Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 January

2024 January

Peter Krešimir IV of Croatia

Peter Krešimir IV of Croatia (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

The move discussion had been open for a month when Vanderwaalforces relisted it with the comment:

"The 'supporters' of the move have provided reasonable arguments for why it should be moved, while the 'opposers' have not provided reasonable arguments for why it should not be moved."

That in itself I found odd, since after a month such a finding should have resulted in closure. I was astounded when, 6 days after such a finding, Vanderwaalforces closed the move as "no consensus". The explanation left me even more perplexed: Vanderwaalforces now found that "the convention", which (as noted in the discussion) was rejected in an RfC two months ago, "countered" the WP:Article title policy and present naming convention. They also referred to the dissatisfaction of the opposers with the RfC result, among other dubious arguments.

Moreover, the closer's talk page and archive appear to be littered with complaints about their closures, with four such sections there now, including a case of participating in a move request after relisting it (WP:SUPERVOTE). Surtsicna (talk) 21:08, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

• Note: I would very much appreciate if uninvolved editors could pay special attention to the interpretation of the WP:RECOGNISABILITY policy because this is a recurring issue. We are seeing some closers interpret it as recognizability to readers familiar with the subject (which is what WP:RECOGNISABILITY says), while others accept the interpretation that the title should define the article subject for those who are not familiar with the subject (the "household name" argument). Surtsicna (talk) 21:35, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Nicholas Fisk (author)

Nicholas Fisk (author) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

Per WP:THREEOUTCOMES, the discussion was closed as "no consensus", when a "not moved" outcome seems correct, given that the proposed move saw no support from anyone other than the OP. User:Aviram7 was contacted on his/her talkpage, responded rather cryptically, and then deleted the thread. See discussion at Special:Permalink/1195854060#Talk:Nicholas Fisk (author)

Ferdinand VI of Spain

Ferdinand VI of Spain (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

Even more lopsided than above. Move was very heavily opposed (8 against move, 3 for it). Closer User:Bensci54 initially (and correctly IMO) closed it as "No consensus" to move diff.

Then Surtscina went to closer's protest on his page citing that the newly-modified NCROY guidelines out-trumps all opposition expressed in the RM. After citing RCMI instructions, then Bensci54 reversed himself and moved page.

I pointed out that there was strong opposition and WP:IAR is also policy. Moreover, the closer misread the RCMI instructions in overriding the opposition: "unless there is a very good reason to ignore rules, should be closed without moving regardless of how many of the participants support it." Notice that it doesn't say it should be closed and moved. The closer agreed with me, but was reluctant to reverse himself again and change it for a second time, and asked that it brought here to move review.

So I am here. There was clearly was no consensus to move this page, and ask that be overturned. Walrasiad (talk) 23:44, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

• This is the RM decision, that 'broke me'. If "of country" is going to be removed (via NCROY) from monarch bios, no matter how many editors (in each RM) oppose it? Then all hope is lost. -- GoodDay (talk) 08:44, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
• Lie after lie. I did not cite the naming conventions at the closer's talk page; I cited policy and guideline in the move discussion, where Walrasiad should have done the same but did not. The closer does not agree with Walrasiad about the outcome of the discussion, having said on their talk page: I do still think a Move close was correct, because in general WP:RMCI indicates that arguments with policy behind them hold more weight in determining consensus than those that do not, and as you've pointed out and I agree with, none of those who opposed had policy-based arguments. The move was performed because all supporters cited policy and guideline while none of the opposers cited any policy or guideline. Surtsicna (talk) 14:29, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

• For the record, the commentator above (Surtscina) was the original proposer of the move request.

I did not say you cited it, I said the closer User:Bensci54 cited the RMCI instructions as the justification for revising his decision and reversing the original closure. He proceeded to quote the relevant RMCI section in full (diff). When I queried him, he again referred to the RMCI instructions (diff) to justify the weights he gave, why he completely ignored the volume of opposition to the move. When I pointed out that he misread the instructions (diff), that they do not say opposition to a move request should be ignored, that it actually recommended not moving as default, he agreed, but expressed reluctance to reverse his decision a second time and suggested it be brought to move review:("I suppose you are right. But, at this point, I've already revised my closing once. I don't really want to do it again. If it is a concern perhaps it can be taken to MR?" (diff)).

The question at hand is precisely the weight to be given in RMs to large opposition to moving long-standing article titles.

The controversially recently-changed NCROY may be a guideline, but WP:IAR is also policy. And opponents were bringing up considerations (e.g. ambiguity, helpfulness, etc.) which are also Wikipedia goals and policies. Are they just wasting their breath?

If RMs are to mean anything, if there is any reason to participate in one, it is the assumption that community feedback is relevant, and won't be simply ignored. A chapter-and-verse quote in some obscure guideline does not and should not trump vigorous and large opposition by the community to a move of a long-stable page. That would essentially mean all effort should therefore be placed on changing guidelines, and no effort expended on case-by-case RMs. Walrasiad (talk)

More misinformation. I, Surtsicna, was not the original proposer of the move. That was Векочел. Surtsicna (talk) 11:59, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I stand corrected. It is easy to mix up you two mass-movers. Walrasiad (talk) 12:14, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

It's not just us two either. But obviously it suits you to mix up facts. Surtsicna (talk) 12:34, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

The related-RfC decision at WP:NCROY is the determining factor, going forward. GoodDay (talk) 17:43, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

The recent change was carried narrowly and controversially against a long-standing 20-year-consensus. I was not aware of the RFC, otherwise I would have participated in it. The vast majority of the Wikipedia community did not participate in it. Which is why feedback from RMs is important to actually gather wider community opinion than just the handful who participated in an obscure RFC. That they somehow managed to ram through a change in a guideline should not be diktat that cancels out all community opinion in an RM. Walrasiad (talk)

The RfC at WP:NCROY lasted two months and involved dozens of editors. The closing editor, Siroxo, found "a strong consensus" for the change. You not liking the outcome does not make it controversial. Surtsicna (talk) 11:59, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

And the "strong consensus" on this page was not to move. Walrasiad (talk) 12:14, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Evidently not, or else you would not be here now. Surtsicna (talk) 12:34, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

• Closer here. Just wanted to chime in and confirm that what Surtsicna says above in green is indeed my words and that I do stand by them. That said, I wanted to comment that I have no personal opinion on this (whether the country name should be included or not) and in closing the RM I was merely trying my best to follow the procedures at WP:RMCI. I do welcome this MR, though, as it will be a good learning experience to see if indeed my understanding of WP:RMCI is correct. For the benefit of the RM, I will walk through my decision-making process: Originally, I closed as "no consensus", because it appeared from the comments that Opposers were calling out WP:NCROY while supporters were calling out WP:SOVEREIGN. So since both sides were calling out guidelines and polices, and the discussion had gotten stale, I closed as no consensus. I must confess that at this point I did not actually read any of the guidelines/policies anyone had linked to (which is perhaps my largest mistake in this series of events). After being asked for a more detailed explanation by Surtsicna, I realized that WP:SOVEREIGN and WP:NCROY actually pointed to the same place! And reading it, it appeared that it was being correctly invoked by the side of the supporters rather than the opposers. I accordingly revised my position to Moved based on this. Bensci54 (talk) 19:02, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse I don’t like this change, but it is the consensus of the community, and no argument was presented by those opposing the move as to why this article should be an exception from the broader guidelines - to not move this article would be a WP:LOCALCON violation. BilledMammal (talk) 20:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn (involved). Guidelines like NCROY reflect consensus, they do not dictate it. If it was the other way around, then we would never have moved any articles to the "shorter" versions while the old policy predominated, and yet they were at times (which was, to be clear, fine, and I'd even support it - stuff like Queen Victoria). Titles aren't like copyright infringement where 1 person being "right" beats 100 people being "wrong", they are much more a matter of sheer consensus with wide discretion for variance for specific articles. Closes like this essentially say that there's no room for variation within a guideline which is not how Wikipedia treats the issue of article titles. (This is not to say that LOCALCONSENSUSs can't exist and be properly discarded by the closer, but anyone paying attention to RM would know that this is not a topic with just a few zealots trying to do something non-standard.)
  • Also, if we're nitpicking, I think it's absolutely inarguable that the consensus at the discussion was not to move, re the above argument. I don't see how you could come to any other opinion. It is a valid opinion that this consensus should be set aside because the policy page says otherwise (although I highly disagree with it, especially for a recently changed guideline), but let's not say that the discussion favored a move when it obviously didn't.
  • As a side note, if this kind of imposition is really insisted on that the guideline page always wins and even a large number of good faith, long-term Wikipedians with differing opinions don't matter, this basically drains power from RM discussions and moves it to the policy pages. Which means that there should probably be an NCROY RFC round 2 sooner rather than later, which isn't great because arguing over the same topics is inefficient, but that would be the only option remaining. SnowFire (talk) 06:51, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

No, nobody says that guideline or policy always wins or that your input does not matter. If it were so, RMs would not exist. But you cannot expect a drive-by vote such as "per others - this is potentially ambiguous" to be given nearly as much weight as references to a project-wide consensus, especially when you decline to explain (upon request by me) what "potentially ambiguous" means and who the other Ferdinand VI might have been. Surtsicna (talk) 15:42, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

• Overturn both Ferdinand VI & Ferdinand VII pages. It's quite worrisome, when such a small (3) minority succeeds in getting a page re-named, against the opposition of a large (8) majority & please don't mention WP:VOTE. GoodDay (talk) 07:19, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse - what a textbook example of a great Wikipedia close, assessing WP:CONSENSUS not according to how people voted, but by actually considering which votes followed policy and which didn't. In this case, both WP:NCROY and also more general policies such as WP:CONCISE, WP:CONSISTENCY and WP:COMMONNAME favour the proposed name, so the closer was entirely correct to move as proposed, something which even some opposers grudgingly accepted.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:06, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

  Nothing could be more contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia than the idea that votes should follow policy and that those that don't should be disregarded as if nobody has a right to disagree with guidelines or argue against their application. Srnec (talk) 21:20, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

When Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom was moved to Elizabeth II back in 2010, that move was against what NCROY then stipulated. And just like in this case, a majority argued against what the NCROY guideline said. But the closer, Sandstein, noted that "since Wikipedia is not a democracy, consensus is not established by numbers alone, but also by strength of argument". So they went and evaluated the strength of arguments and found that those opposing the application of the guideline had stronger arguments. That is to say that, yes, we do have a right to argue against the application of a guideline, but in that case we also have the obligation to present convincing reasons why the guideline should not be applied. The opposing side failed to do that here. Surtsicna (talk) 00:22, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse (uninvolved). So far as I can tell, none of the opposes gave any reason to make an exception to the new WP:SOVEREIGN guideline; they just gave reasons to disagree with the new guideline. So while guidelines can have exceptions, none was indicated here. (I do prefer for the local consensus to be brought into line with community consensus through discussion, but there doesn't seem to be anything new to add, and two weeks is long enough for me.) SilverLocust 💬 11:59, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

But which community is "local"? This page has been stable for 20 years - never proposed to move. That is also an indicator of wider community consensus. The RfC slipped through on a 12-8 vote. This one was opposed on 8-3, that's a bigger margin. It seems to me anomalous that a small group can engineer and overturn a long-term wider community consensus by ramming through a change in an obscure guideline page, that affects a massive amount of pages, destabilizing Wikipedia and overriding long-standing community consensus. And the wider community's opinion is to be treated as irrelevant? Because it was not expressed in the right location and right time? Walrasiad (talk) 12:34, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

The RfC involved two dozen editors over two months on the talk page of a guideline followed by hundreds of editors (and which you did not use to denigrate when it said what you liked). The closer did not refer to any vote count margin when closing (because they are not supposed to). You are very much allowed to argue that the guideline should not be applied during RMs but either you will learn to present arguments or you will continue to waste everyone's time arguing that votes matter more. Merely saying "loads of Ferdinands out there", as if anyone proposed moving the article to merely Ferdinand, is not going to cut it anymore. Surtsicna (talk) 15:27, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Twice as many watchers for Edward I of England and that month-long RM failed with 30 participants (by my count). Walrasiad did not !vote there. Srnec (talk) 21:20, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, by a very narrow margin, with "no consensus to move"; and I did not run to Move review to dispute that, despite having been urged by Keivan.f, because I did not wish to beat a dead horse. But since it appears that we will be doing exactly that with these things, I have no reason not to jump on that bandwagon. Surtsicna (talk) 23:20, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse. < uninvolved > Yet another tough call welcome at this closure review. Must still agree that this close is in accord with WP:RMCI. Seems reasonable to me as RM closures go. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 21:36, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse. < uninvolved; had no input in the original discussion > People tend to forget that RMs are not voting contests. It doesn't matter whether it was a close margin or not; as long as the opposing arguments have no roots in our policies and guidelines they are moot. If people have a problem with WP:NCROY or any other guideline/policy they should seek to alter them via seeking consensus. Reviewing a move that was clearly based on our existing guidelines simply because the result was not what you favored amounts to beating a dead horse. Keivan.f^Talk 23:32, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
• Comment. I think opposers have reasonably questioned the shelf-life and depth of support for the current NCROY rule. On paper I know this is an unusual thing to say about a recent RfC result (where I myself voted yes). But SnowFire is right that consensus can flow both directions. Trying to make the guideline reflect actual practice was one of the core pillars supporting the RfC itself. Also, for whatever reason (nothing improper on anyone's part), many of the routinely pro-"of country" voters on the ground weren't voters at the RfC. I welcome for those editors to be heard. I especially encourage editors to see if there is some middle ground, whose standards/factors for line-drawing are so far undetermined, that would go neither as far as the current NCROY rule nor the previous NCROY rule. Otherwise if someone just makes a straight do-over RfC I'm going to regret even suggesting anything. (Disclosure: not a participant in this RM, but participated in related past discussions such as the RfC.) Adumbrativus (talk) 07:42, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn, clear consensus to keep the country in the title, per WP:RECOGNIZABLE. I think it is clear the recent changes at WP:NCROY don't have a very strong consensus (I wasn't aware of the RfC and wouldn't have supported it, and I am probably not the only one). Vpab15 (talk) 09:19, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:RECOGNIZABLE says that titles should be such that readers who are familiar with the subject can recognize them. The opposers did not explain how people familiar with Ferdinand VI might not recognize that the article titled Ferdinand VI is about Ferdinand VI. If you disagree with the naming conventions, feel free to start an RfC to reverse November's strong consensus. Surtsicna (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I am very familiar with Spanish monarchs, but I have no idea if there is a Holy Roman Emperor with the name Ferdinand VI. According to King Ferdinand, there isn't one, but I didn't know that beforehand, so I couldn't possibly know if Ferdinand VI would direct me to a disambiguation page or not. It is absurd to expect readers to know all the monarchs of all the countries, which what you are implying. Vpab15 (talk) 17:53, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

But you do not need to know if there is an emperor of the same name. You just need to know who Ferdinand VI is for that title to be recognizable. That is what WP:RECOGNIZABILITY says. Article titles are not supposed to disambiguate the subject from topics that do not exist, nor are they supposed to define the subject; that is why we do not have titles such as Feroz Khan Noon (prime minister of Pakistan) despite it being unlikely that readers know all the prime ministers of all the countries. Surtsicna (talk) 18:04, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Monarch titles are different from other articles. It seems we now have a naming convention for monarchs in which the country may or may not be included in the title based on something totally unrelated to the topic itself. What kind of naming convention is that? Having the country makes the title more recognizable, whether you are familiar with the topic or not, and that is not something that can be argued against in good faith. Vpab15 (talk) 18:23, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

No reason to treat biographies of monarchs treated differently has been presented either in this move request or in the RfC. Whether the country is included depends on whether it needs to be included for disambiguation purposes, just like in any other articles (e.g. John Smith (Victoria politician) but Frank Selleck, not Frank Selleck (Victoria politician)). And this is not the place have this discussion. Surtsicna (talk) 19:01, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Saint Francis University (Pennsylvania) (closed)

Saint Francis University (Pennsylvania) – Procedural close. The correct procedure when a page move is challenged is usually to revert the move. Whether or not the page move is reverted, a requested move discussion should be started on the article's talk page. Move review is for formal RM discussion closures that are brought here to be reviewed. There is no closure here to review. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 04:03, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Saint Francis University (Pennsylvania) (talk) I move this page from Saint Francis University to current title but Naraht rejected the page move based on importance. His evidence is "Given the difference in the number of Links in mainspace to Saint Francis University and Saint Francis University (Pennsylvania) (almost 500) vs. the number to Caritas Institute of Higher Education (about 110). The one in Pennsylvania *is* the Primary topic. As such it should remain at Saint Francis University and once the Caritas Institute gets renamed it should get a disambiguation term like Saint Francis University (Hong Kong)." (copied from User talk:Leeyc0). I have no rejection, but the page has extra edit histories (by another user) after the move (therefore cannot be undone). Therefore I request a review and ask for community consensus, and ask for administrator to revert the move if the consensus is keep this page at "Saint Francis University". --Leeyc0 (Talk) 23:23, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Cosimo III de' Medici, Grand Duke of Tuscany

Cosimo III de' Medici, Grand Duke of Tuscany (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

This was a multi-page move, proposing to remove the term "Grand Duke of Tuscany" and other peer titles from a series of articles (e.g. move "Cosimo III de' Medici, Grand Duke of Tuscany" to simply "Cosimo III de' Medici", etc.) Five editors objected, some strongly (including myself). Four supported, one semi-supported. The closer nonetheless claimed he found "a consensus to move". Naturally, given the majority against it, this surprises me.

I am perplexed how this "consensus to move" was discovered. I asked the closer User:EggRoll97, for clarification and he specifically said he relied on two policies. He said the policy cited in against the move (WP:NCPEER) only applied to British dukes, and not Italian dukes. But this is clearly contradicted in the policy page ("Treat other European nobility like British nobility above, adapting for local circumstances; thus Philippe II, Duke of Orléans."). And he also cited also the recently-changed WP:SOVEREIGN policy, on the belief these dukes were sovereign (these dukes are not sovereign, but vassals of the Holy Roman Empire, and moreover some of the people moved are not grand dukes at all). It seems to me the closer allowed himself to be misled by inaccurate and misleading statements of those policies in the discussion.

I presented this to the closer, but he insisted he somehow found a "consensus to move" regardless. Frankly this seems like a WP:SUPERVOTE, and I would like the move reviewed.

Given that the move has contested in majority, and vigorously so, it would have meant at the very least "no consensus", and by RM criteria would have left the pages where they are (i.e. where they have been stable for the past 15 years.) Walrasiad (talk) 08:13, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

• Two things to note here. Firstly, WP:NCPEER is not a policy. It is a guideline. (More specifically, it is an obscure guideline crafted by two guys 15 years ago without community input.) Secondly, move discussions are not polls in which votes are counted. Each of those in favor of the moves cited policy: OP (I) cited WP:PRECISE, then one cited WP:CONCISE, another WP:COMMONNAME, yet another WP:Article titles in general, and WP:CONCISE again. Such input weighs more than "strongly oppose" on the basis of the said obscure guideline or "strongly oppose" with no explanation at all. See WP:RMNOMIN for information on how consensus in move discussions is determined. Lastly, if the above stated understanding of the cited guideline is correct, then the guideline contravenes policy and needs to be amended. That will be discussed next. Surtsicna (talk) 10:49, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

To clarify: the commentator above (User:Surtsicna) is the the editor who proposed the multi-page move. Walrasiad (talk) 11:24, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I noted that. Surtsicna (talk) 11:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

It is customary to note in move reviews if you're involved or not. Walrasiad (talk) 11:31, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and I did note it. Surtsicna (talk) 11:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Where? I am afraid I don't see self-identification in your comment above. It helps other commentators here to know who is and who is not involved. Walrasiad (talk) 11:46, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Read more carefully then. I identified myself as OP. Surtsicna (talk) 12:03, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Hah :>) in all fairness I also did a double take. At first glance I read your "(I)" as a one. T'were me, I'd have probably used "(myself)" oslt. It's all good. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 20:37, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

@Surtsicna: If you want to trash NCPEER be my guest, but you rely heavily on the NCROY guideline in these RMs. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Srnec (talk) 01:18, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I rely on the part of NCROY that is the result of community consensus, reached after the recent two-month-long RfC discussion, and specifically intended to be in line with the article titling policy. It is not the same sauce as something that was written 15 years ago without community input or regard for the article titling policy. Surtsicna (talk) 01:27, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

• Comment You haven't placed a notice on the talk page about the move review as is required by step 4, nor did you add the template to my talk page per step 3 to notify me that you had indeed gone ahead with the move review. No harm, no foul, though. I've added the notification above the closed RM and you may consider me notified for the purposes of this discussion. As for my response as the closer, I stand by my comments made on my talk page, and I believe I have remained in compliance with the closing instructions. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 22:07, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn (involved). NCPEER is the more relevant guideline than SOVEREIGN, although I don't particularly like either. (My !vote in the RM was based on neither.) Srnec (talk) 01:18, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
• Comment - The current status of WP:NCROY is the deciding factor & there's nothing can be done to change that. Regrettably, it's created inconsistency across multiple monarch bio pages. GoodDay (talk) 17:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

These Tuscan dukes are not sovereigns. WP:NCPEER is the guideline here. Walrasiad (talk) 02:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

• Overturn - now that I'm aware of WP:NCPEER. GoodDay (talk) 07:21, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:NCPEER was never supposed to apply to rulers but to peers. WP:SOVEREIGN applies. Also, NCPEER has no community legitimacy, whereas WP:SOVEREIGN has "strong consensus" according to the recent RfC. Surtsicna (talk) 14:43, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

• Comment (uninvolved). Grand duke is a monarchical title. That's why it's listed within WP:SOVEREIGN. The grand duke was the sovereign of the Grand Duchy of Tuscany. It doesn't matter whether a monarch was called a "king", "prince", "doge", or "grand duke". If you're above everyone else in your state, you aren't a peer. Some editors here may be confusing a grand duke with, say, a British duke. SilverLocust 💬 20:40, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse. < uninvolved > Reasonable closure and in accord with WP:RMCI, though perhaps a tough call. As for NCPEER, 15 years is adequate time to become a full community consensus; however, would agree that in this case SOVEREIGN rules – ahem. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 21:31, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: The individual who brought this to MR asserted that they are not sovereign because at this point in history, Tuscany was nominally a fief of the Holy Roman Empire. I do think this was at best only a nominal assertion, though. Looking at the Holy Roman Empire page, it appears that Italian territories start being left off of maps of the HRE by the 16th century. Bensci54 (talk) 05:46, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

The Duchy of Tuscany was de jure a vassal of the Holy Roman Empire, de facto a vassal of Spain. In either case, not sovereign.

Holy Roman Emperor was sovereign over Tuscany, by definition - judicial cases could be appealed up to Emperor, dukes were invested imperial vicariates (and could be revoked), they owed taxes and troops to the Emperor through to the end. It was more sovereign over Tuscany than the United States is sovereign over Puerto Rico. Walrasiad (talk) 05:52, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

They very fact we are talking about retaining family names to disambiguate is a pretty good indication we are not talking about European sovereigns. After all, why not go the whole way to Cosimo III like in the other RMs? Srnec (talk) 17:08, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Sovereigns can have family names. Even some modern monarchs do. Surtsicna (talk) 17:10, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

This is addressed specifically at WP:SOVEREIGN #8, which indicates "No family or middle names, except where English speakers normally use them. The exception holds, for example, for Italian Renaissance dynasts." This is an Italian renaissance dynast, so per the example listed in the guideline, the family name should remain as an exception to the rule.

Also as I think more about this, I am beginning to become uncertain that "top-level" sovereignty is what WP:SOVEREIGN is really concerned with. I think the difference between the applicability of WP:SOVEREIGN and WP:NCPEER is whether they were an actual ruler, as opposed to a noble in title only as part of peerage. It doesn't matter if they had an overlord; I think WP:SOVEREIGN should apply even for rulers of sub-realms. That's how the guideline comes across to me, anyway. Bensci54 (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, Bensci54; WP:SOVEREIGN lists, under point #5, "European monarchs whose rank is below that of king (e.g., grand dukes, electors, dukes, princes)" and names Maximilian I, Elector of Bavaria as an example of an ambiguously named ruler. Maximilian was a contemporary of Cosimo and, like him, a ruler within the Holy Roman Empire. That is to say, rulers were always intended to be covered by WP:SOVEREIGN. Surtsicna (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)