The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

A previous RfC determined that there was consensus to support updating WP:NCROY, a guideline that has been a basis for titling articles on European monarchs since the fall of the Western Roman Empire, to explicitly allow the use of shorter titles for these sovereigns if disambiguation is unnecessary. Given this result, which of the following four options is the best way to (re)title Wikipedia articles on pertinent European sovereigns going forward?

1. Option 1 - Maintain the status quo and issue a WP:MORATORIUM on all requested moves (RMs) for European monarchs’ articles under the scope of WP:NCROY until 365 days have passed since the closure date of this RfC
2. Option 2 - Rename pertinent article titles to follow WP:NCROY as currently written (whose guidance deferred to WP:COMMONNAME at the time of this RfC’s opening)
3. Option 3 - Rename pertinent article titles to follow WP:RELIABLE and amend WP:NCROY accordingly
4. Option 4 - Rename pertinent article titles to follow WP:CONSISTENT and amend WP:NCROY accordingly

All participants are strongly encouraged to read the nominator’s extended rationale before contributing. Hurricane Andrew (444) 22:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended rationale by nominator AndrewPeterT (APT)

NOTE A: This is my (APT’s) first time initiating a RfC, so I apologize if I have done anything improperly.

NOTE B: This RfC is attempting to resolve unsettled concerns regarding the application of WP:NCROY in lieu of WP:NCROY per se. Hence, I am opening this discussion here at WP:ROYALTY instead of WP:NCROY. Hurricane Andrew (444) 22:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Article titles that APT would like the community to focus on

I recognize that there are many articles on the English Wikipedia that are arguably under the scope of WP:NCROY. To avoid overwhelming readers of this discussion, I ask that as a community, we focus our attention on the article titles that I have explicitly listed in this section. Hurricane Andrew (444) 22:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

CONTEXT: The information provided below up to the end of this section was originally published by APT on September 18, 2023 as evidence in favor of his argument at the same RfC linked in the opening statement of this RfC. Also, “Adherence to WP:NCROY” refers to whether or not a cited article title followed Guideline 2 of WP:SOVEREIGN at the time APT published his information originally (Link to current text of WP:SOVEREIGN)

NOTES: First, to avoid overwhelming readers not familiar with European royalty, rulers of former monarchies are excluded. Also, as alluded to previously, sovereigns of the Vatican City are excluded because they are popes instead covered by WP:NCCL. Furthermore, the Presidents of France and Bishops of Urgell, the Co-Princes of Andorra, are excluded because they are instead subjected to WP:NCP and WP:NCCL, respectively.

Monarchs of Belgium

This section was edited at 04:17, 25 November 2023 (UTC) after comments from other users had been made starting at 22:13 UTC on November 23, 2023. This disclosure is added per WP:TALK#REVISE.

All sovereigns that have reigned since Belgium’s independence from the Netherlands in 1830 are included.

Monarchs of Denmark

This section was edited at 04:17, 25 November 2023 (UTC) after comments from other users had been made starting at 22:13 UTC on November 23, 2023. This disclosure is added per WP:TALK#REVISE.

All sovereigns that have reigned since the establishment of the Danish House of Glücksburg in 1863 are included.

Monarchs of the Netherlands

This section was edited at 04:17, 25 November 2023 (UTC) after comments from other users had been made starting at 22:13 UTC on November 23, 2023. This disclosure is added per WP:TALK#REVISE.

All sovereigns that have reigned since the establishment of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in 1815 are included.

Monarchs of Norway

This section was edited at 21:13, 24 November 2023 (UTC) and at 04:17, 25 November 2023 (UTC) after comments from other users had been made starting at 22:13 UTC on November 23, 2023. This disclosure is added per WP:TALK#REVISE.

All sovereigns that have reigned since the dissolution of the personal union of Norway with Sweden in 1905 are included.

Monarchs of Spain

This section was edited at 04:17, 25 November 2023 (UTC) after comments from other users had been made starting at 22:13 UTC on November 23, 2023. This disclosure is added per WP:TALK#REVISE.

All sovereigns that have reigned in Spain since the establishment of the House of Bourbon-Anjou in 1700 are included, excluding monarchs from other royal houses.

Monarchs of Sweden

This section was edited at 04:17, 25 November 2023 (UTC) after comments from other users had been made starting at 22:13 UTC on November 23, 2023. This disclosure is added per WP:TALK#REVISE.

All sovereigns that have reigned in Sweden since the establishment of the House of Bernadotte in 1818 are included.

Monarchs of Great Britain or the United Kingdom

This section was edited at 04:17, 25 November 2023 (UTC) after comments from other users had been made starting at 22:13 UTC on November 23, 2023. This disclosure is added per WP:TALK#REVISE.

All sovereigns that have reigned since the unification of the Kingdoms of England and Scotland in 1707 are included.

Monarchs of Luxembourg

This section was edited at 04:17, 25 November 2023 (UTC) after comments from other users had been made starting at 22:13 UTC on November 23, 2023. This disclosure is added per WP:TALK#REVISE.

All sovereigns that have reigned since the dissolution of the personal union of Luxembourg with the Netherlands in 1890 are included.

Sovereign Princes of Liechtenstein

This section was edited at 04:17, 25 November 2023 (UTC) after comments from other users had been made starting at 22:13 UTC on November 23, 2023. This disclosure is added per WP:TALK#REVISE.

Rulers of Monaco

This section was edited at 04:17, 25 November 2023 (UTC) after comments from other users had been made starting at 22:13 UTC on November 23, 2023. This disclosure is added per WP:TALK#REVISE.

Sovereigns since Monaco became a principality in 1633 are listed, excluding periods of occupation.

Hurricane Andrew (444) 22:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

The Norwegian monarchs pages no longer have "Of Norway" in their article titles. 2601:249:9301:D570:DCE:DB6E:BCC:F04D (talk) 05:00, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. I have modified the Norwegian monarchs' table accordingly. Hurricane Andrew (444) 21:15, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Survey

• Option 4 - Bring back consistency, in the form of Monarch # of country. GoodDay (talk) 22:15, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support either option 1 or 4: supporting 4 to restore the "Monarch # of country" format which should not have been abandoned and whose abandoners have created circular arguments to detract from the inherently flimsy backing of the "concision" in the first place. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:40, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2, if I'm understanding "Option 2 context" correctly. We should not be employing disambiguation strings unless they are necessary, per WP:DAB and WP:CONCISE. Just ensure that redirects like "Foobar IV of Elbonia" and "King Foobar IV" and "King Foobar IV of Elbonia" redirect to the "Foobar IV" article. WP:CONSISTENT means to name articles consistently, and when disambiguation is necessary, to employ consistent disambiguation strings. It does not mean and never has meant to "pre-disambiguate" unambiguous article titles with disambiguation strings to make them "consistent" with those that are necessarily disambiguated.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:50, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
• Option 4 - Definitely Monarch # of country, with redirects set up for well known names like "Elizabeth II" to go to "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom". While I understand that people are trying to have Wikipedia use common names to make pages easier to find, and that makes sense on an individual level, it's now created confusion where so many monarchs are written in different styles. This has resulted in monarchs being more difficult to find, not less. El Dubs (talk) 01:22, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2 per SMcCandlish. Only disambiguate when necessary. That doesn't necessarily mean that we should move all of the existing unambiguous "Monarch # of country" articles to plain "Monarch #" though: WP:COMMONNAME allows us to add the country in cases where reliable English-language sources consistently do so (which is likely to be the case for countries whose monarchs are not well known to English-speaking readers). Rosbif73 (talk) 06:59, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2 per SMcCandlish. I also oppose relitigating issues immediately after the closure of previous RfCs on the same issue. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:17, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
• Option 4 per GoodDay and El Dubs. --Marbe166 (talk) 10:24, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2 per SMcCandlish and Celia Homeford. Thryduulf (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Option 4. There are 4 other points besides consistency to consider when deciding on an article title. Consistency is not the most important one, nor should it be promoted above the others. The supporters of option 4 want to move Elizabeth II to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, but this has already been discussed and rejected in multiple prior discussions including in July 2023, August 2023 and September 2023. This RfC appears to be yet another attempt to circumvent the requested moves process in a desperate attempt to add 4 extra unnecessary words to a natural, recognizable, precise, concise, neutral article title that is consistent among British monarchs. Since this is the fourth attempt to move that article in as many months, I should think a moratorium on any further attempts will be imposed by the community regardless of whether option 1 is selected or not. I do not believe the community will accept further discussion on this issue at the end of this RfC and any attempt to launch such a discussion is very likely to be viewed as disruptive editing. On option 3, please note that WP:RELIABLE is a wikipedia-wide content guideline that overrides any naming convention. If a name is not found in reliable sources, it is not verifiable or recognizable and is therefore contrary to both the verifiability policy and the article titling policy. Consequently, option 3 is non-negotiable regardless of any other option chosen in addition to it. DrKay (talk) 18:30, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2 per the fact that WP:COMMONNAME is policy and so is WP:LOCALCON. Option 3 is also the same as option 2, COMMONNAME assessments must be based on reliable sources. Oppose option 4 as it would sidestep recent RFCs on the matter. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:39, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

  I would also support option 1. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:19, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

• Option 1 These things should be decided locally, and a rest from the endless number of time-wasting RM proposals would be wonderful. Consistency is not that important. Johnbod (talk) 19:53, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
• Option 1 I feel that here I have to repeat what I said on the Elizabeth II PROD, she's not just Queen of the UK so it would be UNDUE to title her as Elizabeth II of the UK and the same principle would apply for monarchs who hold multiple crowns so option 4 would be inappropriate. It should be decided locally on a case by case basis as Johnbod says. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 20:41, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
• Option 1 and oppose all others. Only Option 1 is consistent with the previous RfCs, everything else is an attempt at a do-over. This should be procedurally closed insofar as it affects British monarchs due to the multiple RfCs on the subject in the past several months, all of which have come to the same conclusion. Frankly, it should be procedurally closed entirely. It's just being used as a way of getting another do-over on the question of British monarchs.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:57, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

  On reconsideration, I could live with option 2, given the recent changes to NCROY. I agree with the comments of Kahastok, below. Wehwalt (talk) 22:25, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

• I'm not clear what I'm supporting and opposing with each option. On one hand, the extended rationale rules that any title not of the form Cheese IV of Onion or Cheese, Queen of Onion is not in accordance with WP:NCROY. On the other, it acknowledges that WP:NCROY currently prefers WP:COMMONNAME, in which case articles claimed not to be in accordance with WP:NCROY are in fact in accordance with WP:NCROY. I note that Option 4 is interpreted as requiring a move to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, but it cites WP:CONSISTENT, and consistency with other British monarchs would imply the opposite - that George II of Great Britain be moved to plain George II. It is argued below that WP:COMMONNAME isn't a clear enough standard, but we have used WP:COMMONNAME as a standard on the rest of the 'pedia for donkeys' years and there is no reason why this topic should be uniquely difficult to manage. More broadly, this appears to me to be an attempt to relitigate the previous RFC, which ended less than a month ago, where the issues seem to have been well-discussed and where consensus was reached. So I say we should speedy close and implement the result of the previous RFC. Kahastok talk 22:10, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

  FWIW, a few years ago, all British monarchs - George I to Elizabeth II, had of Great Britain or of the United Kingdom, in their artiel titles. GoodDay (talk) 22:23, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

  Clarification by APT - Before I continue, I want to say I am doing my best to not WP:BLUDGEON these discussions. However, I also feel the need for my perspectives and intentions to be truthfully represented. Therefore, I am taking this opportunity to respond to the claims that have been made in Kahastok's comment (some of which are also stated in other users' posts).

  1. First, I understand that some users see this RfC as an attempt to relitigate the issues of the RfC linked in the opening statement. I disagree with this claim. That RfC was attempting to determine consensus into what changes should be made to the explicit language of WP:NCROY based on the current titling practices of European sovereigns at the time. By opening this RfC, I seek to determine a consensus on what sitewide WP:PG should take precedence when changing any titles for relevant European sovereigns from now on, given the outcome of the WP:NCROY RfC and respecting the consensus that emerged there. (In any case, a user has noted that Option 3 is non-negotiable regardless of what other options the community agrees upon.)

  2. Second, I explicitly stated the following in my statement for the WP:NCROY RfC linked in the opening statement (Emphasis in original):

  Regardless of where we stand on this issue, I hope that we can all agree that this RfC should bring closure to a debate that has been in the making for the years. I will respect the final decision and will offer my services to amend WP:NCROY as appropriate depending on what the community agrees to.

  Evidently, I disagree with the outcome of the WP:NCROY RfC, and I have not been afraid to express this disagreement. However, this RfC was not and should not be seen as attempt to override that consensus. As I elaborate on further in 6., some of the fine print of WP:NCROY still does not align with the current titling practice, even with a new consensus and new language.

  3. Third, I am very perplexed by the editors that are claiming that some supporters of this RfC are attempting to move Elizabeth II's page back to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. Not once in the opening statement, my extended rationale, or in any of the survey comments provided so far, let alone from those who support Option 4, do I see any explicit calls for this move to occur. Yes, a user gave Elizabeth II's article as part of an example of what they would ideally like to see regarding the titling practices for European sovereigns. Yes, I notified followers of the talk page for Elizabeth II’s article that this RfC was occurring. However, I fail to see how merely providing an example of an article title and linking that article's talk page to an RfC is evidence of wanting a RM for such an article.

  4. Fourth, as with the WP:NCROY RfC, I have stated on multiple occasions that I was going to accept the eventual outcome of the Elizabeth II RM:

  Exhibit A - From my opening statement for the Elizabeth II RM from July 2023: Although I hope that a move to my requested targets will ensue from this discussion, I recognize that such a decision will come from the consensus that emerges.

  Exhibit B - From my extended rationale above (Emphasis in original): In addition, I am aware that my views regarding the article titles for European sovereign have received strong opposition from the community, both at the RfC I linked in my opening statement ... and at a requested move on Elizabeth II’s article that I initiated on July 30, 2023. Therefore, the rest of my statement will instead seek to inform the community of the context regarding each proposed outcome in this RfC instead of attempting to persuade participants to agree with my opinion.

  Above all, I have found the RMs for Elizabeth II’s article that have happened since the one I initiated since to be WP:DISRUPTIVE editing, and they should not have occurred.

  5. Fifth, not once did I rule that any of the current article titles for European monarchs were not in accordance with the current version of WP:NCROY in my tables in the "Article titles that APT would like the community to focus on" section. This adherence to WP:NCROY was in reference to a previous version of WP:NCROY, which I made clear in context: The information provided below up to the end of this section ... was originally published by APT on September 18, 2023] as evidence in favor of his argument at the same RfC linked in the opening statement of this RfC. Also, “Adherence to WP:NCROY” refers to whether or not a cited article title followed ... Guideline 2 of WP:SOVEREIGN at the time APT published his information originally]

  6. Sixth, I indeed noted that the current version of WP:NCROY prefers WP:COMMONNAME in the opening statement. Also, if this is what WP:NCROY is going to be based on, this actually means that some articles currently formatted Cheese [IV] of Onion or Cheese, Queen of Onion are not in accordance with WP:NCROY, as I highlight in my Option 2 context.

  Case in point: Juliana of the Netherlands is the only monarch named Juliana to have a Wikipedia article. Moreover, Queen Juliana is a more WP:COMMONNAME for Juliana of the Netherlands, which I can show with JSTOR results. However, her article still follows the "{Monarch's first name and ordinal} of {Country}" format, which WP:NCROY currently rules is unnecessary for a monarch with an unambiguous regnal name like Juliana.

  7. Seventh, I will concede that the claim regarding WP:CONSISTENT is correct for British monarchs. However, using this same reasoning, Margrethe II should be moved back to Margrethe II of Denmark because as can be seen in the tables of monarchs above, every other Danish sovereign that has reigned since 1863 uses the "{Monarch's first name and ordinal} of {Country}" titling format. Likewise, Alfonso XII, Alfonso XIII, Juan Carlos I, and Felipe VI should all be moved back to Alfonso XII of Spain, Alfonso XIII of Spain, Juan Carlos I of Spain, and Felipe VI of Spain because the majority (i.e. 7 out of 11) of Spanish House of Bourbon-Anjou monarchs are titled with the "{Monarch's first name and ordinal} of {Country}" template.

  8. Eighth, with respect to WP:COMMONNAME, just because that guideline has been frequently referenced in Wikipedia discussions does not mean that it is without its flaws. And I reiterate the claim I made in the Discussion section below that the lack of a specific numerical threshold in WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NCROY has been a factor in the intensity of the RM debates for European sovereigns. I will emphasize why a lack of a specific proportion is problematic with the following hypothetical example:

  • Editor A initiates a RM to move Foo III of Royalburg to Foo III. They cite WP:COMMONNAME in their request and note that 150% more secondary sources on JSTOR use “Foo III”.
  • Editor B supports Editor A's RM because Editor B's threshold for a WP:COMMONNAME is 140% more secondary sources on JSTOR.
  • Editor C opposes Editor A's RM because Editor C's threshold for a WP:COMMONNAME is 170% more secondary sources on JSTOR.
  • Editors D, E, and F all oppose Editor A's RM because Editor D, E, and F's threshold for a WP:COMMONNAME is 200% more secondary sources on JSTOR. Also, Editor A concedes that Editors D, E, and F have a stronger opinion.

  Because of the WP:CONSENSUS that emerged in that hypothetical discussion, Editor A's RM failed even though WP:COMMONNAME would have supported the move.

  To make it explicitly clear, if WP:COMMONNAME and/or WP:NCROY had specified a specific numerical ratio to select one common title over another, I would have endorsed Option 2. However, until either guideline is modified to explicitly include such a proportion, I stand by my opposition to Option 2 (while supporting Options 1, 3, and 4).

  Finally, I apologize if the following violates WP:AGF and WP:5P4. However, I highly encourage all participants not familiar with WP:READBEFORE to give that essay a thoughtful read. I hope that we can all agree that it is extremely frustrating to have to respond to false claims in any discussion.

  Hurricane Andrew (444) 03:44, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

  If I may--it may well be that there was no intent of reversing the recent failed RMs of British monarchs, But the supporters of Option 4 seem to assume there was. Whatever the intent, that is one reason why this RfC is causing a certain amount of frustration. Piled on the RMs first for individual British monarchs, then for groups of British monarchs, then perhaps for more individual British monarchs, it never seems to end. It is thus that some editors are viewing this as an unnecessary rerun of previous RfCs, and given how much editor time gets devoted to such discussions, beginning to rise to the level of disruption.

  On another matter--you complain of inconsistency among the titles of monarchic articles. We are barely three weeks since the close of the RfC amending NCROY and Wikipedia was not written in a day. Give it time. Several articles have been moved, others have not reached consensus for move. The community has barely begun to decide how to treat the more difficult cases. Judging by the evidence posted in initiating this RfC, the most difficult seem to be where the monarch is the only one of that name, and yet this RfC doesn't offer any guidance for that situation. It is time to step back and let the community work these things out. It is not the time for a fresh RfC, especially since if 2, 3, or 4 were adopted, the implementation would require a great amount of further discussion.

  I expressed my support for Option 1, but on reflection, I find that a mixed bag. It carries with it, part and parcel, a moratorium on further RMs for a year. I would be glad to see that in the case of British monarchs where moves have already been discussed to death, but I find it would also have the side effect of cutting off at a very early stage discussions of whether other articles, which have not yet had a RM, should be moved per NCROY. I would not seek to prevent that. Although I note, rather dispiritedly, that a moratorium on RMs does nothing to prevent further discussions like this, which has the effect of an RM. If this goes on, there's going to be another AN/I thread on whether there is disruption, and while this isn't the sort of area in which AN/I tends to take action, it's not going to do anyone any good. Wehwalt (talk) 14:34, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

• Option 1 / 3 / 4, not really sure what I'm voting on here, actual suggestion is just to overturn the recent change to NCROY and go back to the situation we had from 2019-2023 or so. That means using Option 4 / old-NCROY as the "default" (i.e. John I of Foo) and letting Option 3 (i.e. COMMONNAME / Reliable Sources) override it when there's a common name / the monarch is really famous. And Option 1 just seems good sense regardless, no need for constant move requests, just let things be sometimes. Opposed to option 2, i.e. throwing away "of Foo" everywhere. Just a first name isn't a significant enough disambiguator unless the person is incredibly famous like Queen Victoria, which is why "of Foo" is helpful as a replacement for a last name. SnowFire (talk) 02:32, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
• Option 1 for reasons given by Wehwalt and Kahastok: speedy close. This is just another attempt to change the naming of the British monarchs, which has been confirmed by consensus several times this year. I think it's starting to be an abuse of the RfC process. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:34, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
• Option Close down this forum shopping thread. We had this same discussion at Wikipedia talk:NCROY#RfC:_Should_the_guideline_explicitly_accept_Elizabeth_II,_Carl_XVI_Gustaf,_etc_titles? from 5 September until 2 November and reached a consensus, which OP and the participants already know because they took part in it. Surtsicna (talk) 16:18, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

  I note that I could have said the same thing about that RfC, as a similar one had already taken place in January. RfCs—rightly or wrongly— will happen regardless of if similar ones have happened in the past, even if they were in the very near past. So, if the NCROY RfC was allowed to take place, then this one by the same token should be too. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:48, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

  Do you mind linking to that January RfC? Surtsicna (talk) 16:59, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

  Here is the RfC that Tim O'Doherty was referencing. @Tim O'Doherty: let me know if this link is incorrect. Hurricane Andrew (444) 17:08, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

  So Tim O'Doherty proposes that titles such as Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom be enshrined into law ("always conform ... "without exception") at the expense of titles such as Elizabeth II. That proposal is so vehemently opposed that he ends up withdrawing it. 9 months later I propose the opposite: that decades-old, established titles such as Elizabeth II be explicitly endorsed by the guideline, and that proposal is accepted by the community. Now Tim O'Doherty wants us to believe that what I did is the same as this RfC which attempts to overturn this month's consensus. This is truly something to ponder. Surtsicna (talk) 17:18, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

  Surtsicna, with all due respect, I understand why you would see this RfC as forum shopping. Moreover, as I responded to a user above, I do not see this RfC in the same vein as the WP:NCROY RfC you linked. I agree with Tim O’Doherty that this RfC should proceed for the standard 30 days.

  And quite frankly, to add to Tim O’Doherty’s response, the consensus in the WP:NCROY RfC reflects a blanket judgement of WP:COMMONNAME that does not reflect specific nuances in how RMs have occurred, as I explain in my Option 4 context in my extended rationale, and is arguably equally unproductive as the WP:CONSISTENT blanket judgment that I accept I have been pushing.

  To make this point above clear, should the RMs for Norwegian monarchs not have been decided on a case by case basis? Is this RM not a WP:POINTy attempt to force adherence to WP:COMMONNAME? Or do these concerns only matter if WP:CONSISTENT is at hand?

  On a side note, I am exhausted from attempting to clarify my WP:AGF intentions to the community. At the expense of sidestepping WP:AGF and WP:5P4, I again direct all participants to read the WP:READBEFORE essay.

  Hurricane Andrew (444) 17:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

  AndrewPeterT, I honestly do not wish to offend, but I really have better things to do on Wikipedia than to read walls of text such as the one you just linked to. Please learn to present your point more succinctly. In this month's original RfC on this topic, your input even had to be hatted. That this is an attempt to overturn the consensus reached just this month after a two-month long discussion is patently clear to everyone involved. Even those supporting your proposal see it that way. Surtsicna (talk) 17:11, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

  Andrew, I don't know if you noticed, but WP:READBEFORE contains the line, Everyone should aspire to write concisely, and those who fail to do so forfeit the right to others' attention. This applies to you. Your extended rationale was originally 44kB and it's now even larger. You refer back to another 10kB behemoth here. You have failed to write concisely, and it is unreasonable of you to expect every word to be cogitated on carefully by every contributor to the page. Kahastok talk 17:42, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

There was a time, when all the bios of monarchs were in the style of Name # of country. Due to multiple RMs? that consistency has been evaporated, which (IMHO) is regrettable. GoodDay (talk) 22:13, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I completely agree with your response, GoodDay. Hopefully, my extended rationale shows to the broader community the extent to which these "consensuses" in this area were arguably never the case. Hurricane Andrew (444) 22:19, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Here's examples of confusion we've left for less familiar readers, concerning page names. We've got a monarch's page called Queen Victoria & a consort's page called Queen Camilla. There's German/Prussia monarchs, William I of Germany & Wilhelm II. But let's not forget (and plenty of examples of these) many current monarchs with no mention of their country, while their consorts mention the country. GoodDay (talk) 14:35, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Why is this a problem when titles like King Crimson, King Gale of Narnia, Queen Claye, Queen Clea, etc, exist uncontroversially? A reader only needs to read the articles to learn the status of the person being referenced. Thryduulf (talk) 15:02, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Another reason indeed, to re-add the countries. So we don't have less familiar readers confusing monarchs/consorts with band names, sports names & fictional characters. GoodDay (talk) 15:09, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Thryduulf, the examples you have cited are articles that would not fall under the scope of WP:NCROY. I agree that WP:COMMONNAME should be the basis for titling the articles you mention, and I agree with GoodDay that we should have a separate naming convention for non-fictional, literal royals so that readers can distinguish these two types of articles with WP:PRECISION.

Furthermore, since you mentioned King Gale of Narnia, I will counterargue by naming three fictional sovereigns whose Wikipedia articles do not have regnal titles: Palpatine, Elsa (Frozen), and Anna (Frozen). Hurricane Andrew (444) 04:07, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

@DrKay: I've been considering accepting an moratoriom on RMs in this area, after this current RFC ends. In these last few weeks, RMs on monarch bios have been popping up frequently, with some closures (IMHO) highly questionable. GoodDay (talk) 19:00, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Comment to those who support Option 2 - I understand and respect the opinions that you are expressing in this RfC. However, my core issue with WP:COMMONNAME (and by extension, the guidelines of WP:NCROY that are based off of it) is that there is no explicit numerical threshold or ratio that can be used to select one "common" article title over another.

Evidently, to establish an arbitrary WP:COMMONNAME proportion across all subject areas is impractical. However, in my opinion, this lack of a specific cutoff for WP:NCROY in particular is why the RMs for European monarchs have been so numerous, so heated, and so inconclusive. A community of multiple editors is reasonably going to have differing interpretations over what title is "more common" in secondary and other reliable sources. If we do not agree upon a specific numerical ratio to refer to, I worry that this discussion is simply going to appear again at a later date with a more unproductive tone. Hurricane Andrew (444) 21:41, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. I think articles GA and up at the time of rating should be analyzed for adherence to guideline (years later they may not have the same initial standards). In other types of articles, the title and lead of articles many times or mostly don't adhere to guidelines due to editors not knowing about them or checking them, not necessarily because editors think it is better to use whatever method they used. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 22:32, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

There doesn't need to be a numerical threshold, only consensus of editors at an articles talk page if the issue comes up. This is true of all articles titles, not just those under NCROY. The recent RFCs seem to have been the result of an attempt force consistency across articles, which has been rejected in many cases. This will fade and maybe in a few more years more there'll be new RFCs about renaming, and new ideas will come to the fore. None of this is set in stone, and it shouldn't be. The world changes and Wikipedia will change with it, hard set rules only act as a yoke to that change. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:14, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

In the tables, I note "Adherence to WP:NCROY". While it is noted, once, in the rather lengthy text, that this refers to the articles' present adherence to the former version of WP:NCROY, such may be missed by participants who are being given an awful lot of material to sort through, and who may, quite understandably, believe that what is being alleged is that those article titles presently do not comply with WP:NCROY, and form opinions based on that misapprehension. Can it not be made clear in each table that what is being referred to is whether the present article title would comply with the old version of the policy?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:39, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Wehwalt, thank you very much for your well-intentioned suggestion. I had decided to not modify the Adherence to WP:NCROY table row descriptors initially because I had assumed that the context sentence would have been sufficient clarification. However, given that I have now started to spend more time and energy than I had expected into responding to claims made in this discussion, I will be changing these headers as soon as possible. I also want to mention that per WP:TALK#REVISE, I will need to explicitly indicate that I modified the headers. Hurricane Andrew (444) 04:07, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I have updated pertinent the table headers above. Hopefully, this should alleviate some confusion on the other participants' end. Hurricane Andrew (444) 04:19, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

• Comment My experience is that we have no definite guidelines to follow and never will have. No matter what we decide in a forum such as this one '!!!!!!CONSENSUS!!!!!!' will come along on any talk page and screw everything up anyway. There are many examples. Here is one of the worst, where '!!!!!!CONSENSUS!!!!!!' decided what a woman's name was, though it never was. Sad to say this after 15 years of contributing. Am I wrong? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:19, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

The deciding factor in the end, is editors. If a large enough number of editors want a page titled a certain way, that's most likely how that page will be titled. Gradually, "of country" is being 'removed' from bios of monarchs. I wonder, will heirs-apparent/presumptive, consorts & other royal family members be next? That does appear to be the direction that the winds are blowing in. GoodDay (talk) 19:25, 25 November 2023 (UTC)