Magnolia

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

1. Louis XVI^[a]
2. King Louis XVI^[b]
3. Louis XVI of France^[c]
4. King Louis XVI of France^[d]
5. Louis XVI, King of France^[e]
6. Louis XVI (king of France)^[f]
7. Louis XVI (France)^[g]
8. Louis XVI, king of France^[h]
9. 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:

1. A November 2023 RfC consensus instructing editors to disambiguate only if disambiguation is required.
2. 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.
3. A village pump discussion drafting this RfC.
   
   

• 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), edited 02:31, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 3 Renerpho (talk) 22:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC) I've changed my mind, see below. Renerpho (talk) 23:01, 25 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]

  I strongly oppose option 9, for the reason given by Compassionate727. Renerpho (talk) 16:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  After some consideration, talking about it in the discussion section, and reading the concerns that have been raised there and by other voters, I come to the conclusion that option 5 is superior to option 3, which I'd rank second. It is more in line with how we handle non-monarchs. In addition, I may have misunderstood the meaning of option 9. I am still strongly opposed to option 9 if it means that no consistent rule is implemented, and that we keep the status quo. I think that's a bad idea. I believed that this RfC included cases like Charles III or Alexander the Great, but apparently, it was never meant to. Some voters seem to believe that option 9 is necessary to keep those articles unchanged, and I support that, but it is irrelevant to the question that's being asked, at least as I understand it. Renerpho (talk) 23:01, 25 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]

  If there are multiple common names and none is more common than the others, use the option that offers the greatest recognisability e.g. if "Louis XVI" and "Louis XVI of France" are tied for the most common name then use the latter as people familiar with both forms will recognise the subject but not everybody familiar with only the "of France" version will recognise the shorter option. (i.e. recognisability and precision are more important than concision). Thryduulf (talk) 09:23, 23 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 Option 4 is clearest and contains all the essential information. --Marbe166 (talk) 23:17, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my mind to Option 4. I agree with the comments below citing recognisability and need for consistency. --Marbe166 (talk) 14:26, 26 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]

  I would support 3 that case SKAG123 (talk) 16:40, 23 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]

  Where these is no COMMONNAME for a monarch, notability is probably dubious and the subject should be merged to a table of monarchs for that realm. A Wikipedia style should not be applied anachronistically. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:57, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Of the others …

  1. Louis XVI. This is normal
  2. King Louis XVI. Wikipedia prefers to avoid leading with titles, even if it is more WP:NATURAL. “King” should only be used for English Kings, or where there are plenty of English language sources using “King”. This option will be very rare, it might be acceptable to disambiguate King Louis XVI from Prince Louis XVI.
  3. Louis XVI of France. This is also very normal and common. It could be preferred where “of France” serves as a surname, which is not unusual for petit kingdoms, of which there were a great many.
  4. King Louis XVI of France. No, only if supported by COMMONNAME.
  5. Louis XVI, King of France. This could happen, but not a convention.
  6. Louis XVI (king of France). This would make me think it is a fictional fantasy topic, such as Louis XVI existing in different roles in parallel universes. Should not be used for real humans.
  7. Louis XVI (France). No.
  8. Louis XVI, king of France. No, “King of France” is only usable if it serves as a proper name.
  9. Use the common name; do not apply a consistent compromise with a made up Wikipedia style.
     COMMONNAME is long standing working policy that aligns perfectly with “Wikipedia should follow its sources”. One shoe doesn’t fit all kingdoms in all centuries, even if confined to the last 1000 years of Europe.

  SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  re your comment on option 6, it might also be appropriate if there was an article about the real person in a notable work called "king of France" or a notable work called "Louis XVI (king of France)". Finally if a performer took Louis XVI as a stage name in a band or similar called "king of France" then it would be an option to consider, although something like "Louis XVI (entertainer)" would be more likely. Obviously these are unlikely, and nearly all of them would capitalise King, but I do think "should not be used for real humans" is going too far. Thryduulf (talk) 11:42, 25 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]

The title 'King of England' hasn't existed for centuries. No properly reliable source will refer to Charles III as such. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:25, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I would argue that the current king is most commonly referred to simply as “King Charles” (or perhaps “the King”). In common usage, we only add the ordinal when there is a need to disambiguate… and if we are disambiguating anyway why not do so completely? Blueboar (talk) 13:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  King Charles III of Britain? Hm that doesn't exist... — Iadmc♫^talk  13:19, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  https://www.goodmorningamerica.com/news/story/king-charles-iii-britain-65292669 SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:03, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When 'Good Morning America' is a reliable source for the name of this country, or the style and title of its monarch, we'll let you know. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:08, 25 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]

  I agree with this Boleslaw (talk) 13:12, 30 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]

  After reviewing Walrasiad's detailed rationale in the discussion section, I've become swayed to Option 3 above all others. Specifically, the points I found most compelling included: in regions with commonly overlapping royal name stocks (Europe and the Islamic world being the two main examples), identifying an article titled "Foo IX" requires not just knowing that Ruritania had a Foo IX but also knowing that no other significant regional states were ever ruled by a Foo IX. (Conversely, "Foo IX of Ruritania" would situate the person unambiguously.) This creates a meaningful WP:RECOGNIZABILITY gap in favor of Option 3. The points about retaining recognizability across translated versions of names (how many non-experts would know that Wenceslaus II and Vaclav II are the same person?) and about helping to limit the expansion of systemic WP:BIAS are also advantages to Option 3. (Other than Option 3 now fully surpassing Option 1, the remainder of my opinions in my original !vote still apply.) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 19:55, 24 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]
• Option 3 - For the sake of consistency. Primary topics and/or COMMONNAMEs can be redirects. Tad Lincoln (talk) 03:16, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 1 If no disambiguation is needed then option one is the best per WP:COMMONNAME, this especailly applies when monarchs 'rule' over several independent countries (eg. Charles III). Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 03:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• 3. I am mostly anti-9. I think a consistent style should be enforced within a line of succession (with the odd exception). This is equally true of non-European monarchs. I do not necessarily think that every European monarchy needs to be treated the same way. 3 is the most elegant (shortest, naturalest) method that can be applied consistently to all monarchs in a succession. I also note that no matter how famous or singular, e.g., Louis XIV is, you generally cannot introduce him in an article without saying or having said 'France' somewhere. There is nothing ugly or silly about "Louis XIV of France". It is wrong to regard "of France" as operating like a mere natural disambiguator. It makes more sense to see it as integral to making sense of the numeral. It is no more redundant than using full names of famous people (e.g., Einstein, Picasso, Leibniz). Srnec (talk) 03:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 3 preferably, but would not oppose Option 5. I give the grounds of my opinion more in full in the Discussion section below. But in summary, we need a consistent norm for European sovereigns, applied equitably across countries, that is useful, helpful, improves recognizability and avoids toxic nationalist squabbles. The gain of including "of country" in the article title is great, the cost is negligible or none. Walrasiad (talk) 04:21, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Option 3: Walrasiad’s approach in the previous section is correct. Use that for all, even if it means a title such as “Charles III of the United Kingdom”. This is my final word on the matter. Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 04:37, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 1 seems to be used for all the monarchs I've looked up. For a dab use Option 3 or 7. No need for King/Queen in article name unlike Prince/Princess/Duke etc— Iadmc♫^talk  06:40, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Second thoughts there are a lot of "Charles III"s so perhaps Charles III should be Charles III of Britain? — Iadmc♫^talk  13:16, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Third thoughs: he's king of Northern Ireland too so that won't work... Charles III of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? No.Just no — Iadmc♫^talk  19:37, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 1 per points above. Unnecessary disambiguation is unnecessary disambiguation. Sahaib (talk) 07:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Option 9 seems the most sensible to me. A one-size-fits-all formula may be neat and tidy but wouldn't be helpful to our readers. Tim riley talk 07:27, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 1 per WP:NCROY and WP:COMMONNAME. This discussion does not appear to concern a change in the guidelines (correct me if I'm wrong), so referencing them is still in order. In any case, if this was a change of guidelines, I would still support Louis XVI as it is the shortest option. Aintabli (talk) 07:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 9, no need for a particular rule. Desertarun (talk) 08:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 3 : That was his name and so named were all the others, including queens & princesses consort. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 9 because it's policy. No need to do anything different for monarchs. Richard75 (talk) 09:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 1 Per points made above; it's pretty much default for European monarchs and rulers and it is concise and precise. — Sadko (words are wind) 09:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Options 9 and 1 if there is no disambiguation with that name, to keep things simple. If there is disambiguation, then Support Option 7. —Mjks28 (talk) 09:59, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 1 or 9. If there's no need to disambiguate, for whatever reason, then there's no need to include additional information in the article title per WP:PRECISE. Parsecboy (talk) 10:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 1 or 9 - Shortest is best, where there's no need to disambiguate. Obviously if there's a common name we should prefer that. FOARP (talk) 10:27, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 1 or 3 The former probably fits our rules better, the latter is actually better for the readers (in mine opinion, obviously). None of the others are really satisfactory at all. Happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 10:43, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If our rules say we should do something that is not the best option for readers then we need to change the rules. Thryduulf (talk) 10:56, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 9 and while you're at it add "European" in the title of WP:NCROY. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• 9 > 1. WP:COMMONNAME is the most general guideline. If it's unclear whether Option 1 or Option 3 is the common name, choose Option 1, following WP:CONCISE. Any chosen form should be supported by literature. Previously, this wasn't always the case with the old NCROY system, where the names created by adding a territorial designation could be artificial. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 10:56, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 1 simply because it is impossible to create a rule that covers all cases satisfactorily. Try all you want, in the end it still needs to be up to the editors of each article. (If this RfC really is about Charles III, the case was pretty definitely settled, and any outcome of this RfC that disqualifies the current king of England as the primary topic for "Charles III" would likely just be ignored or revoked, so let's just not-vote Option 1 and get this over with. CapnZapp (talk) 10:56, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The title 'King of England' hasn't existed for centuries. No properly reliable source will refer to Charles III as such. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:25, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 1 for unambiguous names or names where one monarch is the primary meaning. Option 3 where there is no primary meaning. Where there is an overwhelmingly common name (e.g., X the Y) Option 9 should apply. Векочел (talk) 11:32, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 1 then Option 3 if a disabiguator is needed (ie. if different monarchs hold the same name and regal number as each other). That's what we seem to use currently and I think it works fine. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 11:49, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 9 and Option 1 I've only been involved in reviewing contentious move requests of these, so I'm actually disinterested in the topic and am only here since I was pinged. WP:COMMONNAME should hold as policy. That being said, we're here because we have to pick between 1 and 8 when it's not 100% clear what the common name is, and we Option 1 is most consistent with our parameters at COMMONNAME if 1-8 are to be treated as appearing equally. SportingFlyer T·C 11:55, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 3, followed by Options 1 and Option 9 for very special case. A point I would also like to highlight is in the use of sources to establish the best known/most used name: sources are usually focused and once clarified the topic will exclude what lies beyond it. A book entitled "The Last Years of the Romanovs" will not specify every time that Nicholas II was Nicholas II of Russia, it will take it for granted regardless of any other kings/ships/cities so called, while a genealogical compendium of the dynasties Europeans will instead give a lot of weight to this, since it will include many names and homonyms. Ditto current news articles and most sources commonly referred to. I think that's something to take into account. Sira Aspera (talk) 12:11, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 9, followed by Option 1, mainly since Option 1 already is used as a common name for many monarchs in Europe, but for examples such as Alexander the Great it would not make sense to use Option 1. That's why I'm in favour primarily of option 9, as the common name makes sense for helping people find a page easily and quickly. It wouldn't make sense for the page Alexander the Great to just say "Alexander III of Macedon". CIN I&II (talk) 12:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 10 - I’m going to suggest another option: articles on Current (living) monarchs should be entitled with no ordinal at all. Ie just: King Charles, or Queen Camilla… That is, after all, almost always the most COMMONNAME while they live, and is likely to be the primary topic for that unadorned article title. Obviously, Should there be two living monarchs with the same name, we would need to disambiguate (by adding the country). The need for disambiguation really only becomes pertinent AFTER death (or abdication). At which point - if we are going to disambiguate by adding an ordinal, we should disambiguate completely (by including the country). Blueboar (talk) 13:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 4 is the most reasonable one as it's closest to common speech and makes it instantly clear that the individual is a monarch and which country they're from. In instances where the country disambiguation may be controversial (e.g. UK monarchs also serving as Commonwealth state monarchs) then Option 2 is an acceptable backup option. Option 9 should be used in cases of common names being used heavily, usually names of "X the Y" format such as William the Conquerer. Aside from cases like William the Conquerer I strongly oppose any format which does not include the title (King/Queen/Emperor/Duke/etc). Being a monarch is what these individuals are known for, are commonly referred to by their title, so not including the title would be about as absurd as renaming Pope John Paul II to John Paul II and leaving it as an exercise to the reader to have to scroll down to discover he was a pope! Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 13:43, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 1 or 3. 2 is unnecessary, 4 is too much, and 5-8 have non-alphanumeric characters - we're not doing passwords. 9 can go wrong - we'd end up calling monarchs "Chuck" or something. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 14:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• 3 InedibleHulk (talk) 14:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @InedibleHulk: Please give an explanation why you prefer option 3. Renerpho (talk) 18:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Peer pressure, mainly. Seems the most consensual here. They mostly made good points, too, don't get me wrong. If there's ever a need to use a different but more common name, go with 9. When usually not, this way's fine. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 9 per WP:COMMONNAME 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 15:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 9. Monarchs should not have an exception form WP:COMMONNAME. Titles are meant to be recognisable, not confer information in themselves. Andejons (talk) 16:43, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 3 This is already the standard where disambiguation is needed, I would go for consistency. IMHO the problem with abandoning pre-emptive disambiguation is that the titles of monarchs of a country become decided by developments in other countries. For example, we have James IV of Scotland, but his son is James V, not because of events in Scotland, but because there were only 4 Jameses of Majorca. We have Louis X of France, but then we have Louis XI, because there were only 10 Louiss of Bavaria. We do not always go for the shortest titles, sometimes consistency is relevant e.g. all UK Parliament constituencies have this qualifier, even if the name is unambiguous e.g. Islington South and Finsbury (UK Parliament constituency). Option 9 is not workable, we have naming conventions to establish consistency in various contexts, in this case we have hundreds of articles on monarchs, some rather obscure, to avoid an inordinate number of naming disputes we need some default standard even if we decide to depart from it in a significant number of cases. PatGallacher (talk) 17:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 9 - always a merry-go-round with many proposed moves, but WP:COMMONNAME is by far the most reasonable as there is no size fits all, as it depends on the individual on question AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 06:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 3. Consistency is key. A reader should be able to tell they're reading an article about a monarch from the title of the article. It also prevents unnecessary conversations wasting Wikipedia's most valuable resource, the time of Wikipedia's editors, who are all volunteering their time, after all. Conversations about the titles of the article of monarchs where the claim that one of them is the primary topic and should just be Name III tend to attract discussion of the sort all too frequent at requested moves that tends have the underlying assumption that country X's things are more important that country Y's things, so naturally they should be the primary topic. Conversations based on the monarch being the only one with that name just encourage the former. Setting a consistent process for the names of a class of article prevents all that and saves so much time and the possibility of rancor. We have too much petty nationalism on Wikipedia already, we can at least close off this one avenue for it.
  Additionally, Option 9 is the least suitable of all, as Common name simply doesn't work for this, as it's irrelevant because it's unusable. To use the example of the king at the top of the RFC, last king of the ancien régime, his common name isn't "Louis XVI" or "Louis XVI of France", it's "Louis". Just "Louis". A writer will only specify anything beyond their name when there's the possibility of confusion. We're certainly not going to call his article "Louis". The ordinals themselves are a disambiguation, but in the context of any international situation - such as an international reference work like Wikipedia - they're an incomplete one. That this comes up at all is a misunderstanding of COMMONNAME, which is only useful for monarchs in extremely rare circumstances, such as someone suggesting "Charlemagne" should be "Charles I" or any disambiguated form of that. Otherwise it just leads to a great many conversations which do nothing but waste valuable editor time.
  To sum up, I'd rank the options: 3 > 4 through 8 (no preference) >>>>> 2 > 1 >> 9 Egsan Bacon (talk) 19:02, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 9, or the status quo. I see no reason to dig this topic back up, but as I have expressed in the past, and at the beginning of this WP:NCROY fiasco, the current system manages naming conventions quite well. The purpose of Wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia, and WP:COMMONNAME is instrumental to that. If there isn't a need to disambiguate, don't. These pages should already have redirects from all the other options anyways, making this entire discussion a moot point. We have WP:NCROY, it does its job quite well, and we should stick to WP:NCROY. --Theologus (talk) 20:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 9 per King Arthur, Napoleon, Queen Victoria, &c. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:41, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 1. In the absence of a need to disambiguate, including primary topic as stated in the small print, the country is superfluous; it's a disambiguator. "King" or "Queen" before the name (2 and also 4), or capitalised in any placement, is an honorific; we don't use those in titles. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:54, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 3 as a WP:NATURAL and WP:PRECISE option. Cremastra (talk) 21:00, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Option 3 is natural all right, but this RfC concerns articles that do not need disambiguation of any sort. WP:PRECISE explicitly proscribes making titles any more detailed than need be. Perhaps you fell victim to Wp:UPPERCASE? Mach61 21:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Perhaps. :) Here's my thinking. Some European monarchs are going to require disambiguation, such as William III of the Netherlands. This is also the natural way to refer to the monarchs. But that is not the object of this RfC, just a setting of precedent. Some don't require it, but adding the country is more precise and is consistent, which is another one of the WP:criteria. Finally, there are some monarchs I now agree should be treated as exceptions, but only a very few: where adding the country is more likely to confuse the reader than to help them. This is criterion #1: recognizability. Such monarchs are known almost solely by a shortened name or moniker: Alexander the Great and Charlemagne, as have been mentioned below. Cheers, Cremastra (talk) 13:40, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  "This is also the natural way to refer to the monarchs..." - It really isn't. No other variety of head-of-state level leader gets this treatment where no disambiguation is needed. We don't say "Pope XXXX of the Roman Catholic Church" for every single Pope to distinguish them from, e.g., Greek Orthodox Popes. Our Chinese emperor articles don't all have "of China" appended to them (they use dynasty-names to disambiguate where that is necessary).

  I'm also getting a strong "Monarchs are just a funny thing that Europeans have, so I'll slap a country name in here to make that clear" POV coming through here. FOARP (talk) 07:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Not referring to popes or Chinese emperors in the same way as (European) monarchs is not evidence against Cremastra's statement, because popes and Chinese emperors are not (European) monarchs. The real world is not required to, and does not, conform to a single standard - it is inconsistent and sometimes arbitrary. Trying to impose any sort of rigorous standard is a fools errand that has already wasted months of editor time, and will inevitably continue to do so, without bringing any benefit to Wikipedia. Several people in this discussion are just going to have to accept that the appropriate naming format for one European royal is not always going to be appropriate for a different European royal - even when they're from the same country. Thryduulf (talk) 08:32, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The point here is specifically about "natural-ness". You wouldn't expect something emerging "naturally" to be limited to European monarchs only - human beings being of the same "nature" everywhere, you would expect to see it elsewhere also. Since we don't, I take that as evidence that what we're talking about isn't actually "natural". FOARP (talk) 10:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Why would it be unnantural for people to refer to very different topics in different ways? Monarchs and popes are very different classes of things, whose naming is for different purposes and done by different methods. Non-European monarchs use naming conventions for titles, styles, disamabiguation, etc that arose at different times in different places from very different languages and cultures. TL;DR different cultures are different. Thryduulf (talk) 10:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Monarchs and popes, let alone monarchs and... monarchs, are not very different. The discussion is about what is "natural", not culturally-specific. FOARP (talk) 13:52, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You cannot separate "natural" from "culturally-specific" because culture and culture context determines what is natural. Thryduulf (talk) 17:14, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @FOARP: As Thryduulf says, different cultures are different.

  1) The Chinese empire is considerably different than European monarchies. For one thing, emperors are accorded posthumous names, and as you say, are more likely to disambiguated by dynasty. European monarchs are rarely disambiguated by dynasty (when was the last time you heard someone talk about Elizabeth Windsor?)

  2) European monarchs are more likely to need disambiguation by country. Yazdegerd III of Persia and the other Yazdegerds were all Persian, but we've got William II of England, William II of Holland, William II of Sicily, William II of the Netherlands, and William II of Württemberg, which is a dizzying array of William IIs alone. So per WP:CONSISTENT, we should keep that style. Cremastra (talk) 13:09, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Except that WP:CONSISTENT also tells us that consistency does not extend to the use of disambiguators. The examples given in the policy are for articles about countries and cities, but the same principle applies to monarchs. The existence of a multitude of William IIs does not imply that we should preemptively disambiguate all monarchs. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:28, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 3 as the best balance of concision and precision, while promoting consistency.estar8806 (talk) ★ 22:04, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 1, please.—S Marshall T/C 22:11, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 9 for the purpose of status quo. But I do think there are some cases where monarchs' names are improperly titled. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 22:19, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 9 and 1. The "of {Country}" is a form of natural disambiguation, and keeping unnecessary disambiguation is not helpful for readers. We don't title Red as Red (colour) for consistency with Orange (colour), and this is reflected in WP:CONSISTENT itself:

  However, there has been a history of consensus among editors regarding several areas where consistency does not control titling... Disambiguation: for example, the use of a parenthetical disambiguator in Georgia (country) does not support an argument that all country articles should use them, e.g. for Azerbaijan (country) or Armenia (country). This is also the case with natural disambiguation: the existence of Querétaro City and Chihuahua City does not mean we have to have Guadalajara City instead of Guadalajara.

  There is also the argument that readers need to know they are reading an article about a monarch and/or where that monarch reigned, but we don't do that for any other articles. Do you know who Richard H. Newhouse Jr. was? We don't title that article as Richard H. Newhouse Jr. (American politician) so people can instantly recognize the guy. Explaining that a person was a monarch and the countries they ruled is the point of the article, not the title. Finally, there is an argument about WP:RECOGNIZABILITY. However, WP:RECOGNIZABILITY says that the title should be recognizable to someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area. If you have a passing familiarity of (e.g.) Edward V, you know he was the king of England. In sum: use the COMMONNAME if there is one, but otherwise avoid preemptive disambiguation. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 23:04, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I may have no issue with article titles where the name is unique, resulting in no need for disambiguation. Problems arise when one of several monarchs of the same name are claimed to be the primary one, like with Charles III. (I am of course speaking of the most successful European ruler of the 18th century, not the historically less important British monarch). Wouldn't it be nice if we could avoid arguing about which monarch/country/language/whatever is more important, and just had a consistent rule that's applied to all of them? Renerpho (talk) 02:08, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I may have to withdraw some of that argument, considering the recent discussion below. I may have misunderstood the purpose of this RfC, which apparently doesn't touch king Charles III of the UK at all (as many of the !voters appear to believe). I'll have to rethink my own stance. Renerpho (talk) 03:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 1 and 9, per User:HouseBlaster above. The case of unnecessary disambiguation being unhelpful have largely already been made. Carolina2k22 • (talk) • (edits) 01:42, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 3 per PatGallacher and Egsan Bacon. While I agree with Option 9's embrace of WP:COMMONNAME, this debate has showcased that some, myself included, consider the common name of someone like Charles III to include "of the United Kingdom" since the regnal numbering is already a disambiguator based on past officeholders, necessitating clarification of the position being referenced. Additionally, this whole RfC is predicated on cases with an "absence of a need to disambiguate," but as Walrasiad has noted in the discussion section, we can avoid difficult debates over whether there is a need to disambiguate because of the rulers of smaller territories by embracing Option 3. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 04:01, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 9 and 1, which in the vast majority of cases will boil down to the same thing (with a few prominent exceptions such as Charlemagne, William the Conqueror or Queen Victoria). As a caveat, I worry that that putting too much emphasis on WP:COMMONNAME when we transpose the result of this RfC into an update to WP:NCROY will just shift the focus of future RM discussions towards whether or not "of country" is part of the COMMONNAME, and I firmly believe that we should clarify in the guidelines that Option 1 (or whichever option is favoured in this RfC, of course) is preferred when there is any doubt over what the COMMONNAME is. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 9. I see no reason to treat these titles differently from others. So, if there is a clear most common name, use that. Otherwise, use the most CONCISE option among the common name candidates: Option 1. —В²C ☎ 06:49, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 3 then 7. I've changed my mind on this. I think it's easy to get rigidly locked into applying Wikipedia norms into these sorts of question (eg COMMONNAME, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, no need for disambig etc). But standing back for a moment, what helps the average reader most here? When a reader gets to a page they want to know exactly what it's about from the title. Having the territorial designation helps to quickly tell them exactly what they are looking. Even if disambiguation isn't necessary or it's the primary topic, that's still information a reader wants, IMO...and it helps them. I would, however, allow COMMONNAME where not using the common name would be just downright obscure (eg Alexander III of Macedon instead of Alexander the Great). That's a higher threshold than is usually applied for COMMONNAME. DeCausa (talk) 07:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If we applied this approach—“what helps the average reader most here? When a reader gets to a page they want to know exactly what it's about from the title. Having the territorial designation [or something else] helps to quickly tell them exactly what they are looking. Even if disambiguation isn't necessary or it's the primary topic, that's still information a reader wants, IMO...and it helps them”—to all titles on Wikipedia, we’d have to change almost all of them, and the debates about where to stop with regard to making titles even more helpful would be endless. That’s why we draw the line at making topics recognizable from the title to anyone familiar with the topic. I see no reason to make these titles an exception to an approach that works effectively for all other titles. В²C ☎ 14:01, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No, that's quite wrong. Here we have a particular class or group of articles where there's a specific problem: as Pincrete says below "If I'm looking at "Olaf XIth" how am I to know whether he is the only European monarch with that name/number, unless I'm a royalty buff already." We're not writing for royalty buffs. Why shoot ourselves in the foot for some theoretical "thin end of the wedge" argument. Claiming that just because we might add "of France" to "Louis XIV" all articles are suddenly going to elongate with extra description is a total straw man. It's needed for this group: no more, no less. DeCausa (talk) 22:15, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Options 1, 3 or 9 are all acceptable. All the others very much not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 3 With exception for cases of extremely COMMONNAME, where this formula would confuse rather than clarify, (Alexander III of Macedon being the obvious case). When a reader gets to a page they want to know exactly what it's about from the title. Having the territorial designation helps to quickly tell them exactly what they are looking (at), per DeCausa. The purpose of a title is to clearly identify a topic, not simply to distinguish it from other topics. If I'm looking at "Olaf XIth" how am I to know whether he is the only European monarch with that name/number, unless I'm a royalty buff already. Adding territory in this brief, clear (and fairly accepted) form is useful and low-cost.Pincrete (talk) 09:26, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 3, except, as Pincrete notes, when there's a massively famous COMMONNAME. That exception aside, this is the best approach for clarity and concision. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Options 9 and 1, for the reasons given by many above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:58, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• None of the above - I think (a) one shouldn’t have made it a different titling guideline about when not needing to disambiguate, partly a valuing for consistency in all such titles and partly because the ‘need to disambiguate’ is a presumption and subject to change. That would put me in Option 3, except I also feel (b) no one rule should be mandated. I just think one rule will not fit all cases and while I feel the work to abstract out the general guideline (NCROY, COMMONNAME and CONCISE) should be valued, I also think that for existing articles both local consensus and any long-standing status quo are de facto local policy that should have precedence over lower-level broad-application guidelines NCROY, COMMONNAME or CONCISE. I do give substantial weight to those and their articulating their logic, but also note they have special flaws here. I also note EXCEPTION or IAR especially where those guidelines themselves say exceptions can exist - and that should mean they *do* exist. And partly I caution mandates from on high because of the practicality. I have previously seen a mess from JOBTITLE changing capitalisation rules for “president” that implementing it just becomes a hodgepodge for years and causes misapplication (no lowercase q “queen Elizabeth II” is *not* on). Cheers Markbassett (talk) 12:10, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support status quo per WP:NCROY as presently written, which conforms to WP:AT and related high level guidance. In the absence of a need to disambiguate, this will be option 1 unless there is clearly a alternative WP:COMMONNAME that differs with this - eg William the Conqueror. Adding additional detail to the article title (ie other options) in the absence of a need to disambiguate is WP:OVERPRECISION and contrary to WP:AT. Oppose the use of titles per WP:NCROY and MOS:HON except where there is a strong affirmative consensus that this is part of the COMMONNAME (I believe that Queen Victoria falls to this but there is also a matter of disambiguation at play). Cinderella157 (talk) 12:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS: In reality, option 1 and option 9 are not necessarily mutually exclusive. In most cases, such as the example of Louis XVI, both options will result in Louis XVI. It is only for a small number of cases (eg William the Conqueror) where they differ. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:52, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cinderella157: They don't differ for William the Conqueror either, because that article is not affected by the RfC (see discussion). Renerpho (talk) 11:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given the large number of commenters specifying 1 and 9, I think as a practical matter there is very little difference and most of the commenters would prefer either 1 or 9 before 3. And as far as I can see, right now, about two-thirds are choosing 1 and/or 9. Wehwalt (talk) 12:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wehwalt: Simply counting 1 and 9 together isn't helpful, because what you say is also true for 3 and 9. There are a number of votes which chose "3 or 9", but didn't mention 1. In fact, option 9 works fine with all the others. Renerpho (talk) 13:49, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By my hasty count, 19 have chosen 1 and 9 and four 3 and 9. Plus there's a couple of "1,3, or 9". Are we seeing the first signs of a movement to persuade the closer that the procrustean straightjacket of 3 is really what the community wants here, despite the facts? Wehwalt (talk) 13:57, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we do. I'll stop counting. Renerpho (talk) 14:03, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot assume someone wants something they haven't said, "1 and 9" and "9 and 1" not the same thing, and anyway it's not a vote. Thryduulf (talk) 17:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, adding option 9 was a bad move that has resulted in quite a bit of confusion. There are relatively few monarchs whose common name is not in the "Regnal-name regnal-number" format, and I don't see anyone seriously claiming that those few (Charlemagne, Alexander the Great, etc.) should be shoehorned into the formats of options 1 to 8. The big question is what we do with those without an overriding common name, but that are either unambiguous or clear primary topics for the "Regnal-name regnal-number" combination. Should we be as concise as possible (option 1), or should we always include the title but not the territory (option 2, which seems to have little support), or should we have a WP:USPLACE-like provision that specifies longer-than-necessary-but-consistent titles (options 3 to 8, with 3 being the leading contender)? Rosbif73 (talk) 15:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While William the Conqueror may be a case where disambiguation is required for William [I], it serves to illustrate a case - ie, there are cases when we would/should still use the name with the epithet even when disambiguation is not required. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 9 and 1. No reason to differ from the usual rule of using the common name for someone. If there is no clear common name, but also no need to disambiguate, then 1 is the clearest name to use. The Land (talk) 12:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 3 in the interests of consistency and reader benefit, and per PatGallacher's comments above. ╠╣uw [talk] 19:22, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a practical matter, I’ll also note the potential of 3 to reduce the time and energy spent on titling discussions. I for one am quite tired of the parade of borderline RMs we've had about whether this or that monarch should add/drop the country, and the idea of such repetitive article-level debates bubbling on in perpetuity is draining. ╠╣uw [talk] 18:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 1, 2 and sometimes 9. Sources like Britannica do not use the country so we don't need to, I'm unsure which is normally correct out of 1 and 2 and 9 might apply when common usage trumps the guideline. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 3 followed by Option 9, I particularly agreed with Walrasiad's point 4. Red Fiona (talk) 21:42, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 9 or option 3 if disambiguation is needed, although I believe WP:COMMONNAME should prevail if it is unambiguous (ie Charlemagne). Consistency should not trump WP:RECOGNIZABILITY. I am vehemently against including the country name or title solely for consistency. CVDX (talk) 22:08, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose methods that include a true disambiguation (e.g. 6 & 7) as the default. At the least, all of the other methods are preferable to going down the road of standardizing a house-specific titling convention. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 02:04, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• 3 or 5 for certain. We need to be consistent, and recent years' hodgepodge of with-country and without-country causes great confusion. If you visit an ambiguified monarch's article, e.g. Charles III, you'll have a harder time finding properly titled articles, e.g. I don't know whether the previous Charles monarch's article is at "Charles II" (unlikely), "Charles II of England and Scotland", "Charles II of England", or something else. This is the whole point of a naming convention; don't throw it out the window. People seem to forget that the title itself conveys information: if you're looking at a category not related to a particular country (to make something up: "elective monarchs of the 17th century"), omitting the country makes the category harder to use. I prefer 3 over 5 because it's how we always entitled monarch articles until the current absurd situation was imposed, but I can see 5 being helpful too (runs in my mind we've used this style for Holy Roman Emperors and Deutscher Kaisers), and it's consistent without any of the problems of 9. Nyttend (talk) 11:11, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 3, apart from the most unmistakable instances of COMMONNAME, on the basis of the arguments from Walrasiad and Pincrete. This seems to me the clearest and most recognisable option, and to offer the greatest chance of avoiding time-wasting discussions. Ingratis (talk) 12:58, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 5. Specifying "of country" is important per PatGallacher. However, Option 3 is insufficient per AndrewPeterT's comments in #Comment on X of Y format. Additionally, Option 5 is consistent with formatting of non-monarch nobility (e.g. William, Prince of Wales). Cryolophosaur (talk) 19:58, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 3 – Seems to balance readability, conciseness and consistency the best. For clear primary topic monarchs like Elizabeth the 1st, "Elizabeth I" would redirect there anyways—thus better to keep the actual listed names consistent. – Aza24 (talk) 04:36, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If "Elizabeth I" redirects to "Elizabeth I of England", what is the point of the disambiguation? FOARP (talk) 09:48, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If "Elizabeth I" redirects to "Elizabeth I of England" then the "of England" is not disambiguation, rather "Elizabeth I" is an incomplete title. Thryduulf (talk) 09:51, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Elizabeth I looks pretty complete to me, with no real doubt about what the subject is once you get to the end of those 11 characters (including the space). Adding more filler-text... well, why? FOARP (talk) 10:06, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Just because something "looks complete" to you does not mean that it is necessarily the correct title or that anything else is "filler text". Unrelated to monarchs but one example I happened to look up the other day - Atomic Testing Museum redirects to National Atomic Testing Museum. The first word is not filler text, it's necessary for the article to be at the correct title. Category:Redirects from short names and its subcategories have hundreds of thousands of other examples. Thryduulf (talk) 10:12, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  National Atomic Testing Museum is its actual title, with the redirect a natural truncation of that. Elizabeth I was not known as "Elizabeth I of England", and is not known as "Elizabeth I of England". FOARP (talk) 10:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Elizabeth I was not known as "Elizabeth I of England", and is not known as "Elizabeth I of England" Really? Then how do you explain these books?

  • Good Queen Bess: The Story of Elizabeth I of England
  • Elizabeth I of England through Valois Eyes
  • The She-King (The Consecrated Life of Elizabeth I of England)

  Finding those took approximately 1 minute on Google books. Thryduulf (talk) 10:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  4th Earl Grey redirects to Albert Grey, 4th Earl Grey. Nobody called him that; he was referred to simply as the 4th Earl Grey by his contemporaries, and referring to him as 4th Earl Grey still works perfectly fine in 2024, as it did in 1904. A Google books search for the short name[1] gives 6290 results, about 15 times as many as for the long one[2], the latter of which are all recent (they are, in fact, all younger than the Wikipedia article). It is convention to use the long name here, and I haven't seen anyone complain about it. Renerpho (talk) 11:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  He'd be more commonly called "Lord Grey". There's no confusion because there's only ever one of them alive. Calling Elizabeth (died 1603} "Elizabeth I" was greatly accelerated by the accession of a second queen named Elizabeth. Before that she was like John, Anne, Victoria Wehwalt (talk) 12:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I guess the 1st Viscount Grey of Fallodon, a contemporary of the 4th Earl Grey, would also have been referred to as Lord Grey, but that's besides the point. I think Thryduulf was looking for an example where a short title would work perfectly, but where Wikipedia nonetheless chooses a longer one. Nearly all articles about British nobility do this. It doesn't mean we have to do it for monarchs, but it doesn't mean we couldn't either. Renerpho (talk) 13:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, the Earls Grey might not be your cup of tea, but they were prominent in politics and foreign affairs for a century. I agree with you, there is nothing stopping having the long title for monarchs, but for the most part, when it comes to certain present-day monarchs and British (and a few others) of the 19th and 20th and 21st centuries, we've chosen not to, for reasons exhaustively thrashed out there (such as reader convenience; most people looking for Charles III are looking for the present British monarch, and sending them through a dab page on the off-chance they're looking for someone else does not serve the reader well). That choice should not be overridden, given it has been made time and again, without an RFC with a very clear consensus. Wehwalt (talk) 14:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  My issue is that while name and ordinals only is the right choice for Charles III and some others, it is not the right choice for every monarch for whom that would be ambiguous - i.e. one size does not fit all, and getting the right (i.e. most recognisable unambiguous) title is more important than consistency. Thryduulf (talk) 14:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The community has been successful in making judgments (George II of Great Britain but George III). It's possible to disagree with some of its choices but the answer is not to override them wholesale. Wehwalt (talk) 15:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Glad to see my comment inspired such passionate responses! Aza24 (talk) 22:06, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  FOARP: Because the most concise unambiguous title isn't necessarily the best title. (If it were we'd have US, UK, Obama, Cézanne, 103rd Congress, DTs, Bothell, etc.) ╠╣uw [talk] 12:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 1, using option 3 when disambiguation is necessary. Stifle (talk) 09:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 3, with Option 9 (i.e. COMMONNAME) able to override it as necessary. SnowFire (talk) 07:16, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 9. This is quite a complex and varied playing field, with different conventions being appropriate for different articles, and these should be determined on a case-by-case basis. I can't see why these should be treated differently from other Wikipedia articles. 123957a (talk) 08:43, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not being treated differently. All the options have been argued to be "common name". The only question is which format to express it in. Walrasiad (talk) 09:36, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And that answer is different for different articles. Thryduulf (talk) 09:42, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are thousands of articles on European monarchs. Deciding each on a case-by-case basis without guidelines on format will yield up articles with titling all over the place, e.g. "Louis X", "King Louis XI", "Louis XIII of France", "Louis XIV, King of France", "Louis XV (King of France)", "Louis XVI (France)". It'd be nice to settle some guidelines as a reference, particularly guidelines that meet other Wikipedia criteria and goals like WP:CONSISTENCY, WP:RECOGNIZABILITY, WP:BIAS, etc. If a particular monarch's WP:COMMONAME falls outside the format of the guidelines, it will always be made an exception and decided on a case-by-case basis. But it would be nice to have some guidance to work with, rather than tussle in endless time-consuming RMs across thousands of articles. That's why guidelines exist. Walrasiad (talk) 09:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the common names are different the article titles should be different. It is more important that article titles be recognisable than they conform to an arbitrary title format. Thryduulf (talk) 10:05, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. But wrt monarchs, the common name can be expressed in eight different formats each of which can be argued to be common name. So simply saying "Option 9" is not really helpful for this RfC. Walrasiad (talk) 10:13, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But many have, which says to me that Option 9 is not being taken for what you think it has. I personally take it to mean the common name as determined by discussion on each page. Wehwalt (talk) 13:15, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In that case I might go for Option 4, Option 5 or Option 6 as they have the most information: Option 4 matches the common format [Title] [Name] [Ordinal] with a country disambiguator; Option 5 has the benefit of being able to show an official title (like King of France); Option 6 can tell you "king of France" might not be part of the COMMONNAME and is being used as a disambiguator here (which is why 'king' is lowercase), and also matches Wikipedia's standard disambiguation technique (which uses parentheses). I exclude Option 8 because what comes after a comma (as opposed to being within a pair of parentheses) should be a proper name and thus be in title case, unless the lowercase-after-comma is actually the COMMONNAME, in which case Option 8 would be fine. 123957a (talk) 10:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 3 I think it is confusing if we have George II of Great Britain followed by George III (of Great Britain), even though there are many other George III's listed at George III (disambiguation). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:50, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 3, usually, followed by 9. The "realm" should be kept short and sweet, e.g., "Louis XVI of France", not "Louis XVI of France and Navarre". If you mean to search for or link to the Louis XVI that is of France, then Louis XVI of France gives you confidence that you have found the right one. For those that say "Oh, but surely every educated person already knows that there's only ever been a single monarch named Louis XVI, so it's obvious that you're at the correct one!", then I say: Not everyone knows the same details that you do. Many of our readers are still in school, are not from Europe, or are uninterested in monarchy. Also, even for people who are interested in that subject, most of them won't also know that there's only one Eric XIV, or which country he was from. I oppose options 1, 2, 4. The first provides too little information, and the other two (leading with the title) sound "off" in terms of Wikipedia's style. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:08, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 9 / 1 Absent the need to disambiguate, shorter is better. I was present in the Charles III RfC over its title, and one of the sticking points there was what country would we even put down as the one he rules? That problem is all too common, and will come up time and time again if we suddenly have to start attaching countries to royals needlessly. I fail to see a major distinction between option 1 and 9, and wouldn't mind either one being the standard. TheSavageNorwegian 15:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 9, this isn't a "one size fits all" topic, certainly not one to be set-in-stone which may then be used to change long-time titles which have been hashed out over the decades. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 3 the least confussing especcially in cases where various numbers of a given name arent from teh same country—blindlynx 16:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 3, followed by Option 9; 3 seems to already be standard convention for many European monarchs as it is now, and I see no need to change that for the majority of monarchs. Some that may have a different name that is more commonly referred to (such as Napoleon and Queen Victoria) are either one-of-a-kind or already have redirects from their numbered titles. This I feel is also adequately addressed by WP:NATURAL in the case of option 3. However, there may be certain cases where WP:COMMONNAME should be used, as a numbered name might not be immediately recognizable to a reader unfamiliar with the numbering and titles of monarchs, and is a preferable alternative to option 3 where it fails. SmittenGalaxy (talk) 07:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 1 if the only monarch of that name, Option 3 otherwise. --Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:02, 1 July 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. Elme12 (talk) 11:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]

  @Compassionate727: Maybe this should be placed in the "Survey" section? Renerpho (talk) 21:33, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll probably have a more detailed vote at some point, but I'm still considering my opinion. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:02, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this is too long for "Survey". But since it expresses the grounds of my opinion, let me lay it out here in full.

The norm of Monarch # of country (Option 3 above) was the norm on Wikipedia for the past two decades. Country name needs to be restored in article titles. It worked well on many grounds, e.g.

• (1) immediately recognizable, informative and helpful to readers,
• (2) immediately identifies the topic as a monarch rather than numerous other uses of names & numerals, e.g. nobles generally (duke/count/earls are also known by numerals e.g. "Henry II"), or a pope ("Nicholas II") or bishop ("Bruno I"), or a cryptic surname ("Malcolm X") or a movie sequel ("Rocky III"), or a ship ("Mary II") or any other myriad of common uses for combinations of name & ordinal (e.g. in genealogical numbering, etc.) The term "of country" immediately clarifies that the article refers to a monarch.
• (3) ensures consistency of names both vertically (across time) and horizontally (across countries)
• (4) it does not prejudice one country over another, avoiding presumptions of national superiority (e.g. "George III of Great Britain" does not trump "George III of Georgia"). Puts all countries on a fair and equal footing, avoiding POV that this country is "more important" than that country.
• (5) it overcome the problem of nativist spelling. In some RSs monarch names are translated into English (e.g. Amadeus, Nicholas, John, Ladislaus, Elizabeth), in other RSs they are kept in native form (e.g. Amadeo, Nikolai, Juan, Wladyslaw, Isabel) and many readers come from non-English RSs which may use another name entirely (e.g. Niccolo, Giovanni, Ulaszlo). Which spelling Wikipedia article chooses tends to be a random crapshoot, and readers shouldn't have to guess editors' preferences. They shouldn't be forced to guess that "Ladislaus I" is the same person they read in a book as "Ulaszlo I". Adding the country "Ladislaus I of Hungary" clarifies and helps them find who they're looking for.
• (6) lets Wikipedia maintain its policy of avoiding honorifics in the article titles. In common usage, almost nobody uses "George III" or "Nicholas II" alone. When they want to refer to them, they almost always prefix the title to it, "King George III", or "Tsar Nicholas II" or "Queen Isabella I". Just like we refer to "Pope John Paul II" rather than "John Paul II", it should be "King George III", not merely "George III". The usage "...of country" avoids us having to include the honorific "King" (or "Tsar", "Duke" or "Prince" or whatever) in the title, by having the title implied already in the name of the kingdom/duchy/principality. The original norm "George III of Great Britain" functioned already as a concise version of what should be the proper article title "George III, King of Great Britain",
• (7) It serves a de facto surname. First names are extremely common, and ordinals are not particularly memorable. People might know a Tsar Nicholas of Russia was overthrown in a revolution, but not remember whether he is Nicholas I, II, III or IV. The country "of Russia" serves the effective function of surname, helping identify the person without relying completely on numeral memorization.
• (8) It remembers that the audience of Wikipedia is WP:GLOBAL, and does not assume all our readers are deeply versed in European royal kitsch, and would instantly remember the country by name & number alone.

We need a consistent norm for sovereigns, applied equitably across countries, that is useful, helpful, improves recognizability and avoids toxic nationalist squabbles. The gain of including "of country" is great, the cost is negligible or none.

By contrast, the current post-RFC guidelines six months ago or so (which drop "of country", that is option 1 above) fails on all the counts above and is very costly to Wikipedia readers.

• (1) reduces recognizability and imposes hurdles on readers,
• (2) doesn't indicate that it refers to a monarch - is Nicholas II a pope or a king or a rocket?
• (3) introduces inconsistency in article titles, both within a country, and across countries.
• (4) introduces large country bias and POV nationalist/imperialist prejudices (Britain is more important than Georgia, France more important than Sweden, Russia is more important than Ukraine, etc.) and encourages distasteful nationalist squabbles
• (5) it assumes Wikipedia readers have multi-lingual capabilities, and can recognize different spellings from different languages,
• (6) it violates commonname where the shortened form almost always uses honorifics.
• (7) names & ordinals are not memorable on their own, making it a huge hurdle to non-Europeans or simply anybody not interested in royalist kitsch, who have not committed names & ordinals to memory.
• (8) Moreover, it imposes the additional huge information requirement that Wikipedia readers must be familiar not only with this monarch, but also with ALL other European royal lines, e.g. readers not only need to know Nicholas II is from Russia, they also need to know there isn't another Nicholas II existing out there in another country (i.e. readers must also know the dynastic lines of France, Sweden, Poland, Pomerania, etc.) A huge burden that far exceeds the normal familiarity requirements.

For these reasons, and more, I support Option 3 ("Oliver X of Montenegro") as sufficiently concise, although wouldn't oppose Option 5 ("Oliver X, King of Montenegro") or Option 4 ("King Oliver X of Montenegro"). But I would strongly oppose Option 1 ("Oliver X"). Naturally, there should always be reservations for exceptions which can be argued on a case-by-case basis (per WP:COMMMONNAME etc.) But guidelines need to suggest a norm, and as far as norms are concerned, Option 3 is best.

Including "of country" has worked well for 20+ years, has a longer and wider consensus and more support in nearly all recent RMs that have tried to eliminate it since last November. Walrasiad (talk) 04:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Walrasiad this is in the wrong section, and you may want to shorten what’s effectively a wall of text as well. The Kip ^(contribs) 04:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where should it go? It feels too long to go into survey. But these are points I wish to present systematically for consideration in this discussion. Walrasiad (talk) 04:35, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, your statement clocks in at over 900 words - not a lot of folks are willing to consider that in full. The Kip ^(contribs) 04:40, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a summary of repeated RM discussions which clock in several thousands of words, with multiple paragraphs for each point. I have slimmed it to comprehensible minimum, broken it down into bulletpoints & boldface keywords to simplify reading. I was under the impression this is the place where people would be considering revising the norm. If not here, then where? Walrasiad (talk) 04:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This boils down the discussions to something like 1/50th of the original word count. I appreciate that, even though I agree it's still long. Renerpho (talk) 18:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for all folk, but 900 words of monologue and 900 words of dialogue have in my mind the same potential for captivation or boredom (it depends who's writing what). InedibleHulk (talk) 15:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From your arguments here, I'm failing to see a reasonable argument for option 3 over option 4. You raise several good points here– but all of them point to it being useful to include the title. You argue in point 2 that "of country" in itself makes it clear that the individual is a monarch– it does not. Take George, King of Saxony, for instance. Option 4 would be the slightly more natural-sounding King George of Saxony and be very clear, whereas your suggested option 3 would be George of Saxony– how is the average reader coming across that article title meant to know he is a monarch?

In your point 6 you claim that omitting the "King" is a way of avoiding honorifics– but do not explain why that is a good or a desirable thing. "King" is not merely a courtesy title– King Charles III is far more comparable to Pope John Paul II in that being a king/pope is what those individuals are primarily known for, as opposed to Sir Keir Starmer where the honorific knighthood is very much not what he is primarily known for. This is why I am heavily opposed to options 1, 3, and 7. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 13:17, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chessrat: Actually, I largely agree with you, and don't oppose including "King". Indeed I insisted on including it as an option. But my main concern is retaining "of country" somewhere in the article title, as necessary disambiguation. It has the extra benefit for those very intent on concision of allowing the removal of honorifics, and so I am willing to compromise there.

But you raise an important point. Certainly insofar as British royals are concerned, there is very different usage in Britain vs. ROTW, which is something that should be taken into consideration. Hardly anybody outside of Britain refers to these people without the "King" honorific. The average American would would have no idea who "Charles III" was, but would instantly recognize "King Charles III". Which is why the title of the British movie "Madness of George III" had to be changed to "Madness of King George for non-British audiences. Not even Americans, who are quite familiar with the American Revolution since primary school, would have any idea what "George III" refers to. So it is certainly a worthwhile keeping in mind Wikipedia's audience is WP:GLOBAL, and not British. Walrasiad (talk) 22:37, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is too long to address point-by-point so I’m going to focus on one main point: recognizability. Many people, including you, apparently, take the name of that criterion literally and simplistically: a title that makes the subject more easily recognized than another title meets the criteria better, period. At least it seems like that’s how you’re interpreting it when you say including “of country” makes the title “immediately recognizable” and eliminating it “reduces recognizability”. You make these statements as if that in itself shows including “of country” is preferable. But the description of the recognizability criterion clearly states that meeting it merely means the title is recognizable to those familiar with the topic area. There is no policy basis for making a title more recognizable than that. That’s a much lower and fixed hurdle than the unlimited one your interpretation implies.

A related point you seem to overlook is that far more important than random readers being able to recognize a topic from its title is that the title accurately reflects the name most commonly used in reliable sources. Those of us favoring option 9 have no objection to including “of country” when it’s included in the COMMONNAME for the given sovereign. Our objection is to including it it when the COMMONNAME does not, and disambiguation is not required. —В²C ☎ 05:43, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think option 9 is causing confusion. The function of the guidelines should be to guide, not to restrict. People seem to be citing household names ("Alexander the Great", "Charlemagne", "Napoleon"), which would and should always be exceptions to whatever norm is agreed upon here, and overlooking that 99/100 articles pertain to more obscure folks over the past thousand years, like the proverbial King Oliver X of Montenegro, who are not household names and where guidelines would be helpful. After all, all these variants can be argued to be "common name". The point is to help decide which form is preferable, and more adherent to Wikipedia goals. Option 9 makes it seem as if it is an alternative option. Common name is always the primary criteria, the question to be decided is which is the common name. Walrasiad (talk) 22:29, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then there's a problem with the RfC. I think perhaps it would be a good idea if we gave some examples and stated how they would be stated under each of the nine or ten options. Maybe one of them could be something like oh, I don't know, maybe .... Charles III? Because I think perhaps it's that one a good number of people care about, from my memory of having participated in the RMs, or at least most of the RMs. Wehwalt (talk) 22:48, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. And yes, the choice of the example(s) makes a difference; compare SKAG123's answer in the survey. Renerpho (talk) 22:59, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest to include: Louis XVI (the example currently given), Charles III, and Charlemagne (the latter to make clear that it wouldn't be affected by any of the options). Renerpho (talk) 23:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC) And add option 10 under which Charles III would be titled "Charles" (making that option distinct from the rest). Renerpho (talk) 23:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this has gone a bit off the rails. It was supposed to be about what the title should be when there's not an unusual, obvious common name and we're mostly balancing between the criteria. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with using the current King Charles III of Britain as an example, as that is contemporary, and many enthusiasts will want to insist on his preeminence on the basis of modern popular press, regardless of the effect it will have on thousands of other articles (which are mostly historical). My concern is to prevent the norm across historical articles being held hostage to one particular modern example which can and probably should be considered separately on its merits. To avoid confusion, I had proposed at the village dump to actually consider two norms separately in this RfC - one for historical monarchs (with a cut off date, say, before 1900) and the other for contemporary monarchs (where usage would conform more to the modern press usage) rather than impose a single norm across them all. For this RfC, I would prefer to use a relatively obscure monarch as an example, a made up one such as "King Oliver X of Montenegro", or even a not-so-obscure, like "King Charles XI of Sweden" or "Tsar Nicholas II of Russia", who are reasonably known but not modern household names necessarily. Walrasiad (talk) 23:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that Charles III is contemporary is one of the main issues. We could replace the current list of examples by something like this table, what do you think? Renerpho (talk) 23:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the choice of monarchs is open for debate, and I agree maybe it's best to leave out Charles. Feel free to edit the draft table in my sandbox if you see a better way... Renerpho (talk) 23:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What about using Charles and for #9, state "Charles III (per existing consensus)" After all, that's the state of play. Wehwalt (talk) 00:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wehwalt: I left the outcome of #9 ambiguous on purpose. I believe one purpose of this RfC is to determine if the claimed consensus is actually real, so speaking of a specific "existing consensus" in this case may be problematic. @BilledMammal: What do you think about updating the RfC to give more examples, like in the table linked above? Renerpho (talk) 01:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Renerpho: This RfC request does not apply to the current British king. As noted in the prefactory remarks "In the absence of a need to disambiguate". This RfC does not apply to him, as it is for articles for monarchs whose name & numerals are unique - whereas Charles III of UK clearly not unique and needs disambiguation (e.g. King Charles III of Spain exists). His case is separate, and does not implicate this RfC. So I'd like to keep current British monarch out of this discussion, let Charles III be treated as a separate case ("what do we do with recent monarchs in popular press whose names do need disambiguation?"), on its own merits, and not make this guideline hostage to it. Walrasiad (talk) 02:08, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Walrasiad: That's neither how I read most of the replies in the survey that mention Charles III, nor BilledMammal's replies concerning this question, like what they said at 23:03, 22 June 2024. The clarification added to the RfC says that it also applies to those articles where one is the primary topic (like with Charles III, apparently). Renerpho (talk) 02:15, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BilledMammal, if you could clarify this again, once and for all, maybe we can avoid any misunderstandings. Renerpho (talk) 02:17, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I think that's something the closer needs to determine. Too many editors have !voted now for me to decide one way or another.

Perhaps I made a mistake, deferring to the discussion at VPI to include additional options - although given that WP:COMMONNAME was only added because editors started !voting for it, I'm not sure it would have prevented this discussion broadening too difficult proportions. BilledMammal (talk) 02:46, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Renerpho: Yes, there does seem to be a lot of misunderstanding among the responses. This RfC was meant to address the question of monarchs with unique names & ordinals - so folks like "Louis XIV of France" (unique to France) or "Charles XII of Sweden" (unique to Sweden). This was the problem with the post-November RfC version of NCROY, this is the problem that is implicating dozens of acrimonious RMs in Wikipedia for the past six months. This RfC is trying to address the problem of whether "Charles XI of Sweden" (which definitely requires "of Sweden" disambiguation, as there are many other Charles XI's, e.g. Charles XI of France) should be followed by "Charles XII of Sweden" or simply "Charles XII" (as the twelfth numeral does not exist in France). That is, whether "Charles XII" is sufficient for readers to recognize him as a King of Sweden, or whether "of Sweden" should be specified in the article title to help readers with recognizability.

It is not meant to deal with cases when disambiguation is clearly needed - that is primary topic disputes as to whether Charles III of Britain is more important than Charles III of Spain. That is its own bag of worms, which probably merits a separate discussion all its own. All versions of NCROY, before and after November, are clear that disambiguation is needed when names & ordinals overlap (never mind that many articles like Charles III of UK ignore that guideline). What we're trying to resolve here, in this RfC, is more narrow - merely the case when ordinals happen to be unique (e.g. Charles XII of Sweden), what should be the recommended guideline? Walrasiad (talk) 03:01, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BilledMammal: This seems to have indeed become something of a pig's breakfast of confusion. That's why I earnestly recommended at VPI a carve out of contemporary or British monarchs so as not to make this a magnet for confused responses. Walrasiad (talk) 03:06, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Walrasiad: This is most unfortunate. Early during this RfC, I asked for clarification, even saying that I would understand it like that, too [i.e., that Charles III was excluded!], but given the nature of the debate, I think it doesn't hurt to be absolutely clear about it. BilledMammal's response was what convinced me that Charles III was, in fact, explicitly included. It's late here and I'll have to rethink where I stand in this debate, if those cases are left out. Renerpho (talk) 03:13, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Walrasiad: I assume you mean to contrast Charles XII with the two Charles IX, not Charles XI, of which there is only one AFAIK. More important, the question is not if someone should recognise Charles XII as "a King of Sweden" from the name alone. The question is if someone at least somewhat familiar with Charles XII would realise that it is (or could be) the right article from the name "Charles XII" alone. As has been said before, we don't have "recognise as an X" as a general criterion for naming articles.

Andejons (talk) 10:01, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd answer "no" to that question. Renerpho (talk) 10:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the closer may well find that there was no agreement among community members about what the proposal was we were commenting on. In my opinion, part of the reason for that is the multiplicity of RMs, policy proposals and miscellaneous discussions on the issue of titling of monarchical articles. If this was seen as "just another", well, given the inventiveness of some of the earlier discussions, the position is pardonable. Wehwalt (talk) 13:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Andejons: You're right. I meant the two Charles IX. Only goes to prove that name & ordinals are easy to confuse and not so memorable by themselves. :) Yes, per WP:RECOGNIZABILITY someone familiar with King Charles XII of Sweden needs to be able to recognize the title. But to recognize an article titled "Charles XII" is about him and not someone else, the reader needs to be also aware there is no King Charles XII of France, and no Charles XII, Duke of Lorraine, and no Pope Charles XII. The information requirement is excessive. Say "Charles XII of Sweden", and all doubt instantly disappears. Say "Charles XII" and even an expert would not know who it was about. "Of Sweden" is his effective surname. Walrasiad (talk) 16:07, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement that names should disambiguate from imaginary or even probable future persons. If someone knows about "Charles XII", that name is recognisable in the meaning given by WP:CRITERIA. This can be contrasted with "Alexander III of Macedon" which is unique but only recognisable by experts. Furthermore, in some cases, ordinal and country does not uniquely identify someone either - see Magnus I of Sweden (the ordinal has been applied by some historians, but they have not agreed on who was king and who was a pretender).

Andejons (talk) 17:06, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Walrasiad: this is another critical point you seem to be missing in your position. Anyone familiar with Charles XII will recognize him from the title Charles XII. Thus recognizability is met. As @Andejons says, there is no requirement at WP:D or anywhere else to disambiguate Charles XII from other potential uses of Charles XII because it’s unreasonable to expect those familiar with Charles XII “to be also aware there is no King Charles XII of France, and no Charles XII, Duke of Lorraine, and no Pope Charles XII”. That awareness is not required for anyone to recognize Charles XII from Charles XII. Unless it can be shown that “of Sweden” is more commonly used in reliable sources to refer to Charles XII than not, “of Sweden” is not part of the topic’s COMMONNAME, by definition, and it’s not his “effective surname”. I see no reason to ignore title policy that works for all our articles and instead follow some special rules for royalty/sovereign topics as you are advocating. —В²C ☎ 13:56, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wehwalt: In my opinion, part of the reason for that is the multiplicity of RMs, policy proposals and miscellaneous discussions - My own prior involvement in this was a single technical comment on a RM, on which I didn't vote. Whether that helped, because I had a fresh look at the linked prior discussions without being involved, or just confused me further because I was unfamiliar with both the status quo and established practice, I don't know. Yesterday I'd have said it helped. Today I'd tell you I'm confused so don't listen to me... Renerpho (talk) 17:29, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Andejons: It is a requirement of WP:RECOGNIZABILITY that names should be recognizable to readers familiar with the topic. I am not unfamiliar with Charles XII of Sweden, - indeed I am a professional historian - but I would not recognize who that article was about without the "of Sweden" specification. Remember, article titles have to stand by themselves, without the benefit of context. Nobody ever refers to "Charles XII" without also noting he is King of Sweden. Do a conventional google search for "Charles XII" without King & Sweden, For all his fame, you primarily get a horse and a plant.

• Look at book titles. "King of Sweden" or "of Sweden" is always included in titles of books e.g., e.g., e.g. or "Swedish" is mentioned as part of title e.g.. He is never mentioned as "Charles XII" alone.
• I always find the indexes of books particularly instructive, since names in indexes are usually out of context and must be concise. It is always and everywhere "Charles XII, King of Sweden" or "Charles XII of Sweden", and never, ever "Charles XII" alone.

e.g. [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28],[29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34],[35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], etc.

I think the evidence establishes that the longer form with "of Sweden" is part of his WP:COMMONNAME pretty dramatically. Walrasiad (talk) 19:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will quote WP:RECOGNIZABILITY "The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize." It is not a requirement that the name should be unambigous. That is instead handled by WP:PRECISION, which opens up, but those not dictate, that guidelines like WP:NCROY can require longer names. Recognisability instead means that we should avoid names only someone more deeply familiar with the subjects would recognise, such as "Carolus Rex".

If indeed "Charles XII of Sweden" is the commonname, I can accept that. But that does not in itself mean that I would agree to e.g. "Charles VIII of Sweden" or "Charles XVI Gustaf of Sweden".

Andejons (talk) 22:42, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Born2cycle's post from 13:56, 27 June 2024 (UTC) - As I will present in the following counterargument, I disagree with your logic.

Let's use the example of Sun Prairie, Wisconsin, United States, my hometown (For the record, my username is not my "real" name). I am (evidently) very familiar with this place to the point that I can recognize it from the title Sun Prairie. Thus recognizability is met, as you claim.

Now, to paraphrase your wording, I did not know a place called Sun Prairie, Montana existed until I did a Wikipedia search just minutes ago (and I have lived in my hometown for two decades!). That awareness is not required for anyone to recognize [Sun Prairie], and I agree with that.

HOWEVER, as WP:USPLACE advises, according to the comma convention, articles about populated places of the United States are typically titled "Placename, State" when located in a US state or "Placename, Territory" when located in US territories.

I see no reason to ignore title policy that works for all our articles and instead follow some special rules ... topics as you are advocating. If this is the case, why does WP:USPLACE exist? Should Sun Prairie not be the article title for my Wisconsin hometown because it follows a I see no reason to ignore title policy that works for all our articles. And above all, why can WP:NCROY also not have specialized guidance? AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 16:31, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no policy that prohibits a USPLACE-like naming guideline for monarchs; indeed, that is exactly what we had until last November's change to NCROY. The question before us today is whether or not we want to reinstate that sort of guideline. Rosbif73 (talk) 18:24, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First, thank you for recognizing that you’re favoring specialized guidance. I’ve understood others to be arguing that including “of country” in Royalty titles is their COMMONNAME. While that may be true in a few cases, as a general rule for royalty it’s easily refuted.

Second, one of the arguments against including “, state” in USPLACE names when it wasn’t necessary for disambiguation was that it establishes precedence for specialized guidance that will be used as an excuse in other categories. And here we are. But for USPLACE names it can be, and was, argued, that including the state (for non-AP cities) was the COMMONNAME for these topics. Since the AP establishes naming standards for so many prominent reliable sources, the USPLACE guidance is arguably not specialized guidance, but merely a clarification of how COMMONNAME applies to these topics. That’s why USPLACE exists.

Finally, I see no comparable basis for including “of country” in all or most royalty article titles. As you have conceded, for these articles it would be specialized guidance, and there is no precedent for that. Certainly not USPLACE. —В²C ☎ 19:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on X of Y format

I apologize if this post is off-topic or increases the tension. However, I would like to say this to those who say that Option 3 is enough to identify a monarch:

1. X of Y can also refer to a religious figure. To illustrate, Theodore II of Alexandria and Francis of Assisi are both notable Christians who were not monarchs. WP:NCPEOPLE#"X of Y" format lists some other examples.
2. Especially for monarchs without regnal numbers, X of Y can be ambiguous with non-sovereign royals. For example, Baudouin of Belgium can refer to Prince Baudouin of Belgium or Baudouin, King of the Belgians.
   1. And as an anecdotal example, when I talk about William of the United Kingdom with my American friends, they assume I refer to William, Prince of Wales, not William IV, King of the United Kingdom (despite the latter having an ordinal!).
3. For European princes and grand dukes, we already use Option 5. Albert II of Monaco and Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein are unambiguous and conform to Option 3, yet Wikipedia titles them with the more precise Albert II, Prince of Monaco and Hans-Adam II, Prince of Liechtenstein.
4. As a Spanish speaker, I note that X of Spain is NOT the "actual" name of Spain's monarchs. For example, Juan Carlos I is legally Juan Carlos de Borbón y Borbón and Felipe VI is legally Felipe de Borbón y Grecia.

AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 03:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Consistency"/"Stability"

I see these points raised by many of those !voting for option 3. This seems logically suspect to me. Surely, unless we are simply saying that some things can never be changed on Wikipedia, there will necessarily be a period when a new standard is agreed on and then implemented in which article-titles will be "inconsistent" as some have been changed to the new standard but others are yet to be changed. Similarly, "stability" is already not present and simply an argument based on tenure: the titles will be "stable" also under the new standard once that is implemented. FOARP (talk) 08:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I support applying a clear standard to all relevant articles in a way that produces titles that share the same form or pattern. My concern is that some options would not yield that consistency of form, in a way that could be detrimental to readers. (Nyttend’s comment in the survey touches on this.) What I think you're describing — temporary inconsistency stemming simply from the time it takes to implement any new standard — isn't something I'm that worried about. ╠╣uw [talk] 13:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Huwmanbeing, @Srnec: the problem with guidance that dictates that titles “share the same form or pattern”, is that that often results in titles that are contrary to COMMONNAME. As Wikipedia influence continues to grow, it becomes more and more important that we accurately reflect the COMMONNAME in our titles, because if we use something else we incorrectly imply that that something else is how the topic is most commonly referred in reliable sources.

@Wehwalt, while users may not be overtly concerned with titles, they are surely influenced by them. That’s why it’s critical we accurately reflect COMMONNAME in our titles. I agree users are not concerned with consistency and are not influenced or affected by its presence or absence. В²C ☎ 21:52, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Born2Cycle: I do not think what you are describing is an issue here. I think that "Edward I of England" is like "Winston Churchill". People know you can shorten it to "Edward I" or "Churchill". We do not need to tell people that "Barack Obama" is sometimes called just "Obama". They know how names work. So I don't the longer than absolutely necessary title under consideration pose a problem. Srnec (talk) 01:16, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What Huw said. The purpose of the guideline should be to create consistent and predictable titles so that no reader is ever left wondering why this is titled one way and that very similar article another way. Srnec (talk) 20:26, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt if readers are terribly concerned about article titles. Why would they be? Why would they care about consistency? They want information. Wehwalt (talk) 21:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that either of you could back up claims about the needs of readers with data, but I tend to align myself with Srnec here. I can only speak for myself, and as a reader, I am bothered by inconsistent article titles. I can look past them, of course, but there is meaning in page titles. Renerpho (talk) 22:16, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Titles convey information. I doubt we would spend as much time as we do on them if it were generally believed that readers don't notice or care. I think (in)consistency between titles conveys information, often unintentionally. Srnec (talk) 01:16, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, though as I said, I'm dubious, since it would require readers to consult two articles and compare the titles of the two when that's probably not what they are here for. And let's face it, large numbers of readers come in through external searches and take only passing notice of article titles. Readers are here for information. Wehwalt (talk) 01:26, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like how you portray our readers, Wehwalt. I feel a bit insulted, frankly, as a reader of Wikipedia. You may be right that many arrive through external sources, and will never look at more than one article from a given subject area, possibly ignoring the page title entirely. But that doesn't mean that this should be our standard. If it were then we could let go of the need for reliable sources as well, because I doubt many readers bother to look at them. It doesn't matter, we're not here to accommodate the most casual possible reader.

When I said that you probably have no data to back up your claims (about Wikipedia's readership), that was true for myself as well. I don't know how many people really care about page titles; I just know that I do and you may not. This is a genuinely interesting question. If anyone has studied this systematically then I'm interested to learn about it! Renerpho (talk) 08:39, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, it's anecdotal, but having nominated over 200 FAs over twenty years and following the talk page comments on them since promotion. I can say it's usually not about the title. Again it's anecdotal. Wehwalt (talk) 15:46, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

+1 FOARP (talk) 08:12, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wehwalt: "It would require readers to consult two articles and compare the titles of the two…" Not at all; multiple titles often appear together in the same place, such as in search suggestions, article categories, etc. As such, it's reasonable to consider a user seeing titles like “Foo I of Bar”, “Foo II of Bar”, “Foo III of Bar”, and… “Foo IV”. Is the fourth monarch not of Bar? Since all the others are so identified but that one is not, it’s a reasonable assumption for readers to make... but it would not necessarily be a correct one. ╠╣uw [talk] 14:59, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Time/Geography

What are the time and geographic constraints of this proposal? There seem to be some implied but none are actually stated. Would for example Alexander the Great, Boudica, Augustus and Baldwin II of Jerusalem all fall under this proposal? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:08, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of the British (and predecessor) thrones, the House of Normandy was the one that introduced the regnal numbering system so I'd argue that applying that style to anyone earlier than William I (common name William the Conqueror) would be inappropriate (not that I think the proposed straitjacketing is appropriate at all). Likewise for other thrones, but I don't know the details for them. Thryduulf (talk) 19:36, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BilledMammal: I am unfamiliar with the history of this proposal, can you clarify this point from your perspective? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is entitled "European monarchs" so on that basis there is a geographic constraint to this RfC but no time constraint. So, Alexander the Great, Boudica, and Augustus are covered but Baldwin II of Jerusalem isn't (although being born in France may put that in doubt). I'm not sure why there is a "European" limitation on this RfC. That seems unnecessary. The basic issue here is whether or not to add the territorial designation to monarch titles. That's a global point without time limit. As far as regnal numbers are concerned, in terms of British history that was introduced much later than the House of Normandy - late middle ages I believe. But it doesn't really matter: historians still refer to Æthelred II of Northumbria etc. Similarly, we have Constantine VII, Gordian II and, even, Darius III even though no one ever called them that in their life times. Regnal numbers are used by historians without geographical or time limits - from Ashur-nirari III to Moctezuma II and Charles III. In English-language historiography it has no time or geographical limitations. DeCausa (talk) 21:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of Alexander the Great, Boudica, Augustus and Baldwin II of Jerusalem, the latter is the only one that's covered by this RfC (compare titles like [56]). The first three have clear-cut common names, and those are of no interest (compare the comments by Rosbif73 from 15:40, 26 June 2024; and Walrasiad's from 22:29, 23 June 2024). Defining the geographic range of this proposal by modern state/continent boundaries makes no sense. A geographic constraint only makes sense if there is a "shared history". Exclude places like the Americas, or China, from this proposal is probably a good idea. Renerpho (talk) 22:15, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Huh??? That's not true. This is about scope - not what should be the outcome. COMMONNAME is just one of the options for the RfC - specifically option 9. One of the outcomes of this RfC could be not to follow it. So Alexander the Great, Boudica, Augustus are absolutely in scope. whether you think they should change is an entirely different matter. The Kingdom of Jerusalem (Baldwin) was not in Europe. The title of this RfC is "Titles of European monarchs". DeCausa (talk) 22:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding option 9 as an option was probably a mistake then, as noted above, because it seems to imply that we are interested in cases where there is a clear-cut common name. I have serious doubts that this was intended, and I'm obviously not the only one. The Kingdom of Jerusalem was not in modern-day Europe, but it was a very European kingdom. As BilledMammal said (02:46, 24 June 2024), it's too late to add a clarification to the RfC itself, but this is causing a lot of confusion either way. Renerpho (talk) 22:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't cause any confusion. It's straightforward" Option 9 is there and Jerusalem is not in Europe. If editors are confused then they need to unconfuse themselves. DeCausa (talk) 22:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The common name per option 9 is the title of the article as determined in normal editing processes. What else could it be? I think that's what people are getting at when they say they favor there being no special rules but instead WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NCROY being applied. Wehwalt (talk) 22:49, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. And I take the alternative view that "Louis XIV" is almost certainly COMMONNAME but I think the article should be "Louis XIV of France" nevertheless. So whether or not COMMONNAME should apply is absolutely in scope for this RfC. DeCausa (talk) 22:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. I lack the capacity to unconfuse myself, and not for lack of trying. If you want to address the questions raised above, that'd be appreciated, but things like it shouldn't cause any confusion aren't very helpful.

To quote Compassionate727: I agree this has gone a bit off the rails. It [this RfC] was supposed to be about what the title should be when there's not an unusual, obvious common name and we're mostly balancing between the criteria. I agree with them. Saying that the solution to this problem is to apply the criteria (especially COMMONNAME) doesn't solve anything. Renerpho (talk) 22:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You seem confused between what the outcome should be and what the scope is. They're not the same thing. The scope is the scope per the title of this RfC and the options presented. It's not unclear. The right outcome might be unclear but that, as i say, is different. Also, whether the scope should have been different is also a different matter. DeCausa (talk) 23:12, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, they're different things, but I find it difficult to separate the scope of the RfC (and of the options) from the results.

European may not be clear yet. It seems that we two don't agree on its meaning (in the context of this RfC), but maybe that's just "me against the world". I think applying modern boundaries is a strange way to interpret it, and that "monarchs in Europe" and "European monarchs" don't mean the same thing. Whether Jerusalem is in Europe is irrelevant. As you said, the title of this RfC is "Titles of European monarchs". While the Kingdom of Jerusalem was not in Europe (as we understand it today), its king (Baldwin) was a European monarch. And so he is in scope. Renerpho (talk) 23:38, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The scope per the title of this RfC is unclear, that is why we are having this discussion. You're contending that "European" is a purely geographic description and that there is an unlimited time scope (from the begining of history until the present day)? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:18, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As an addendum to my previous comment: I tried to find guidance in what Wikipedia does in its articles about monarchy. What I found was interesting, but not very helpful. Monarch is sorted geographically, with articles like Monarchies in Europe and Monarchies in Asia linked from there. Neither those two nor the main article mention the Kingdom of Jerusalem, but the article about monarchies in Europe has no problem with covering Carthage (modern-day north Africa), while Monarchies in Africa doesn't even mention it. There is no article about European monarchs specifically (this is a redirect to List of current monarchs of sovereign states, which covers the whole world). As far as I can tell, the meaning of the term European monarch isn't actually defined anywhere on this site; there are just different (conflicting?) meanings implied.

I was also hoping that such a definition of European monarch would point to an implied time range. Renerpho (talk) 00:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

they favor there being no special rules but instead WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NCROY being applied I was under the impression that this RFC was about determining NCROY for cases when no disambiguation is necessary? My preference for option 9 is to apply COMMONNAME at the article level (with recognisability being more important than concision when breaking ties) without imposing any artificial consistency, whether that consistency is due to NCROY or anything else. Thryduulf (talk) 00:31, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if option 9 means something like "apply WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NCROY" then that's a problem. The purpose of this RfC is to lead the way to a possible change/clarification of NCROY, and that cannot be "apply NCROY". Renerpho (talk) 00:51, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then it comes back to what I said before, that there is no common understanding as to the purpose of this RfC, or what some of the choices mean. Wehwalt (talk) 00:59, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have come to suspect that one of the reasons for all the drama, and why we seem to be unable to establish a consensus no matter how many RM discussions we have, is the lack of understanding of what we're even talking about. There are lots of knowledgeable people involved, but that doesn't help if there's no mutual understanding. That starts with the very definitions of words, like "European", or even "monarch". Having this RfC may still be helpful in some ways, but it suffers from the same problem as all the discussions that precede it. Renerpho (talk) 01:09, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from AndrewPeterT - Although I did not create this RfC, I do know that we are trying to amend WP:NCROY. And this is what the section on titling monarchs' articles of WP:NCROY states (Emphasis mine):

These following conventions apply to European monarchs since the fall of the Western Roman Empire [in 476 CE] (but not to the Byzantine emperors), because they share much the same stock of names. For example, there are several kings and an emperor who are most commonly called Henry IV; their articles are titled Henry IV of England, Henry IV of France, and so on ...

Thus, the answer to Horse Eye's Back's question, Would for example Alexander the Great, Boudica, Augustus and Baldwin II of Jerusalem all fall under this proposal?, is none of the above. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 01:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And to add to Thryduulf's comment of In terms of the British (and predecessor) thrones..., in the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the regnal numbering starts from when William I came to the throne in 1815. Therefore, from the Dutch perspective, WP:NCROY is applicable for the past two centuries. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 01:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AndrewPeterT: Thank you for that. This points to the main reason for the restriction to "European monarchs", which is their shared name pool. This is related to both culture and geography, but it's more pragmatic. One question, why doesn't this cover Baldwin II of Jerusalem? "Baudouin" is a French name, not a Greek one. Renerpho (talk) 02:02, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I entirely agree, and indeed I tried to make this point during the village pump discussion about drafting this RfC. The same logic should apply to all monarchs that share a common name pool, and thus very definitely should apply to Baldwin I of Jerusalem and David III of Tao, for example, geographic boundaries notwithstanding. For that matter, some realms in the Middle East and North Africa have their own name pool (separate from the European name pool but common to several realms) and the same principles could/should be applied. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NCROY does not diretly define what it means by European, but given that it uses "west" and "western" as synonyms it doesn't seem to be limited to Europe in a geographic sense. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:44, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we define European monarch as any monarch whose name is derived from that "common name pool", with zero regards to geography, then that may actually result in a workable solution. I'm not sure a majority of those who replied to this RfC would agree with this definition, or are even aware of the possibility (despite NCROY), but it sounds good to me. Renerpho (talk) 10:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe we just drop European? Many of the names in the pool aren't European, they're Asian (biblical)... David, James, Mary, etc. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:13, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would this mean that the series of monarchs with unique first names, e.g. the Gustavs of Sweden, fall outside of the scope of this proposal, since they don't take their names from a shared pool? With fully unique series, the situation can be quite different from Charles XI–XV, where only the tail of the series is unique. At least for Gustavs recognizability is not an issue, unlike for Charles XII. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 02:33, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC says "in the absence of a need to disambiguate", so I'd say the Gustavs should be in scope. This makes me wonder though, lacking a clear definition of European monarch, would the reference to European monarchs since the fall of the Western Roman Empire (but not to the Byzantine emperors) in NCROY imply a definition that excludes Scandinavia as well? Scandinavia was never part of the Roman Empire, and its monarchs don't share the same name pool as other parts of Europe. This would mean that the kings of Sweden, Norway and Denmark would be out of scope. That's probably not intended, and would seem absurd. I, for myself, was tagged here because I made a comment on a RM for a king of Sweden. Renerpho (talk) 03:18, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They can also be pulling from the same pool of names without being European, two of the Pedro IIs aren't European geographically and one isn't European in any sense. If the point really is to effectively disambiguate different subjects in situations like Pedro II then why limit it to European in any sense? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:52, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably because even proponents realise that applying the same rigid format that broadly would produce outcomes that are very clearly wrong. They're right about that of course, but it would do the same for some of the articles that are very clearly in scope even if we ignore all the problems of defining that scope. Thryduulf (talk) 09:50, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proponents of what? Renerpho (talk) 10:32, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Applying a single style to all articles within the scope of this RFC. Thryduulf (talk) 10:35, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you perhaps give some examples of monarchs, with names falling into the "regnal-name-from-common-pool regnal-number (of territory)" format that is the crux of this RfC, for which you think the common names would result in different styles? Rosbif73 (talk) 11:49, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Off the top of my head: Queen Victoria, Charles III, Edward the Confessor, Mary, Queen of Scots. Thryduulf (talk) 11:57, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah OK, so essentially when there is an overriding common name that is not in the "regnal-name regnal-number (of territory)" format. Thanks for the clarification. Rosbif73 (talk) 12:49, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Every article should be at the common name unless that is ambiguous. This will mean that different monarchs articles will have different title formats - some will be at Regnal-name regnal-number (of territory), others won't be - but that's not something that is a problem or otherwise needs solving. Thryduulf (talk) 13:29, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to labour the point, but I think almost everyone here agrees for the "overriding" common names such as those you cite. The big question is what to do in the absence of such an overriding common name and in the absence of a need to disambiguate. Do we need to systematically debate whether "of territory" is part of the common name (which is what some have taken option 9 to mean, and indeed what I have been assuming to be your stance), or can we lay down a guideline (such as option 1 or option 3)? Rosbif73 (talk) 13:59, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need to systematically debate whether "of territory" is part of the common name yes and no, we need to determine what the common name is of each monarch individually, without prejudice to it being one of only two possible formats. However if there is truly no single most common name then we should prioritise recognisability over concision for the reasons I and others have explained elsewhere (tldr it's more helpful to more readers). Thryduulf (talk) 14:10, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making your position clear now that the context of the question has been clarified. This is where we agree to differ, in that I side with those who prefer concision. Rosbif73 (talk) 14:20, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It might be clarifying if you could explain whether you prefer concision in cases like Vesalius, Stalin or Yzerman and if not (as I assume) why not. Srnec (talk) 20:25, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You assume correctly: I agree with the recommendations of WP:SINGLENAME. Very few people who have a given name and surname are known solely by one or the other in reliable sources – unlike monarchs, who are very often known solely by "regnal-name regnal-number". Rosbif73 (talk) 06:43, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No they're not. They are only known by that name within that specific country (or state's) context. But Wikipedia article titles must stand alone, without context. In RS's, names & ordinals by themselves are never introduced alone, nor are they able to stand alone outside of context. The country is the de facto surname. I've given you 50+ RSs in indexes showing how "Charles XII" is inseparable from "Sweden". I can repeat the exercise with practically any monarch. So I expect you to back your claim with evidence. Can you produce 50+ RSs where he isn't? Walrasiad (talk) 22:19, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A different approach

The question whether consistency in page titles actually matters to readers has been brought up, and I argued that it does. I believe looking for consistency does not only result in a cleaner outcome, but it also makes it easier to understand how things are supposed to be done, and why.

While I have never been actively involved in the discussion about monarchs (I was tagged here because of a single comment I made, and it was a technical one), I have been involved in disputes about naming conventions, and the situation here reminds me of one about Naming conventions (astronomical objects) that has been ongoing for almost 20 years. While there are some differences that require adjusting the solution, maybe there are some ideas in this that could prove useful for WP:NCROY as well:

The question was how to deal with articles about dwarf planets. The situation was similar to the monarch articles, in that there were endless RM's over the years, never reaching a consensus over what dwarf planet even means, let alone how to deal with them. We have hopefully made some lasting progress recently, following another requested move that finally reached a consensus to move a number of articles, combined with a new approach to avoid further disputes.

The solution: Consistently apply the exceptional format name (dwarf planet), rather than the standard number + name format used for other minor planets, if and only if there is sufficient scientific consensus about the nature of the object, and the article has been brought to at least Good Article status. This requires that the object's status as a possible dwarf planet has been thoroughly discussed on the article talk page, and the article be put into Wikipedia:Featured topics/Dwarf planets (and be kept in shape to remain at least a GA, even as scientific consensus shifts over the years). NCASTRO's specific guideline now directly refers to that featured topics list. It states that when there is no established common name, all articles about minor planets (with the exception of recognized dwarf planets, addressed below) should get the standard "(number) name" format, and articles about dwarf planets should be titled "name (dwarf planet)" once they are agreed to belong to that category. Changes may need to be made to the list on time scales of years, but there are enough users collaborating on those articles that there's no risk at the moment of losing track of them.

I understand that this may be okay for something that currently applies to nine articles in total, but that it would never work for a topic that spans hundreds of articles. But maybe the idea to "centralize" the discussion somewhere could work? Start by having a page/category where you state exactly which article titles are in question (this is very much not clear now, per the ongoing disagreements about the scope of this RfC); really list them, one by one. Then formulate a specific guideline how to name them (like option 1-8, as something to make an exception from); and then discuss the cases that are actually contested (and name them per option 9!). Make exceptions easy to handle, but not arbitrary. Renerpho (talk) 10:01, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Renerpho, thank you for starting this conversation. To be frank, this page is now so long that I am unsure how the eventual closer will be able to discern any "consensus".

Overall, I like the suggestions from WP:NCASTRO that you have presented. However, as you acknowledge, you can count the number of the likeliest dwarf planets with your fingers. I am not saying a similar solution will not work for this matter. However,...

Even if we strictly define a monarch to be a king, queen regnant, emperor, or empress regnant who undisputedly ruled a territory within the continent of Europe, there are dozens of articles in question. (As an example, 24 monarchs with articles are noted at List of Spanish monarchs alone!)

Also, with respect to centralizing discussion, I like the idea of using categories to select lists of monarchs whose articles can be renamed. As an example, we could use Category:Danish monarchs as a basis for deciding whether the eventual agreed-upon style from this discussion would be appropriate for those titles. Moreover, I am aware that some editors are active at WP:CFD and perhaps may be able to contribute to these possible discussions.

Finally, since we are discussing how other areas of Wikipedia have resolved titling disputes, let me present an outcome from WikiProject Tropical cyclones (WPTC) (Please correct me if I misinterpreted something): AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 16:59, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• For years, the meaning of hurricane has been disputed on the encyclopedia. Some editors believe that the term only refers to a strong tropical cyclone in the North Atlantic Ocean or in the East Pacific Ocean. Others believe that the term can generically refer to any tropical cyclone. (Not to mention that we also have terms such as typhoon and cyclone!)
• After a long discussion, in 2016, the Wikipedia community agreed to consistently title all set index articles related to tropical cyclones with the format List of storms named [Foo].
  • Yes, set index articles are not articles in the sense that we are discussing here. However, this talk page discussion affected hundreds of pages. Most of these articles were successfully renamed accordingly, illustrating that a similar outcome can be accomplished with WP:NCROY-related articles.
• Also, with respect to articles, the specialized project guidance is to consistently title these pages with the storm's type, name, and year (e.g. Hurricane Franklin (2017), Typhoon Dolphin (2008), and Cyclone Nisha (2008)).
  • The exception is when a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is agreed upon. In that case, the year is omitted from the title (e.g. Hurricane Katrina, Typhoon Tip, and Cyclone Pam).

AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 16:59, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks AndrewPeterT. Other topics and projects on this site that have gone through difficult community decisions, and it's good to look at those who have made it to the other side for guidance, even as each topic has its own difficulties and there's no one-size-fits-all solution. Your tropical cyclones example is another good one. Their compromise for the lists of storms looks obvious, but clearly has taken a lot of effort.

The "storm's type, name, and year" format is both recognizable and consistent, without being hung up in questions about COMMONNAME. The PRIMARYTOPIC exceptions illustrate how the valid concerns about cases like Charles III can be easy to deal with in practice, once the dust has settled and people are clear about what's actually in question. I don't know if this RfC will solve NCROY's problems, or what the discernible consensus might be. I don't envy the closer (hello future closer, sorry about all the text) but I hope they'll acknowledge that there are questions that remain to be addressed, and that if this RfC has managed one thing, it's to highlight what those questions might be.

I believe a pragmatic solution is the only one that has a chance of working, and I'm sure it exists. Bringing categories and CFD into the discussion sounds like a great idea. Renerpho (talk) 17:46, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]

It might a good idea for any future related RfC to start with a draft, get some consensus on what the RfC should ask, and then post it. This one has seen fundamental changes like option renumbering as well as adding options after considerable numbers participated, plus the wording has definitely confused some participants, and unknown numbers of others. The only thing I can see established here is no consensus whatsoever to change anything. —В²C ☎ 05:40, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Charcoal feather, Chessrat, Chipmunkdavis, Cinderella157, CoatGuy2, Compassionate727, CookieMonster755, Cremastra, Crouch, Swale, Curbon7, D1551D3N7, DDMS123, Dan Wylie-Sears 2, Daniel, Daniel Quinlan, Darryl Kerrigan, Davidships, DeCausa, DeFacto, Deb, Desertarun, Dict Theo, Dimadick, Doomsday28, DrKay, Draken Bowser, Durchbruchmüller, DuxLoKi, Dylnuge, E James Bowman, EggRoll97, Ehrenkater, ElDubs, Eliasparras, Elme12, EmeraldRange, EmilySarah99, Emperor of Emperors, Epsilon.Prota, Estar8806, Extraordinary Writ, FOARP, Festucalex, Ficaia, Firefly, Frank Anchor, Freedom4U, Furius, GandalfXLD, and Gog the Mild: BilledMammal (talk) 22:46, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodDay, GrandDukeMarcelo, Great Mercian, Guerillero, Hilst, History6042, HistoryFanOfItAll1999, HouseBlaster, Huwmanbeing, Iamawesomeautomatic, IlkkaP, InedibleHulk, Inops, J947, JIP, JM2023, JPxG, JackofOz, Jalapeño, Jarrod Baniqued, Jasp7676, JayBeeEll, Jayron32, Jessintime, Jfhutson, Jheald, Johnbod, Jonas1015119, Jtdirl, Jz4p, Jèrriais janne, Kahastok, Keivan.f, Khajidha, Killuminator, King of Hearts, Király-Seth, Kusma, Leevine65, Lepricavark, Levivich, Lil-unique1, LilianaUwU, LindsayH, LokiTheLiar, Mach61, Maddy from Celeste, MaeseLeon, Marbe166, and MarioJump83: BilledMammal (talk) 22:46, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don’t ping me for this again. Great Mercian (talk) 01:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't ping me again, at least for this topic. 🔥Jalapeño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 06:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Markbassett, MatJarosz, Mattdaviesfsic, Maxim, Miesianiacal, ModernDayTrilobite, Moonraker, Mr Serjeant Buzfuz, MrJ567, Nableezy, Natg 19, Necrothesp, Neveselbert, Nford24, NinjaRobotPirate, North8000, Ntnon, Nurg, Nø, Old Naval Rooftops, Oroborvs, P Aculeius, Paine Ellsworth, Parsecboy, PatGallacher, Patar knight, Paul Vaurie, Peralien, Peter Isotalo, Peterkingiron, Plumber, Polyamorph, Primefac, PrincessJoey2024, ProfessorKaiFlai, QEDK, RFBailey, RR, RadioactiveBoulevardier, Randy Kryn, Reading Beans, Red Slash, Red-tailed hawk, RegentsPark, Remes, Renerpho, Resolute, ReyHahn, Reywas92, and Ribbet32: BilledMammal (talk) 22:46, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RicLightning, Richard75, Robert McClenon, Robertus Pius, RodRabelo7, Rosbif73, Rosbif73, Rotideypoc41352, Rreagan007, SKAG123, SMcCandlish, Sahaib, SchroCat, ScottDavis, Scu ba, Sebbog13, Seltaeb Eht, Sennecaster, Seraphimblade, SergeWoodzing, Serial Number 54129, Shadow007, Shakescene, SilverLocust, SilverTiger12, Sira Aspera, Siroxo, SmokeyJoe, SnowFire, Soni, Spekkios, SpookiePuppy, SportingFlyer, Srnec, Ssilvers, Stanley Bannerman, StarTrekker, StellarHalo, StrawWord298944, Surtsicna, Svartner, Sveinkros, Tad Lincoln, The C of E, The Kip, The Land, The Vintage Feminist, TheRichic, Therealscorp1an, and Thesavagenorwegian: BilledMammal (talk) 22:46, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Thinker78, ThinkingTwice, Thosbsamsgom, Thryduulf, Thurlow0391, Tim O'Doherty, Tim riley, TimothyBlue, ToBeFree, Tvx1, UmbrellaTheLeef, Voorts, Vpab15, WWGB, Walrasiad, Walt Yoder, Wanderin' Wolf, Wbm1058, Wehwalt, Wellington Bay, WhatamIdoing, Woko Sapien, Wpscatter, Yeehaw45, Yeoutie, Z1720, Zacwill, Usernamekiran, and Векочел: BilledMammal (talk) 22:46, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]