Talk:Queen Sonja of Norway

The result of the proposal was no consensus. There's no consensus for these particular moves, though this may change as the result of the RFC. I've moved it to a new section with a provisional title so the general discussion can continue. --BDD (talk) 17:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Queen Sonja of Norway → Sonja of Norway
• Queen Silvia of Sweden → Silvia of Sweden
• Queen Máxima of the Netherlands → Máxima of the Netherlands
• Queen Sofía of Spain → Sofía of Spain
• Queen Rania of Jordan → Rania of Jordan
• Queen Noor of Jordan → Noor of Jordan
• Queen Fabiola of Belgium → Fabiola of Belgium
• Queen Paola of Belgium → Paola of Belgium

• Support (as nominator).
  Mathilde of Belgium indicates a monarch while the format Queen Mathilde of Belgium indicates a consort is nothing but a Wikipedia invention. Only Wikipedia editors who have been editing royalty-related articles for years can find it natural to have a monarch's wife as Queen Sofía of Spain and an actual monarch as Beatrix of the Netherlands (yes, I know she's not a monarch anymore but she was until a few months ago). A random John Smith who comes to read about kings and queens will certainly not find that natural. If there is anything a random user can conclude from such formats, it's that the person with the title is more important and thus the monarch, while the one without the title is the consort. Of course, Wikipedia articles are written for non-experts, not for those who already know the names of all the world's kings and queens by heart. Surtsicna (talk) 11:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Oppose – Though I understand it's a bit inconsistent, we may start a mess by naming the articles for queens consort the same way as queens regnant. --Article editor (talk) 02:11, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why? What is that about the titles Queen Sonja of Norway and Beatrix of the Netherlands that suggests that the former is a queen consort and that the latter is a queen regnant? Nothing! Only Wikipedia users who are used to this practice can conclude such a thing. Any other reader would surely assume the opposite, if anything. Surtsicna (talk) 18:53, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - I see the problem, but I don't think this is the answer to it. AlexTiefling (talk) 07:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why? Could you explain what exactly is wrong with this proposition? Is the proposed change worse than the present problem? If so, how? Thanks. Surtsicna (talk) 18:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. I agree that the distinction probably flies over the heads of 98% of readers who encounter it (who may well be very misty about the difference between regnant & consort anyway). So it's not the end of the world to lose the distinction in the title - it can be made clear elsewhere that the subject is a queen consort. I'd support vanilla names even more, except that apparently some monarchies formally deny the old last names upon marriage, so that proposal would likely go nowhere and generate even more controversy. SnowFire (talk) 18:29, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upgrading to a full support, partially because of some of the bizarre counter-arguments. The plausible counter-argument is "of course this is a Wikipedia-specific guideline, and that's okay." The weak attempts to pretend this makes sense otherwise suggests that this guideline wasn't cleanly thought out in the first place. As for where this discussion should take place, guidelines should be descriptive and not prescriptive IMHO, so this RM is a perfectly valid place to litigate the issue. SnowFire (talk) 00:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. What an
  astonishing way to show regency vs consortiness. Please, please, fix this. Red Slash 07:13, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose. The proposed move just makes it impossible to tell consorts from reigning monarchs. Convention dictates that consorts revert to their maiden names and titles after death. For example the present Queen's predecessor is Maud of Wales and not Maud of Norway. There is nothing unnatural about either King [name] of Country versus [name] of Country. We only use the latter for reigning monarchs because that is the convention. Moving this page would suggest the same convention for consorts as well.--Jiang (talk) 14:25, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And how does the current situation help readers tell consorts from monarchs? How could a 30-year-old engineer, who has never read a thing about monarchies, be able to tell that Queen Sonja of Norway is a consort and that Juliana of the Netherlands is a monarch just by looking at the articles titles? If there is anything they could tell from the titles, it's exactly the opposite - that Sonja is a monarch because she's got the title and that Juliana is not. Surtsicna (talk) 14:46, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why not move Juliana of the Netherlands to "Queen Juliana of the Netherlands" instead of moving the consort articles? or move Queen Sonja of Norway to "Queen Sonja" instead? The lack of "king" or "queen" in the title makes it less accessible and the only real reason we do it for cases such as Juliana of the Netherlands is that it is the convention used by real life academics. Removing it for the consorts makes it just more confusing for those unaware of any convention existing.--Jiang (talk) 17:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hundreds if not thousands of articles would have to be moved if we decided to put the words "King" and "Queen" into all relevant article titles. You yourself said that omitting those words "is the convention used by real life academics". Removing "Queen" from titles of articles about consorts does not make it more confusing to anyone because only certain Wikipedia editors understand that the "Queen Y of Someland" format refers to a consort. Everyone else could only assume the opposite. Surtsicna (talk) 12:38, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. At first, I was against it. But now I think it's not good to have, for example Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands and Queen Máxima of the Netherlands. Keivan.f^Talk 14:54, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. If this is a rule that Wikipedia invented, then I agree that it's needlessly inconsistent. I might feel differently if this were a genuine titling convention that exists among real-world academics, but I haven't been able to find any evidence that this is the case. DoctorKubla (talk) 15:30, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. The status quo is confusing and inconsistent. —
  talk 17:45, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose - Frankly, I'd probably support the rules change Surtsicna wants. But I really feel that this is a conversation to be had on Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(royalty_and_nobility). Even if the guideline is a little silly, it also seems like the rule is clear, and that this proposed move is contrary to the rule. NickCT (talk) 14:21, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for commenting, NickCT! Discussions started at Wikipedia talk:Naming_conventions_(royalty_and_nobility) are usually ignored, as was the case when I tried having this discussion there. This is a proposal to change the silly rule so that common sense is no longer contrary to the rule. The rule, which you say is a "little silly", is not set in stone and is not really a rule at all, but a guideline invented by a couple of editors. If the I propposed would make the rule less silly, why oppose it? Surtsicna (talk) 14:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the feedback Surtsicna. Appreciate what you're trying to do here. Re "If the I propposed would make the rule less silly" - The proposal here isn't to change the rule, it's to rename the pages contrary to the rule. re " Discussions started at Wikipedia talk:Naming_conventions_(royalty_and_nobility) are usually ignored" - I appreciate that that may be the case. Can I ask, have you put an RfC on the guideline page? NickCT (talk) 14:32, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think you missed the third sentence of my original comment. "Therefore, I propose moving these pages and then amending the guideline." If the community decides that the proposal is more sensible than the present guideline, the articles will be moved and the guideline will be amended. That way, the new titles would not be contrary to any rule but instead in accordance with it. That's the simplest way to do this. Anyway, I first opened a move discussion and was then advised to put a RfC here. Surtsicna (talk) 14:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • re "That's the simplest way to do this" - So you're breaking the rule, then using the fact that the rule has been broken to justify a change in the rule? How is that simple? I think you ought to change the rule first, then rename the pages to fit the changed rule. Scrap this RfC and set one up at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(royalty_and_nobility). I'll support you there if you do....... NickCT (talk) 15:00, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • With all due respect, no, I won't. I am not breaking any rule, unless it is against rules to suggest a change of the rule. I started the discussion to change the rule here because this is the place where we can get most input. Then there is also the
            not a vote, and you've already said that the proposed change makes sense. If you want to, you can register your support at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) as well, but very few people will respond there. Surtsicna (talk) 16:17, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
            ]
            • Using this RfC to try and justify a change on Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(royalty_and_nobility) is a little dodgy. If you want to change Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(royalty_and_nobility), go to that talkpage and do it. This talkpage is not the appropriate to discuss changes to that guideline. Saying "very few people will respond" is not excuse to have an RfC in the wrong place. re " I am not breaking any rule " - But you understand the move you are proposing is against the current guideline/rule, right? NickCT (talk) 18:35, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • Dodgy? Nonsense. Of course the talk page of an affected article is an appropriate place to discuss this. I am proposing a sensible change to the current guideline. I only started an RfC here because I had started a move discussion earlier, and was advised by an administrator to start a RfC at the same place to avoid creating a fork discussion. Surtsicna (talk) 19:12, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • Did that admin understand that your move request was in fact also a proposal to change policy? You should probably ask them..... NickCT (talk) 21:20, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Yes, he did. Frankly, this is all pointless nitpicking. There is no rule, guideline or policy, that prohibits this form of discussion. The Universe won't explode of this goes the way it's planned to go. Surtsicna (talk) 09:24, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                    • @
                      Wikipedia:LOCALCONSENSUS - Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. And beyond of this, there's just common sense. You're suggesting a policy change here. The discussion should be had on the relevant policy talk page. NickCT (talk) 15:28, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
                      ]
                      • Those are the policies that warn against discussing guidelines? Where? Are you suggesting that talk pages of affected articles are not "relevant talk pages", or that this is not the "talk page of the article" that I am interested in? And to which editors is this group limited? Isn't everyone free to discuss here? Please don't tell me that people are more likely to discuss it at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) because they are obviously not. Anyway, this has become pointless. I get it; you do think that the proposed changes should be implemented but you are only going to say that on another talk page. Fair enough. Surtsicna (talk) 18:51, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                        • All I'm suggesting is a proposed change to a guideline should be discussed on that guideline's talkpage. Not that radical an idea. Anyways, I and a number of other editors are trying to help you out here. It's a pity you're not going to get any traction on this for want of proposing the idea in the right way. NickCT (talk) 21:04, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                          • You're the only one trying to help out (the other user would oppose anyway) and I can see that. If this discussion results in no consensus, I'll try requesting a comment at the guideline talk page but honestly, the chance of getting more attention there is next to nothing. Surtsicna (talk) 23:16, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                            • re "honestly, the chance of getting more attention there is next to nothing" - Hey! Be more optimistic. Sometimes the
                              wikidrama settles and cool minds come together to make things happen. If you do RfC the guideline page, let me know in advance. I'd like to see if I can help you with it. NickCT (talk) 12:09, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
                              ]
• Oppose per
  NCROY, which would go far to address the concern that it is counter-intuitive to call monarchs "Firstname of Realm" while calling their consorts "Queen Firstname of Realm", since the ordinal is much of what signals readers that the article is about a monarch, and in its absence the contrast with their consorts' titles is more stark. FactStraight (talk) 21:14, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • NickCT called the guideline silly; I followed the lead because I was not sure why he would oppose changing a "silly" guideline. Why didn't you respond to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) when I attempted to start this discussion there five days ago? Why should I have bothered posting there again when my first attempt achieved nothing? Anyway, would you mind explaining how come the distinction is not arbitrary? Which academic distinguishes between monarchs and consorts by applying the title to consorts but not to monarchs? I know that the positions are very distinct but I strongly disagree that this is the right way to distinguish between them. Why do you think a first-time reader would assume that Queen Sonja of Norway is a consort and not a monarch? What should that same reader assume upon encountering articles about Marie of Romania, Maria of Yugoslavia, Catherine of Bosnia , etc? Only a Wikipedian with lots of experience in editing royalty-related articles (such as you) can assume that the "Queen Firstname of Realm" format naturally implies a consort and not a monarch. Surtsicna (talk) 21:30, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think all these sort of articles should move to commonnamehere, Title-Consort of AristocraticRealm/Title -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 07:26, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The courtesy title Queen is appropriate and expected for a living queen. The suggested title is appropriate for a dead historic queen regnant and never for a non-regnant consort. The "of Norway" may be changeable, but the suggested rename would be wrong. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:35, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why? Which historian said that? That is nothing but a guideline invented by a couple of Wikipedians many years ago. There is nothing inherently natural or appropriate about it. Nobody assumes that Marie of Romania was a Romanian queen regnant, or that Maria of Yugoslavia was a Yugoslavian queen regnant. The "rule" has already been "broken" many times by consensus, and it is high time to replace it with one based more on sense than on someone's assumption that readers will somehow (miraculously?) know that "Queen Y of Someland" is a consort while "Z of Someland" is a queen monarch. Surtsicna (talk) 10:55, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Queen Y of Someland" the consort is ambiguous, but she should be living. "Z of Someland" should be a dead historic figure. We typically leave off "Queen" for past queens to avoid confusion with current queens

I don't know which historian did it first, but I think it derives from court and diplomatic documents, and that the practice is very old. Marie of Romania is misleading. We usually choose an article title derived from a consort's pre-marriage status, usually. "of nation" implies regnant, or a person of great international and historical significance. I suggest adding "consort" for living consorts if more clarity is desired, and that all living people with great titles have their highest title in the article title, if, as usual, that is how they are known. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:40, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, that is not true. No historian (and no academic whatsoever) practices what we practice, and I have no idea what kind of "court and diplomatic documents" you are referring to - and I don't think you do either. Do you truly believe that historians at some point made a deal to refer to current queens as "Queen Y of Someland", to past queens as "X of Homeland" and to monarchs as "Z of Someland"? Of course they did not. Marie of Romania is not misleading. That is the name by which she is known. Who could be misled by that name? Only people who have been influenced by the rule Wikipedians made up and who haven't encountered a lot of non-Wikipedia references to Marie herself.

As I was afraid, Wikipedia editors interested in royalty cannot grasp that this "rule" is not a rule at all, and that there is nothing inherently appropriate about it. They assume that all readers will understand something that can only be understood by reading

astonishing. Surtsicna (talk) 11:58, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Henry VIII wrote to and referred to Charles of France. I don't know of either referring to the other's consorts. I agree with the point on astonishment, and that something ought to change, but disagree with your solution. Consorts should not be named "of nation". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Henry VIII was an historian. Anyway, I am truly puzzled as to how the Queen of Norway is not "of Norway". I don't think she herself would agree on that! Surtsicna (talk) 18:34, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you drop the "Queen", then she needs her maiden title or surname. As she is living, we usually title per her current courtesy titles. When dead, there is a split, some choosing to title as per her status per-marriage, others as per her highest status in life. I think the second is better, better recognised, better reflecting more sources, and I would prefer to insert "consort" to clarify the problem you have identified. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:07, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And that is exactly the kind of invented rules I am talking about. That guideline was made up by a couple of Wikipedia editors. It was not agreed on by any academics and certainly not by diplomats of any kind. The "some" and "others" you refer to are also Wikipedia editors and nobody else. Surtsicna (talk) 21:33, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that you have a good point. I don't agree that this nomination is a good solution. Removing "Queen" from the various examples reduces recognisability for the general reader. I think a better solution is to add King/Queen to regnant kings and queens, possibly add "regnant", and probably include "consort" for Kings and Queens consort. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:02, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but that proposal is guaranteed to attract much more opposition than this one, and leaving it half-way is the worst kind of mish-mash solution. Surtsicna (talk) 23:11, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-read the guideline and some of the archives. These rules weren't just made up, but they did casually evolve in the early days of the project. I'm not so sure that a sensible proposal to fix the real problem you point out will trigger knee jerk opposition.

It is odd that Kings/Queens/Emperors regnant have their titles dropped, but consorts get titles, and lesser titles don't get dropped. I suspect that this usage derives from an affection deriving from original court/diplomatic sources, as I mentioned previously. I suspect that this original usage, of droping "King" etc for regnants, which feels familiar, perhaps due to occurance in movies, derives from a tendancy of old monarchs to address each other on familiar terms. As such, I don't think it is a usage we need to hold.

I support including King/Queen/Emperor in the article titles.

I note that the convention of calling a King a King, weighing recognizability above concision, is in practice on DAB pages, and it reads sensibly. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:27, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.