Talk:Victoria of the United Kingdom

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was No consensus to move.--Húsönd 17:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I formally propose the move from this (rather unlikely) title to Queen Victoria. Say "Queen Victoria" to 10,000 people and nearly all of them will know who you mean. Somebody even suggested to me that an appreciable proportion of them will actually have a statue of that queen in their home town. I think he was on crack, but the point stands: there have been one or two other Victorias, but this is the one. This is a classic case, if ever there was one, for disambiguation by primary topic. That's where we take the reader to the most obvious place and then (in a hatnote) invite him to chose from other subjects if he's come to the wrong place. But really: Queen Victoria! --Tony Sidaway 22:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

• Move, the others didn't (remotely) have a Victorian era. No, seriously, per WP:NCP, priorities are "most generally recognizable" and "unambiguous from others". {{Otheruses}} will do the job for the latter. --NikoSilver 22:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. We do not put royal titles in the mainspace title, with the exception of popes. Also, to do so would throw off the "X of the United Kingdom" naming convention. --Hemlock Martinis 23:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Hemlock Martinis. Craigy (talk) 00:10, 15 October 2007

• Comment WP:IAR, WP:NC(CN), Marie Antoinette (not Maria Antonia of Austria), Maria Theresa of Austria (not Maria Theresa of Hungary and Bohemia) etc. Also, this is coming from a proponent of the naming conventions and someone who is heavily involved with them. Charles 23:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• From WP:NC(CN): "The principal exception is in the case of naming royalty and people with titles." Thus, we go to WP:NCNT, which uses this article to demonstrate the naming convention. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names_and_titles)#Monarchical titles please. --Hemlock Martinis 03:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)]

• The example showing this form against a less correct doesn't mean the naming conventions for royals prescribe that this article must have this title. Charles 09:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• Move. About 1150 out of 2600 incoming links reach the page via Queen Victoria, and many of the ones that come in via Victoria of the United Kingdom are piped as Queen Victoria. It's one thing to have naming consistency, but not at the expense of common sense -- I know who Queen Victoria is, but I've never heard of Victoria of the United Kingdom.--Father Goose 02:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
• Move. IMHO this a case of common sense versus blind bureaucracy. Say "Queen Victoria" to 10,000 people and nearly all of them will know who you mean. 10,000 ppl? Try rather a 1,000,000 or more. Flamarande 20:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Either we stick to standards, or we open this can of worms and discuss each name. A move to "Queen Victoria" will e.g. call for Kaiser Wilhelm rather than William II, German Emperor.-- Matthead ^discuß!     O       23:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Please don't compare Queen Victoria with Kaiser Wilhem (1st - that name is in German and this the English Wiki, 2nd - which one of the two?). Its like comparing the single sun with a common star out of many - this comment is not about the worth of these persons, but only about their fame. Marie Antoinette, Maria Theresa of Austria there are a couple historical persons which are so widely known that other persons with the same name are widely ignored. Therefore the title of article should use "the name in question" and be about the person (almost) everybody expects it to be. (I hope you can follow my argument - English isn't my mothertongue). "Either we stick to standards, or we open this can of worms and discuss each name." No, we stick to standarts but at the same time we keep a couple of reasonable exceptions - like every law and rule of this world. Flamarande 00:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't compare Victoria to her oldest grandson Wilhelm, who as "Kaiser Wilhelm" is known in English, too. Only one of the Kaiser Wilhelms were involved in a World War (and lived into the second), making him "so widely known that other persons with the same name are widely ignored" and "one of the most hated men of the 20th century". Quickly: how many German Emperors were there? Chances are high you pick the wrong number without looking it up first. All hits [1] outnumber "William II, German emperor" anyway. I'm not going to discuss more names - as said before, either standards, or a wide open can of "a couple of reasonable exceptions". -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       02:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

We should stick to standards; those specified at Wikipedia:Naming conventions. The "pre-emptive disambiguation" outlined at WP:NCNT breaks them.--Father Goose 21:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - there are a number of individuals who could be called "Queen Victoria". Noel S McFerran 00:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I think though that those people fall under disambiguation. Remember, there are primary and secondary uses of titles and Queen Victoria primarily and overwhelmingly refers to Alexandrina Victoria of Hanover. Charles 01:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names_and_titles)#Monarchical titles clearly states that the naming format for monarchs, "X of Y", is an exception to the "most common name used in English" rule. Therefore this kind of proposed alternative was anticipated and covered when we developed the convention. If we are going to change that convention, let's do it there first, not piecemeal by re-naming articles. What next -- will Diana, Princess of Wales be moved to "Princess Diana" because the latter is more popular? Lethiere 01:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with tackling the general subject at WP:NCNT. The standard that it promotes of pre-emptively disambiguating royal titles steps outside of normal naming conventions for no particular reason.--Father Goose 06:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names_and_titles)#Monarchial titles. Queen Victoria (though most commonly associated with Victoria of the United Kingdom) does not define a place for this monarch. It would also contradict "of the United Kingdom" monarchs. Mary Queen of Scots is called Mary I of Scotland, despite her being commonly known as the Queen of Scots. PeterSymonds | talk 19:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Well I think it's a shame that common English names for Mary Queen of Scots, Henry VIII, Ivan the Terrible, Frederick the Great and the like are being ignored in the name of a spurious consistency by adhering to an internal rule. But there does seem to be considerable support, in this discussion, for that internal rule. I'm saddened that there is so much opposition to waiving this rule even in a case where there is overwhelming identification, probably even in non-English languages, of the subject of the article, as "Queen Victoria", not any Queen Victoria, but the Queen Victoria. --Tony Sidaway 20:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
• Please use common sense. Ask yourself who the vast majority of people think Queen Victoria refers to. Its evident in the internal linking as well, most of them are talking about this queen. This is similar to moving George W. Bush to George W. Bush of the United States of America. If there are others with a similar name (his dad) they should go to a disambiguation page. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 21:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • If people think of the present President George Bush and not of his father, that may be an ephemeral thing, since the present one is a Current Event. Michael Hardy 21:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
    • However my point still stands, use the common name. ;) —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 22:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • That's an inaccurate comparison, since George W. Bush is not a monarch. We only put "of the X" after monarchs. --Hemlock Martinis 18:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - per Hemlock Martinis. Then we would have to go down the line of every English monarch. Reginmund 01:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly what we should do. The idea of "pre-emptive disambiguation" for royals is unnecesary in most cases and contrary to the basic naming convention, which is based on common sense and works far better -- even for royals.--Father Goose 04:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. I see the point the 'movers' are making but ultimately agree with Reginmund. Also, as long as "Queen Victoria" redirects here without going via a dab page, I don't consider that there's a big problem. Cheers, Ian Rose 02:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per Mr Rose ^† DBD 11:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong support "Victoria of the United Kingdom"?! It's fine to have a name policy to avoid confusion, but by sticking to it as rigidly as a frozen Prussian with rigor mortis, you're creating a whole lot more...--victor falk 13:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't see how this creates confusion. It's fairly obvious who the article is about. --Hemlock Martinis 18:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: I don't know who started this and why it was decided that "...of <nation>" should be used at all times for all monarchs without discretion and contrarily to WP:COMMON SENSE and COMMON NAME, but I think that it's crazy. The least. I also don't know if Queen Vic is the right example here, but Ivan the Terrible above really shocked me. I find the rule anti-democratic, and ...pro-ultramonarchist (to the point of linguistic dictatorship). I stand amazed we are even discussing it. BTW, go ahead and rename the monarch Alexander the Great to Alexander III of Macedon. I dare you. I just saw the exception there for older monarchs (et al), which makes the whole construct there even more ridiculous. NikoSilver 20:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • It was originally created to disambiguate, such as with Charles II. But it is now so universal across the encyclopedia that it seems silly to change it for just one person and thus break the continuity. --Hemlock Martinis 21:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• I count more than one. Mary Queen of Scots at Mary I of Scotland? Ivan the Terrible at Ivan IV of Russia? Uh? – Steel 21:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
• "Rome was not built in a day!" NikoSilver 22:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• Move. Everyone please listen to NikoSilver. – Steel 21:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
• Move obviously. Stands to reason: nobody calls her that. There have been far, far more British Victorias than Queen Victorias. Victoria of Britain is absurd in a way that the FID DEF, IND IMP, etc that you see on the edges of old British coins weren’t. —Ian Spackman 01:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • On second thoughts Totally oppose. If we move this weirdly but appropriately named article to Queen Victoria the flood gates will be opened. There will be proposals to move Jules of Rome to Julius Caesar which we will be in no position to oppose. —Ian Spackman 02:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Better still Move to One of the best known Victorias of the United Kingdom who didn’t get to marry David Beckham (but the poshest spice of the lot) —Ian Spackman 02:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

• Strong support Royally oppose Not to mention the rest of wikipedia. Who knows, in the end we might even have military units that follow their own whimsical and anarchic naming schemes instead of wikipedia's. See: Talk:3rd_US_Infantry#Title_of_article.--victor falk 02:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

• Support - the policy is a sound one for ordinary cases (Henry IV, Philip II, etc). However, a select few (but we would have to go case by case) ought to be moved per WP:IAR. (Others I'd say are Ivan the Terrible, Mary Queen of Scots, Napoleon I of France (!)). And this too is one of those cases: let it be moved. Biruitorul 03:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Does it hurt anyone to have this article at Victoria of the United Kingdom? Queen Victoria is already treated in non-standrad way, as it redirects to here, not to a disamb page, so nobody is forced to type the long conventional title, or to look her up among the many Princess Victoria. Besides, why Queen when she also was Empress Victoria, or Victoria the Great? Has anyone checked what Encyclopædia Britannica gives as results for Queen Victoria? 298 results, starting with Victoria, in full Alexandrina Victoria queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       06:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose. No one has given any good reason to change the article's title other than aesthetics. I see the aesthetic point, but it is far outweighed by the practicalities. No confusion exists, as Queen Victoria redirects here. Per WP:NCP, article titles should focus on the subject's personal name ("Victoria"), not the title of her office ("Queen"). As monarchs do not commonly use surnames, "of <nation>" is the most precise way to identify her, and is a format generally applicable to all monarchs. --BlueMoonlet 07:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Would it hurt anyone to have this article at Queen Victoria? Victoria of the United Kingdom could still redirect to here, so nobody is forced to type the long conventional title; and the "consistency" is preserved through the redirect. NikoSilver 08:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support move She is known as Queen Victoria; "Victoria of the United Kingdom" is a nonsense title, one that she is only known by on Wikipedia. This might go against the current naming style guide, but it goes with the overall Wikipedia article naming guidelines which state: "Generally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." (my emphasis). If you must allow disambiguation of monarchs, then at least use her proper title (which, since hereditary, serves the same purpose as the surnames of commoners). You could have "Queen Victoria (United Kingdom)" or, if you have to, "Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom". Since this clashes with WP:NCNT, then I move that the guideline is discussed and brought in line with commonsense, general Wikipedia guidelines. See discussion at NCNT talk and the village pump. Gwinva 21:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose move - we need to have standards and keep to them. I don't oppose the making of exceptions where the "most common name" is something very different from the standard, eg. "Bonnie Prince Charlie" - but this isn't. "Common sense" means something different to every individual. Deb 22:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Wait a second -- you're saying the most common name for this person is not Queen Victoria? I agree that we should keep to standards; the problem here is that WP:NCNT unnecssarily abandons the standards laid out in its parent policy, WP:NC.--Father Goose 22:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

He's saying that QV is not very different from VOUK and that is a reason why we should keep the standards. I ask why are the standards not kept if necessary through a VOUK redirect to QV. I ask why "the standards" are more important than "common name" when both can be kept, but only one has the "honor" of being the article's title. NikoSilver 22:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

• Support move Common name, primary disambiguation etc. G-Man ^? 22:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support Move For all the reasons given so far. Also, although consistency is often a good thing, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds." I consider to not move the article would be using a consistency argument foolishly in this case.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Has it been considered/debated that Victoria wasn't necessarily Queen of everyone? Wasn't that the reason why the titles are discouraged in the first place? -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the titles are generally unnecessary. Ivan IV is thus better than both Tsar Ivan IV or Ivan IV of Russia. But in the case of Victoria, just "Victoria" is highly ambiguous, which is why everyone in the real world generally calls her Queen Victoria -- and we should too.--Father Goose 23:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose There is a convention; it should be followed. And when MS Queen Victoria enters service, Queen Victoria should be made into a disambiguation page. See Queen Elizabeth, Queen Mary, King George V, and Black Prince. Soon many who are unversed in history will associate Queen Victoria only with a ship. Kablammo 23:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The ship is named after the person; she should be the main article; those that only know the ship would discover the real person on the way to finding the ship. Gwinva 01:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

All of the names I just mentioned are ships named after the person. Each name links to a disambiguation page. One seaching for the vessel Queen Victoria would not find it if the page were moved (unless you want to add a template linking to other uses on top of the page). (And who would ever search for MS Queen Victoria?) There are benefits to consistency. There is a practice have DAB pages for names of monarchs whose names are used by other persons or things. There is a convention on the naming of English/British monarchs. No one would suggest changing King Stephen to be the article on the English king. Let's have one rule for all. Kablammo 02:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Re: And who would ever search for MS Queen Victoria? Someone actually interested in it would... Also, WP:NC(CN) holds more weight than WP:NC(NT). Charles 05:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

My point is that someone searching for the ship is more likely to search for its name without the MS prefix. How many people really know the difference between MS, MV, SS, or (for that matter) RMS? As for the relative weight to be given to the two policies mentioned, the specific should prevail over the general. Kablammo 08:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

If someone is searching for the ship, he can very well click the {{otheruses}} link and find it instantly. The fact that there's a ship, an era, etc, named after Queen Elizabeth only demonstrates how undoubtedly common that name is to describe her. NikoSilver 10:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Surely the issue here is not when MS Queen Victoria enters service, but the fact that we already have an article on this ship. A disambiguation page has been required ever since the MS Queen Victoria article was created on 15 January 2006. -- JackofOz 01:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

There have been many Queen Elizabeths, Queen Marys, King George Vs, and Black Princes, which is why they go to disambiguation pages by default. But Queen Victoria gets the lion's share of attention associated with her name, which is why her article gets the default landing spot, with a disambig to the other QVs a the top. I don't think the arrival of the latest cruise liner bearing her name will change this situation.--Father Goose 10:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose: per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• Please explain why the child guideline WP:NC(NT) that you quote carries more weight than the conflicting parent policy WP:NC and guidelines WP:NC(CN) and WP:NCP. NikoSilver 10:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• It doesn't necessarily, but I think WP:NC(NT) is a sound convention that should be upheld. Victoria was not Queen of America or Germany or a whole host of places for example, and thus assuming she would be entered with her title on Wikipedia, that could be a strong point of contention for those peoples who do not regard her as a monarch. There are also lesser issues of republican sentiments towards the divine rights of the British monarchy. I think that breaking convention here could set a precident in which other articles are renamed according to local titles, in which debate will point to this article. I understand the thinking behind the proposal, but still vote to maintain the current position. -- Jza84 · (talk) 12:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Point taken. However, may I note that those in America, or those in Germany, or even those with republican sentiments, all acknowledge she was a Queen, and all refer to her as (THE) "Queen Victoria". Regarding your concern about precedent, I am all for solving this issue by applying the simple name only to those for which there is no ambiguity whatsoever. Victoria is one of those cases in my view (so is Ivan the Terrible etc). I understand your concern, but I'm sure we can deal with it in most cases. NikoSilver 13:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Support Move per nom. 'Victoria of the United Kingdom' sounds like Mrs Beckham. The old lady would surely have preferred 'Victoria of the British Empire'. Also succinct, short titles are in line with WP policy WP:NC(CN). -- Kleinzach 01:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose but the move would be against policy and won't happen anyway. Jooler 02:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment That's a very bold statement. How so? Charles 05:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
• There's a policy/guideline conflict if you haven't noticed: parent policy WP:NC and guidelines WP:NC(CN) and WP:NCP against their child guideline WP:NC(NT). NikoSilver 09:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
• The parent policy, Wikipedia:Naming conventions, is an official policy and states, "Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists." Most readers will look for Queen Victoria. Also, "Generally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." The title Queen Victoria is reasonably unambiguous in that it overwhelmingly refers to Alexandrina Victoria of Hanover in her position as Queen of the United Kingdom. It is also the most recognizable name. Charles 10:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• Support move per WP:NC Generally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. The current name makes linking to this article harder than it should be. Following rules for the sake of following rules is pointless, we should do whatever makes Wikipedia easier to read and edit. Lurker (said · done) 11:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
• Move. When I google for Victoria of the United Kingdom -wiki (=just imagine wikipedia did not exist and do as people would normally do: use no quotation marks) the first lady google gives me, is Victoria Wood. Basically, we must give priority to the real world out there, and forget the rules (nice to know that they contradict each other, by the way).--Pan Gerwazy 11:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• Note regarding policy This is an honest question for the nay-sayers and not a jab, but if the guidelines are so rigid as to prevent the move of this page, should we move Maria Theresa of Austria to Maria Theresa of Hungary and Bohemia, Marie Antoinette to Maria Antonia of Austria, Sophia of Hanover to Countess Palatine Sophia of Simmern or Elizabeth of Bohemia to Elizabeth Stuart? Charles 13:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

No, nor we should not move Maria Theresa of Austria to Maria Theresa, even though the Empress is the most famous of that name. As for the rules, a lot of discussion and work must have gone into Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) which I would like to respect. Both sides have good points but the existing convention should not be abrogated without compelling reasons to do so. Kablammo 15:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Feel the breeze of change! There were relevant discussions over at WT:NC(NT) and WP:VPP, both centralized here. NikoSilver 15:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

If we are going to abandon common sense completely the correct title would actually be Victoria of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland - the UK entity was not the same then as today. -- Kleinzach 00:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The last point by Kleinzach is an extremely good and important point: The article as it stands is simply incorrect. It should be moved. The only question seems to me to be what it should be moved to. Keeping it as it is is not accurate and should not be an option.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

There's a sort of logic there. On coinage, Victoria and her successors carried the title Ind. Imp. (Emperor or Empress of India) until after the Second World War. I'm not citing coinage as an arbiter here (if so we'd have to include "Defender of the Faith", a title granted to Henry VIII by Pope Leo in 1521, and still proudly displayed on the coins of our protestant country). However it's a reminder that Victoria was queen of a lot more than just a few soggy, windy islands. The title "Victoria of the United Kingdom" is perhaps a little misleading. --Tony Sidaway 11:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The borders and the name of the Polish state when Boleslaw I of Poland was on the throne are not same as that of Poland when John II Casimir of Poland was the monarch. I don't suspect that anyone would claim that this is misleading. In this case United Kingdom was used informally for the state both before and after Irish partition. Jooler 16:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but Poland is a proper noun, the United Kingdom is not. In any case we are not just talking about shifting borders. -- Kleinzach 01:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Eh? Of course 'United Kingdom' is a proper noun. That's why it's in caps! The same with 'Queen Victoria' for that matter. Shifted borders and shifted political structure and shifted name. Jooler 14:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Strong support. WP:NC is a policy and while more detailed conventions even if only guidelines often take precedence over its general principles, this is a case of a very commonly understood term and the underlying principle should prevail. Andrewa 16:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose: There is a redirect, and it works perfectly fine for all those people looking for "Queen Victoria". As always, this is a matter of internal content organisation, and I strongly support the current naming conventions; I have even learnt them well enough (not a hard thing to do) to be looking for all monarchs' articles by writing these titles in the search box (unless in a hurry). In addition, there has been another queen called Victoria, and "ignoring" her in this fashion would not be good, not good at all, I say. Waltham, The Duke of 12:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment' Wikipedia isn't about what is "fair" to dead queens. There are exceptions to every rule and also the other Victoria is titled Victoria of Baden here on Wikipedia. Charles 13:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.