Talk:Princess Eugénie of Sweden

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus in this discussion, but the stable title of the article which was changed here on January 27 without discussion has been restored. Moving that title will require new consensus. (non-admin closure) –Ammarpad (talk) 02:00, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Eugénie of Sweden → Princess Eugénie of Sweden and Norway – For her entire life, Sweden was in personal union with Norway. As such, she held the title of Princess of Norway for the entirety of her life. 2601:241:300:C930:841C:1F52:9AB4:14BE (talk) 21:32, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Do you have any reliable source that mentions her as such? First of all her father is primarily remembered as a Swedish king as I stated before. On the other hand, Louise of Sweden, Princess Margaretha of Sweden, and Princess Märtha of Sweden were also Norwegian princesses (although it was for a short period of time) but they were prominently members of the Swedish royal house, and it is reflected in the titles of their articles. By the way, a single Google Books search gives around 5,000 results for "Princess Eugenie of Sweden" and around 2,500 for "Princess Eugenie of Sweden and Norway". Keivan.f^Talk 23:59, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as per previous section "Removal of Norway" and the fact the the Swedes themselves know best how she should be titled. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:14, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment With respect, Wikipedia is not a source for Wikipedia. Because her article is titled like that in the Swedish Wikipedia it doesn't mean that the English Wikipedia should go hand in hand with that. You are ignoring the fact that she is more commonly known as Princess Eugenie of Sweden which is reflected in the number of results in Google Books that you can already see above. Keivan.f^Talk 00:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That search probably does not include publications in Norwegian and Swedish. As for the Swedish article's title, I did not cite that as a reason to move this article back to the more appropriate title. For that, I cited the other obvious errors in motivation for the only opposing vote here so far. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:31, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. It doesn't include publications in Norwegian and Swedish, and it shouldn't. We should use the common name in English and see how she's mentioned in English sources. Keivan.f^Talk 16:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on article talk pages should normally be made without aiming at anyone else. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:53, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm writing this for all the editors: it's NOT wrong to address someone in a discussion, yet it's definitely wrong to attack them, and I've been long enough on Wikipedia to know what the policies are and I have a good understanding of English, there's no need to repeat the rules for me over and over again. Keivan.f^Talk 05:09, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keivan: (Sorry for adressing you but it is easier so you know I answer you). In one way you are right that enwp shall follow english common names. However I did like above on the other deletion discussion and looked at both the Swedish and Norwegian article to see how I best suis the names too. Here it is hard er. As mentioned the Swedish article says one thing (which gives support) While the nowp only is her name. Then it is harder. Then it should be most common name in English litterature. (Maybe a redirect from the other). Adville (talk) 18:20, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Adville, it is in fact so simple. Her common name in English sources has to be the title of this article. A good example of this would be Avicenna. He is known as Ibn Sina in Persian and Eastern sources but as his name in English sources has been recorded as Avicenna, that should be the title of his article. Keivan.f^Talk 05:09, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What I am asking is whether or not this particular princess is known to a large extent as a princess of Sweden and Norway (as the article title was before the recent undiscussed move), regardless of what language she is known in. That would include Swedish and Norwegian publications. I am not (not) suggesting that her name should be given in Swedish or Norwegian (Eugenia) in the article title. I also see no usefulness in comparing this particular case to any others from other countries and langages. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:56, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not get it here. She was a princess in both countries. Ok no doubt. Here we discuss the article name and you compared with svwp (see support vote above) just like I did with nowp (Same rules what to compare with), but when I did it it is not valid because we shall have the english spelling and so on... which was what I wrote in the end "most common in English litterature". What is then the problem with keeping it as it is now? Adville (talk) 18:41, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose -According to the above discussion. (forgot to sign) Adville (talk) 19:51, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose According to
  WP:NCROY, with monarchs we do not have a long list of all the countries they ruled over, just the main country, this could easily get unwieldy. I take it the same issues apply to princesses. PatGallacher (talk) 21:47, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Procedural comment. The page was moved without discussion to the current title on January 27, so a close of "no consensus" would revert to the stable title,
  WP:RM#TR rather than introducing the move discussion here.) Dekimasuよ! 01:38, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move (closed by page mover). feminist (talk) 14:58, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for all the reasons given further up here. "her father is primarily remembered as a Swedish king" is conjecture. "long list of all the countries" is a ridiculous exaggeration (that's never constructive). The other princesses are irrelevant. Google books searches do not include Norwegian literature. Guideline says "the most commonly associated state [Sweden and Norway are equal in this case]. It is often desirable to give the other states compensating prominence in the introduction of the article [not remove one country altogether from the article, as was done when the undiscussed move was snuck through on Jan. 27 upsetting the stable title since 2014]." --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:51, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Exept the things Keivan writes,and I agree with, I think we also shall look at what the other language have namned this article. The Swedish has both countries (moved there 2010) while Norwiegan wp has no country kn the title! (Don't know how to analyse that, but I think about google books used pro and anti in comments above). The rest of the countries with our letters have only Sweden or no country in the title. This makes it the mlst common name in wp to be with only Sweden. I would also ask this discussion to be about the title and not anything else (like "upsetting some stability), because we need to focus on the subject for the discussion and nothing else here. Adville (talk) 17:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It is not our job to give prominence to a state in an article's main title. She has been "commonly" known as a Swedish princess. The Google Books search must NOT include Norwegian literature. This is English Wikipedia, we should use the most appropriate name that has been used in English sources, not Norwegian, Swedish, German, etc. Keivan.f^Talk 22:29, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Searches need to be put in quotes to have a meaning. Try "Princess Eugenie of Sweden" and "Princess Eugenie of Sweden and Norway" to get more accurate results. These come up with 257 results for the first and 155 for the second. And almost none with the diacritic added. 205.208.20.233 (talk) 23:58, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I only get one google books hit for the longer title: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Xcy6AAAAIAAJ&q=%22Princess+Eugenie+of+Sweden+and+Norway%22 (which does have an accent). There are about two dozen for the shorter form, none for "Princess Eugenie of Norway" and one for "Princess Eugenie of Sweden-Norway": https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=2jpVAAAAYAAJ&q=%22Princess+Eugenie+of+Sweden-Norway%22. On that basis, and the basis of the naming convention, I support the move because Sweden is the most commonly associated state, plus the short form is sufficiently disambiguating and the common name. Of course, I do not think Norway should be removed altogether from the article. It should be included in the article text.
  Celia Homeford (talk) 11:32, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Support for the reasons I stated earlier. Sweden was clearly the dominant partner in the personal union of the two countries around that time, as anyone who knows a bit about Scandinavian history would know. The main point is that
  WP:NCROY states that with monarchs they go by the name of the main country they ruled over, it seems reasonable to expand this to princesses. This is a very good convention, for the obvious reason that without it we could end up with a lengthy string of titles for some monarchs, I don't know why SergeWoodzing describes this a ridiculous exaggeration. We might decide to draw the line somewhere (two countries? three?) but I envisage some complicated arguments about where we draw the line. We might have to consider re-naming a lot of monarchs e.g. Henry VIII of England and Ireland, Louis XIII of France and Navarre? PatGallacher (talk) 15:02, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support per
  NCROY. FactStraight (talk) 02:53, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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