Other information on royal titles should be listed where appropriate in chronological order.
Past Royal Consorts are generally referred to by their pre-marital name or pre-marital title, not by their consort name, as without an ordinal (which they lack) it is difficult to distinguish various consorts; e.g., use Catherine of Aragon not Queen Catherine, as there have been many queen consorts called Catherine. The scope of this convention is disputed; see discussion below.
Existing Royal Consorts are referred to by their consort name, e.g., Queen Sofia of Spain. But when she dies, she will revert to her pre-marital title, ie, Sofia of Greece. As widow, some appropriate addition (usually announced by the country in question) will be amended to (such as Queen Dowager or Queen Mother), with the new Queen of Spain being referred to by the consort designation. The same rule applies to male royal consorts.
Use the most senior title received by a royal or noble personage. For example, George V of the United Kingdom is referred to as such, not George, Duke of York or George, Prince of Wales, his earlier titles.

[edit] Past royal consorts

Many English and French queens are traditionally referred to in English by {Name} of {Place}, like Margaret of Anjou, Isabeau of Bavaria, or Mary of Teck, where the place is country or House of origin. There is considerable sentiment that this "maiden name rule" should be generalized into a convention for all past European royal consorts.

This would provide a consistent and largely unambiguous nomenclature for a large number of articles, mostly on subjects who have no surname, properly speaking. It would also avoid a certain anglocentrism present in some actual usage. Nevertheless, there is opposition to a broad usage of this convention, on the following grounds:

English princesses who marry abroad are often traditionally known by the name of the their husband's country. For example: Elisabeth of Bohemia; usage on Margaret of Burgundy is divided.
Other queens and empresses are usually known by the name of their husband's country, like Marie of Romania; in some cases, this is so strong a tendency that the "maiden name rule" produces a name unintelligible to the mere reader of English, like Alix of Hesse.
{Name} of (place), applied to the daughter of a reigning queen, can produce the same name as her mother. The Empress Frederick is listed as Victoria, Princess Royal, not Victoria of the United Kingdom; but other cases may not have such titles - and this is still an exception in letter, if not in spirit.
There is strong disagreement on whether such a rule should apply at all to male consorts of reigning queens - compare Prince George of Denmark and Albert, Prince Consort.
There is little support for such a convention where consorts are native subjects of their spouses, like James Hepburn, 4th Earl of Bothwell and Catherine Parr.

Where the name by itself is unambiguous or primary usage, it is pedantry to insist on this form against usage: Marie Antoinette, not Marie Antoinette of Austria.

[edit] Clerical names

Main article: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Western clergy)

While most names are clear, unambiguous and known, some names associated with clergy of some faiths make this difficult. In those religions which have hierarchies, the higher the level within that hierarchy the greater the likelihood that the person's first name may have ceased to be used publicly, being replaced by a title. Others replace their own name completely with a new one. As with royals, this requires a different set of guidelines, not least in so far as it may be difficult to discover what their first name actually was, particularly when dealing with ancient historical church clergy at the higher level. The following are the agreed conventions for two levels of senior clergymen:

For popes, whether Roman Catholic, Coptic, or otherwise, use the format "Pope {papal name} {ordinal if more than one} of {episcopal see}". Popes of Rome should not be linked with their episcopal sees; Rome is understood. Also, do not use a pope's personal name. For example, use Pope John Paul I, not Albino Luciani or Pope John Paul I of Rome.
For patriarchs, whether the Ecumenical Patriarch, Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria, or otherwise, use the format "Patriarch {papal name} {ordinal if more than one} of {episcopal see}". Do not use a patriarch's personal name; e.g., use Patriarch Nikon, not Nikita Minov. However, if a there is already a well established name in English for a particular patriarch, use that format instead. For example, use John Chrysostom as the main title of article, with Patriarch John I of Constantinople and John I of Constantinople as redirects. This last convention, regarding well-established names for patriarchs, is still under discussion on the talk page archive.'
In the titles of articles, cardinals generally go by their full name (both first name and surname) alone, without the title "Cardinal", as "Ascanio Sforza", not "Cardinal Ascanio Sforza", nor "Ascanio Cardinal Sforza". Exceptions are cardinals who are identifiable only by the cardinalitial title (as in the case of a hypothetical Cardinal John Smith), those best known by the title "Cardinal" followed by a surname (as Cardinal Richelieu), and those of the period before the introduction of surnames. (For many of the latter, however, their place of origin will serve the same function as a surname.) When it is necessary to add the title "Cardinal", it will usually be sufficient to prefix it to the surname of the cardinal, especially in the body of an article, as "Cardinal Sforza". If both name and surname are used, wikilinking is straightforward if the title is prefixed to the name, as in "Cardinal Ascanio Sforza". However, those who prefer the form "Ascanio Cardinal Sforza" should take care to ensure there is a redirect to the form used in the title of the article on the cardinal in question, or use a piped link.
Saints go by their most common English name, minus the "Saint", unless they are only recognisable by its inclusion. For example, Paul of Tarsus, Ulrich of Augsburg but Saint Patrick. (See also List of saints.) Make redirects from forms with "St.", "St", and "Saint". Popes who are also saints are given their papal name, with a redirect from the forms with "Saint". For example, Pope Pius X, with redirects from Pope Saint Pius X and other forms.
Cathedral and church names, unless they individually use something different, are written as St. not Saint. Hence St. Paul's Cathedral not Saint Paul's Cathedral, St. Mary's Pro-Cathedral not Saint Mary's Pro-Cathedral, etc.

[edit] Other non-royal names

Members of the hereditary Peerage (people who inherit their title), such as a marquess, viscount, count, duke, earl, etc., as with royals have two names. For example Henry John Temple was also the 3rd Viscount Palmerston, hence typically referred to as "Lord Palmerston". Rule here is, "So-and-so, ordinal (if appropriate) title (of) place", and place redirects as you see fit. The sequence number is included since personal names are often duplicated (see Earl of Aberdeen.) Examples: Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington, or Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston, with redirect Lord Palmerston, which allows both of his names to be included. EXCEPTIONS: When individuals received hereditary peerages after retiring from the post of Prime Minister (unless they are better known for their later career under an additional/alternative title), or for any other reason are known exclusively by their personal names, do not include the peerage dignity. Examples: Anthony Eden (not "Anthony Eden, 1st Earl of Avon"), Bertrand Russell (not "Bertrand Russell, 3rd Earl Russell") (but Henry Addington, 1st Viscount Sidmouth not "Henry Addington"). When individuals held more than one peerage and are best known by a title other than their highest one, use the interim one. Examples: Frederick John Robinson, 1st Viscount Goderich (not "Frederick John Robinson, 1st Earl of Ripon"), William Petty, 2nd Earl of Shelburne (not "William Petty, 1st Marquess of Lansdowne"). When individuals inherited or were created peers but are best known to history by a courtesy title use that. Examples: Frederick North, Lord North (not "Frederick North, 2nd Earl of Guilford"), Robert Stewart, Viscount Castlereagh (not "Robert Stewart, 2nd Marquess of Londonderry"). When a peer holds one or more other peerages of the same rank as his most senior peerage, use only the most senior peerage in the title. Example: Charles Lennox, 1st Duke of Richmond, not "Charles Lennox, 1st Duke of Richmond and 1st Duke of Lennox" or "Charles Lennox, 1st Duke of Richmond and Lennox". Single peerages with multiple parts should be used in full. Example: Claude Bowes-Lyon, 14th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne, not "Claude Bowes-Lyon, 14th Earl of Strathmore".
Life peers (ie, people who have peerages awarded exclusively for their lifetime but who neither inherit it nor pass it on to anyone else)¹ use the same standard as for hereditary peers: use the dignity in the title, unless the individual is exclusively referred to by personal name. For example: Quintin Hogg, Baron Hailsham of St Marylebone (not "Quintin McGarel Hogg"), but Margaret Thatcher (not "Margaret Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher.")
An honorific such as Lord Normanby may refer to any of the holders of the associated title, so can redirect to a page about the title itself.
Baronets, as they hold hereditary titles, often for a large part of their lives, follow the same practice as hereditary peers and should have their title noted in the beginning of the article. The format is Sir John Smith, 17th Baronet. For the article title, this format should only be used when disambiguation is necessary; otherwise, the article should be located at John Smith. John Smith, 17th Baronet should never be used with the postfix and without the prefix.
Titles of Knighthood such as Sir and Dame should not be included in the article title: use personal name instead, e.g., Arthur Conan Doyle not Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. (But make a redirect from the form with the title if it is well known, thus Sir Walter Raleigh redirects to Walter Raleigh.) The article itself should clarify details such as the full title, etc. "Sir" may be used in article titles as a disambiguator. Honorary titles should not be used at all, but the appropriate post-nominal letters or explanation should be in the article. Thus, Bob Geldof is not "Sir Bob Geldof" in the title and is "Bob Geldof KBE (hon.)" in the text. Post-nominals should not be used for non-Commonwealth or former British Empire citizens, as their use outside a Commonwealth context are rare. Knights bachelor have no suffix.
Courtesy titles (also referred to as an honorific prefix)² such as Lord or Lady differ from full titles because unlike full titles they are included as part of the personal name, often from birth. As such, they should be included in the article title if a person if universally recognised with it and their name is unrecognisable without it. For example, the late nineteenth century British politician Lord Frederick Cavendish was always known by that form of name, never simply Frederick Cavendish. Using the latter form would produce a name that would be unrecognisable to anyone searching for a page on Cavendish. Similarly, Lady Gregory, the Irish playwright, is more recognisable to readers than Augusta Gregory.
In general, use the most commonly recognized English-language form of the name. Create redirections or disambiguations for other plausible links. A good way to find this form is to look up the subject in a few reliable English works of general reference. For example, Alexander von Humboldt is so called in the New Cambridge Modern History. Where this leaves a choice among common names, the simplest unambiguous one is often preferable. Where a person is known by their secondname, the title of the article should be (Second name) (Surname) and the text should begin (First name) (Second name) (Surname), e.g. Gordon Brown.
Other names and titles, if any, should appear in the first paragraph of the article so they can be searched for.
In East Asian names, look at common English usage to decide whether the western first-name last-name or the eastern last-name first-name order should be used. As a rule of thumb, Japanese names should usually be given in the western, Chinese names in the eastern order. A redirect from whatever order is not used, is almost always a good idea. Again, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (China-related articles), Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles), Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Thailand-related articles).
Iberian naming customs (includes Catalan, Portuguese, Spanish,...; also outside the Iberian peninsula): see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)#People with two last names - maiden name and/or last name of husband?

Footnotes:

¹ Life peers receive the title of Baron. As a rule of thumb when deciding if someone has a life peerage or hereditary peerage, if the title is marquess, viscount, duke, earl or anything but baron the peerage can only be hereditary. However, many barons are not life peers; hereditary baronies also exist. In general, if the peerage was created before 1958, and the holder is not a judge, it will be hereditary.

² A Courtesy title is an honorific prefix applied to the sons and daughters of hereditary peers. For example, Lady Diana Spencer's courtesy title came via her father's earldom. Lord John Russell was the second son of the Duke of Bedford. In many cases the holder of a courtesy title is known exclusively by its inclusion (which they may have had from birth) and unrecognisable without it, with the title treated as though it was in effect part of their name. That contrasts to full titles, which are not attached to the personal name, but exist separately.