Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Titles of European monarchs

Please consider joining the feedback request service.

An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists:

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

In the absence of a need to disambiguate, how should we title the articles of European imperial and royal monarchs?

Louis XVI^[a]
King Louis XVI^[b]
Louis XVI of France^[c]
King Louis XVI of France^[d]
Louis XVI, King of France^[e]
Louis XVI (king of France)^[f]
Louis XVI (France)^[g]
Louis XVI, king of France^[h]
Use the common name; do not apply a consistent style

If you support multiple options, please rank your preferences to assist the closer in identifying consensus. 22:06, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Clarifications:

Absence of a need to disambiguate includes articles where the monarch is the primary topic for that name.

The context for this discussion includes:

A November 2023 RfC consensus instructing editors to disambiguate only if disambiguation is required.

A May 2023 ArbCom case request that raised concerns about disruption in the topic area. This case lists a number of recent requested moves and move reviews.

A village pump discussion drafting this RfC.

Survey

Option 3 - For consistency & identity, we must restore the previous style. GoodDay (talk) 22:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 Conditional on no other monarchs having the same regnal name (i.e. same name and number). In the case of monarchs with identical regnal styles (i.e. Charles III) then Option 3. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 - because it's pretty much the default for non-European monarchs, with some exceptions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Killuminator (talk • contribs) 22:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 or 9 - if there's no need to disambiguate, just use the regnal name per WP:COMMONNAME. "of [XYZ]" is inherently a disambiguator, which is redundant if there's nothing to do so from. The Kip ^(contribs) 22:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't initially clear that this also covers cases like Charles III, where there's multiple royals with the name but a clear primary topic. In that case, I still support my original vote. The Kip ^(contribs) 23:06, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@The Kip: Did you vote twice? Which of the two is supposed to count? Renerpho (talk) 23:19, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to update comment, basically saying I still support my original vote. The Kip ^(contribs) 23:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest to turn the second vote into a comment then, to avoid confusion. People may count votes without looking at the user names. Renerpho (talk) 23:22, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@The Kip: Alternatively, ~~strike~~ the first one. Renerpho (talk) 23:23, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh jeez, didn't realize there was an actual second vote. Deleted the first one, my bad. The Kip ^(contribs) 23:25, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem :) Renerpho (talk) 23:26, 22 June 2024 (UTC) And yes, I use the word "vote" colloquially here. I am aware that this is a survey, not a ballot. Renerpho (talk) 23:43, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3, or alternatively Option 5, and I'd include a disambiguation page showing all the monarchs with the same regnal name. Thanks for the notification, I really think that "assuming that a king is more important than the others" (as it often happens with option 1) doesn't make any sense and it makes finding "the right king" difficult for people who are not familiar with Wikipedia. Systematizing it in this way will also prevent disputes on what's a "Common Name" exactly. --MaeseLeon (talk) 22:54, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd include a disambiguation page showing all the monarchs with the same regnal name

The RfC posits In the absence of a need to disambiguate, you may want to re-qualify your vote. The Kip ^(contribs) 22:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. There was a kinda bitter dispute precisely in the article about Charles III on what exactly is a WP:COMMONNAME. I think that systematizing all regnal names under an unified format will help prevent this in the future. --MaeseLeon (talk) 23:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@The Kip: The question has been clarified. I don't see how "Absence of a need to disambiguate includes articles where the monarch is the primary topic for that name" is supposed to be enforced. Renerpho (talk) 23:11, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 5 - I have come to realize that Name of Country does not fully define the scope of sovereigns per WP:PRECISE. Furthermore, Name, King/Queen/Emperor/Empress of Country would be consistent on how grand dukes and lesser sovereigns are titled, per #5 of WP:SOVEREIGN. (Since I have said a lot on this matter, I will not comment further unless pinged). AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 22:52, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 Renerpho (talk) 22:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Renerpho please give an explanation of why option 3 would be preferable. Mach61 23:00, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot. Precision is the main reason. I don't think Option 5 is necessary. Renerpho (talk) 23:04, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The question whether this includes cases where one is considered "the most prominent" has been clarified (the answer is yes). I stand by my vote, chiefly per the problem stated by MaeseLeon. Trying to determine which monarch/country is the primary one is a recipe for drama. Even if one may satisfy the requirements at COMMONNAME or other WP:CRITERIA on paper, I think it's unwise to try. Doing it by the rules of WP:Article titles hasn't worked, so it's time to look past that. Trying to find a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC may be the core of the problem. Renerpho (talk) 23:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 if one is the most prominent (for example, George III or Charles III) per the many discussions we've had on this that people won't give up on trying to overrule.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:58, 22 June 2024 (UTC)I've restated my vote below.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:19, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discussions about prominence are irrelevant here - the RfC inherently notes In the absence of a need to disambiguate. The Kip ^(contribs) 23:00, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does "absence of a need to disambiguate" include cases where one is clearly the most prominent? Renerpho (talk) 23:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes; I will update the question to clarify. BilledMammal (talk) 23:03, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At least to me, it implies only those cases where there's one monarch with the name. The Kip ^(contribs) 23:03, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would understand it like that, too, but given the nature of the debate, I think it doesn't hurt to be absolutely clear about it. Renerpho (talk) 23:05, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 9 was added subsequent to my vote. I would say I would support whichever of Options 1 and 9 upholds the status quo, WP:COMMONNAME, and the outcome of the repeated discussions such as the several RMs on Charles III. Wehwalt (talk) 01:06, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 - Option 1 if there's a clear main topic, otherwise Option 3 or 7 (I imagine there are edge cases where the 'of' in option 3 would cause some issues, like the Kings IN Prussia, which could be avoided by the brackets, also more in line with usual name disambiguations like Will Smith (comedian). All of this granted there is no more well known common name without a regnal number like Alexander the Great instead of Alexander the III. (For clarity, I consider Charles III to be the main topic for his name in common usage by the average person; living or particularly well remembered monarchs should get priority). — jonas (talk) 23:02, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 - Option 1 if there's a main topic. In other cases I would choose 3. History6042 (talk) 23:05, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Use the common name, whichever that is. There is no need to impose consistency if there is none in the real world. Thryduulf (talk) 23:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added that to the RfC as Option 9 BilledMammal (talk) 23:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3 or 7: Both of these provide enough disambiguation. 1 neutral. No to the rest per MOS:HONORIFICS. We do not need to include honorifics except maybe in the introduction of an article, having honorifics makes the title harder to search. Awesome Aasim 23:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 when there is no other monarch with the same name and suffix, or if there is one who is an obvious WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, such as Charles III. When there are multiple monarchs with the same name and none are a primary topic, then use option 3 to differentiate. Frank Anchor 23:11, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Option 1~~ if there is no need to disambiguate, or there is an obvious primary subject. Option 3 if there isn't. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 9 was added while I was writing, so 9 > 1. I had kind of assume the common name issue was resolved before this question, as this should follow basic policy. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:18, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 clearest and contains all the essential information. --Marbe166 (talk) 23:17, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"In the absence of a need to disambiguate", obviously option 1, since any other option is pre-emptive or over-disambiguation for no reason, and that is something we do not do, for any topic. There is nothing magically special about the category of nobility biographies. In the case that disambiguation is required (e.g. as with "Charles II"), then use option 3, to be consistent with all other such title disambiguations (there's also nothing magically special about Europe). In particular, the versions with the title added and the versions with an injected comma fail WP:CONCISE in adding text that is not necessary. The parenthesis (round brackets) versions fail WP:NATURALDIS, by which principle we automatically prefer a natural-English expression over parenthetic disambiguation. PS: option 5 also arguably fails MOS:BIO; a title is slated to only be capitalized when directly juxtaposed with a person's name, not when separated by any other text (and injected punctuation is not an enumerated exception). There has been recurrent but unresolved debate about whether there should be such an exception. As a technicality, I've added option 8 to reflect this, but it also should be rejected because of the extraneous comma and title. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:18, 22 June 2024 (UTC); revised 23:25, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would support 1. 2 and 4 violate MOS:HON and there doesn’t appear to be any other notable figure named Louis XVI. Therefore WP:PRIMARYTOPIC would apply. SKAG123 (talk) 23:19, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SKAG123: Charles III is also covered by this RfC, per the clarification. Compare Charles III (disambiguation) for other notable figures with that name. Renerpho (talk) 23:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2 > 4 > 5 > 3 > 8: The most important thing to note about a European monarch is that they are a monarch. So I'd oppose any styling that doesn't include the title. 6 and 7 look like disambiguation names and shouldn't be used if there's no need to disambiguate, but "King" is just part of the common name of Louis XVI. Most times he's referred to, he's not called just "Louis XVI". Instead he's called "King Louis XVI" because it's very relevant that he's a king. Between styles that include "King" I prefer shorter ones since I think in general in the absence of need to disambiguate there's no particular reason to include domain, but I also don't have strong feelings against it. I just think it's unnecessary. Loki (talk) 23:26, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Option 1 per WP:CONCISE, WP:COMMONNAME and all the other well argued reason at the last RFC. If we don't need to add a disambiguater, we shouldn't. It isn't the job of a title to be a Short description of what's in the article. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 23:27, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also support Option 9 as it seems the most inline with the normal naming policies. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 23:31, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 9 per "there's no reason to make an exception here", but if there needs to be a guideline, then option 1 per conciseness. If there's no need to disambiguate, then there shouldn't be a disambiguator. And, if there is a need to disambiguate, options 3 or 5 make the most sense and fit WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NATURAL better than the others. Strong oppose 2 and 4 per MOS:HON. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:42, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 or 9: As WP:Article titles indicates with the Energy example in the WP:PRECISION section, WP:CONCISE and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC has priority over WP:PRECISION. Even for cases where disambiguation comes up like Charles III, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC should still apply. StellarHalo (talk) 23:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3, always title monarchs as "Name Number of Country" when first mentioned for clarity and consistency. Subsequent mentions can use "Name Number" or just "Name". JIP | Talk 00:04, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 9. WP:COMMONNAME comes first. Wikipedia editors should not invent a style that doesn’t exist and force application everywhere. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:17, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I vote for Option 1 - I notice that when I look up a regnal name on Wikipedia, I am provided with additional information. For instance looking up Charles III, result: Charles III, King of the United Kingdom since 2022. I vote for Option 5 for the spouse of the monarch. ProfessorKaiFlai (talk) 00:08, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 9 I do not see any reason why monarchs should be exempt from one of the sites most basic rules. COMMONNAME reigns.★Trekker (talk) 00:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 Mentioning the name and the ordinal, and which country he/she ruled. I don't think mentioning the specific title of "emperor", "king", "duke", etc. is important, except in cases where disambiguation is needed. Dimadick (talk) 00:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 9 and 1. WP:COMMONNAME works just as well here as it does anywhere. In the absence of a need to disambiguate, use the shortest article title possible which clearly delineates the subject, and leave off any unnecessary titles, countries, and so on. Of course if necessary for disambiguation, use as needed, but no more than needed to make the article title unambiguous. Option 1 as well since there may be multiple names the individual is commonly known by; in such a case, use the shortest one with the least tacked on. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Options 9 and 1. Really, it's just a question of WP:COMMONNAME. The current King of England isn't referred to as "Charles III of the United Kingdom and a bunch of Commonwealths" or whatever... he's just Charles III, and sources overwhelmingly call him that. I think the UK royalty is the one most people think about, even though there are other royal families, because it's the main such family in the English-speaking world, and thus why COMMONNAME will overwhelmingly favor UK monarchs to have the "just the name and number" title. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 00:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 and 9. I prefer the shortest one. However, WP:COMMONNAME should be used in some cases, especially if a monarch with that name is more well known than the others. MarioJump83 (talk) 00:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Top preference for Options 1 or 3. Option 1 is certainly the most WP:CONCISE option, and is sure to avoid WP:OVERPRECISION; conversely, the appeal of Option 3 is that this is an area where I feel like a bit of overprecision can actually be helpful to readers without sacrificing WP:NATURALness (see WP:USPLACE as a similar case). Another potential benefit for Option 3 is that it makes it easy to be WP:CONSISTENT with monarchs who do need to be disambiguated. Secondary preference for Options 9 or 5. Option 9 is straightforward and I agree with the logic behind it, but I don't think it will adequately resolve the underlying debate unless it's paired with another option that serves as the "baseline" recommendation. As for Option 5: I think including the specific title is generally unnecessary, but if we do choose to include it, I think 5 is the option that best retains its naturalness across different titles (e.g. Grand Dukes and such). Oppose 2, 4, 6, 7, 8. (I'm happy to provide explanations for my opposes if desired, but will hold off for now to avoid making this lengthy !vote any longer.) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 01:41, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
9 as guide, and then if there isn't a common name 1 and the ones without the title seem more in the spirit of MOS:PEOPLETITLES, although obviously these are somewhat very defining titles. If this question evolves into how to disambiguate, then feel free to copy this over and put me down for 3 as concise and clear. CMD (talk) 01:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1. Preemptive disambiguation should be avoided. This option also is supported by WP:CONCISE and even WP:PRECISE. The example the latter gives is apt here: "Usually, titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that. For instance, Saint Teresa of Calcutta is too precise, as Mother Teresa is precise enough to indicate exactly the same topic." Of course, there may be cases where a longer title is COMMONNAME, in which we should defer to that. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 02:18, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 or 9(where applicable) - No need to complicate things. Disambiguation only necessary if multiple Louis XVIs are commonly known, regardless of whether they exist. Stanley Bannerman (talk) 02:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Which one covers "Name # of country"? GoodDay (talk) 22:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3; I've updated the question to try to make it clearer. BilledMammal (talk) 22:21, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, the pings... why? If roads editors did the same thing, they'd be blocked for canvassing even if they followed the same logic of people who previously were in a related discussion. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, they wouldn't, since the pings are to everyone involved in prior discussion regardless of the opinions they expressed, not pings of a specific subset based on their opinion. Please actually read WP:CANVASS before citing it. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:23, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that it's canvassing - virtually all editors from prior discussions were notified, without regard for how they voted. It'd be canvassing if only those who voted in a certain way were. The Kip ^(contribs) 23:23, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it isn't canvassing, then why is {{NOTAVOTE}} in the editnotice? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's a survey, not a !vote? Renerpho (talk) 23:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because this RfC is being held on a subpage of Wikipedia:Requests for comment, and that edit notice is added to all subpages of Wikipedia:Requests for comment. BilledMammal (talk) 23:44, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. Carry on, then. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 00:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This many pings is pretty clearly not WP:CANVASSING. It'd be impossible to make this many partisan notifications. (And if you somehow managed to, that would suggest to me that the position you're notifying for is so popular that not notifying people would be a sort of reverse canvassing.) Loki (talk) 23:28, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) In addition to what SmcCandlish and The Kip said, a major part of this dispute is editors arguing that the consensus to switch from #3 to #1 doesn't reflect the consensus of the broader community, pointing to the numerical majorities at various requested moves. I proposed we address this concern by holding a broadly advertised RfC, notifying every editor involved in this dispute; the proposal was not objected to.

It also helps that I don't really have an opinion on this dispute; it's hard to canvass without knowing which side of the dispute you want to bolster. BilledMammal (talk) 23:31, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics) I'm confused why this is a question. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how "Absence of a need to disambiguate includes articles where the monarch is the primary topic for that name" is supposed to be enforced. I think arguing whether one monarch/country is the primary one is a recipe for drama, and it clearly hasn't worked in the past. The Nov.'23 RfC mainly looked at WP:CRITERIA, and I wonder if that's wise. While those usually help to guide consensus, that doesn't seem to be the case here, so maybe we shouldn't try. Renerpho (talk) 23:37, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sympathetic to people who are just voting option 9, but I don't want that to result in every RM featuring an argument over whether the format proposed in option 1 or option 3 is more common, as my experience is that in many cases, they are equally common with many sources using both. A result of option 9 only will probably perpetuate the chaos rather than clarify anything. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 02:04, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notifications

Jump to:

Top

Survey

Discussion

Notifying all editors who took part in discussions within the past year on this topic. For this, I used the list of discussions provided at the ARBCOM request. BilledMammal (talk) 22:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@123957a, 162 etc., A.D.Hope, AKTC3, ARandomName123, Aaron Liu, ActivelyDisinterested, Ad Orientem, Adam Cuerden, Adumbrativus, Aintabli, AirshipJungleman29, AjaxSmack, Alanscottwalker, AlbusWulfricDumbledore, Alpha3031, Amakuru, Anameofmyveryown, Andejons, Andrew Davidson, AndrewPeterT, Aoi, Aoidh, AusLondonder, Awesome Aasim, Azarctic, BB-PB, BD2412, Bakir123, Baqotun0023, Barkeep49, Bazonka, Bcorr, Bensci54, Bermicourt, BillClinternet, Billreid, Bilorv, Born2cycle, Bradv, Brightgalrs, C.Fred, CIN I&II, Cabayi, Cakelot1, CapnZapp, Carolina2k22, Celia Homeford, Certes, and Chaotic Enby: BilledMammal (talk) 22:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if I pinged this group twice; there were server issues when I was making these edits and it was unclear whether the notifications went through. BilledMammal (talk) 22:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will note, as this might very well end up at ArbCom again and I can just hear the howls about INVOLVED, that I only partook in the case request and am surprised that BilledMammal decided to ping all the arbs from that discussion. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:53, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To hopefully help address any howls about INVOLVED, I did not limit my notifications to editors I consider INVOLVED and many are not.

I did consider removing the arbitrators, along with anyone else who only participated in the dispute in an administrative capacity (closers etc), but I decided it was better to ping everyone and let the editors decide for themselves whether to participate. BilledMammal (talk) 00:04, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]