Talk:Haakon VII

The result of the move request was: no consensus. The arguments bring up good points: usual WP:SOVEREIGN criteria may apply (per the opposers), but that criteria's own exception may also apply if the Norweigan monarchy "use[s] a completely different namestock,...need not follow this convention; there is no disambiguation to pre-empt." I'm closing instead of relisting because as Dr. Vogel mentioned, this affects many articles (such as Haakon's successors) and needs broader discussion—at the relevant WikiProjects or as a multi-move request. (non-admin closure) Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 15:41, 18 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Haakon VII of Norway → Haakon VII – further disambiguation isn't need PK2 (talk) 05:11, 8 October 2022 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). Dr. Vogel (talk) 13:07, 9 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I see your point and personally I think shorter titles are better. At the same time, things look a bit inconsistent here. For example look at this template. It would be good to make all these more consistent. Do you have any thoughts on this whole thing? Dr. Vogel (talk) 12:30, 8 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

If there's uncertainty it should go to WP:RM. Personally I support this move though. -Kj cheetham (talk) 23:07, 8 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

WP:SOVEREIGN also applies. I don't know if "Haakon VII" counts as a common name, but might count as "completely different namestock". -Kj cheetham (talk) 23:11, 8 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

I support this move too. I would be tempted to just do it, but I wanted to see what people thought about the consistency issue. Dr. Vogel (talk) 01:44, 9 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

I oppose move. And know others will likely contest it too. Not a technical move. Use an RM. Walrasiad (talk) 07:46, 9 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Comment Haakon VII (disambiguation) -- 65.92.247.226 (talk) 08:54, 8 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

I don't think the existence of that dabpage is a problem, because all the entries are about things named after that king anyway. Dr. Vogel (talk) 12:27, 8 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

• Isupport the proposed move on the basis of WP:PRECISE and WP:CONCISE points of our article titles guideline. The territorial qualifier is of no use. Compare with articles about his contemporaries, George V, Alfonso XII, and Gustaf V. Surtsicna (talk) 13:29, 9 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
• I will support if the consistency issue is addressed. Dr. Vogel (talk) 13:32, 9 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
• Support per nom. HandsomeFella (talk) 12:13, 10 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
• Strong Oppose, per WP:SOVEREIGN. The norm achieved by consensus is "Monarch # of Country". This fellow is not sufficiently notable in popular culture to be made an exception. 04:34, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:SOVEREIGN. Let's stick to "Monarch # of Country" for all but the most prominent monarchs. No such user (talk)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Each side makes a valid point; but as usual, policy based arguments should always triumph. Best, (closed by non-admin page mover) Reading Beans (talk) 12:19, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

• Haakon VII of Norway → Haakon VII
• Olav V of Norway → Olav V
• Harald V of Norway → Harald V

– Per WP:NCROY, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:PRECISE, and WP:CONCISE. All of these monarchs were the only monarchs by their name & numeral (thus no issues with precision). Concision needs no explanation. And as NCROY has been recently updated by community consensus to support this format. estar8806 (talk) ★ 20:22, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

• Support per nom. No disambiguation is needed in these titles. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:55, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
• Oppose. NCROY was changed in 2021 and has now been changed again. Perhaps there just isn't a community consensus, but rather a revolving cast of involved editors? Victor Emmanuel III and Franz Joseph I are as unambiguous as it gets and both have failed recent RMs. I would urge everyone to ignore the guideline as not, in fact, reflecting any consensus. In fact, ignoring guidelines is the higher calling. Srnec (talk) 21:59, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Even if we just ignore WP:NCROY completely, WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE clearly support this move. And those aren't just guidelines like WP:NCROY is. WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE are policies. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:01, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

• Support per nominator. Killuminator (talk) 22:04, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
• Support per nom. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:03, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
• Oppose Not the common name for him. Dimadick (talk) 02:54, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Really? Because it sure looks like it is too me: [1][2][3] estar8806 (talk) ★ 17:48, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

• Oppose I am in favour of retaining pre-emptive disambiguation. PatGallacher (talk) 13:35, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Personally, I agree with you. But personal opinions are generally weighted less than policy-backed !votes. WP:RMCOMMENT states ...arguments based in policy, guidelines, and evidence have more weight than unsupported statements. estar8806 (talk) ★ 17:51, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

• Oppose. I disagree with the recent NCROY change. I suppose we'll see if they have community consensus behind them by how the RMs go, but for monarchs known by just a first name, some sort of disambiguator is preferred unless there's a very strong COMMONNAME argument like Queen Victoria. SnowFire (talk) 16:09, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
• Support per nominator. There is no need to disambiguate these rulers from other monarchs. Векочел (talk) 20:04, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
• Oppose - We already had an RM, last year. Best for less familiar readers to know what country these monarchs reigned over, by the name of the page. GoodDay (talk) 02:46, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(non-automated message) Greetings! I have opened an RfC on WT:ROYALTY that may be of interest to users following this article talk page! You are encouraged to contribute to this discussion here!Hurricane Andrew (444) 19:34, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply