Contents

Talk:Meghan, Duchess of Sussex: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 23:34, 28 June 2018

Skip to table of contents

This article was previously nominated for deletion. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. Biography: Actors and Filmmakers / Royalty and Nobility B‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility. California: Los Angeles / Southern California B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. stateofCalifornia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Los Angeles area task force. This article is supported by Southern California task force. United States B‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. United Kingdom B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. England B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. British Royalty B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Royalty (a child project of the Royalty and Nobility Work Group), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to British Royalty on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you should visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.British RoyaltyWikipedia:WikiProject British RoyaltyTemplate:WikiProject British RoyaltyBritish royalty articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. African diaspora B‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Women's History B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Women B‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

	Women in Red: Women in the world (2017)
This article was created or improved during the Women in the world contest hosted by the Women in Red project in November 2017. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in RedWikipedia:WikiProject Women in RedTemplate:WikiProject Women in RedWomen in Red articles

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Sam Reed (30 October 2016). "9 Things to Know About Meghan Markle, Prince Harry's Rumored New Girlfriend". The Hollywood Reporter. Archived from the original on 8 November 2016. Retrieved 28 November 2017. According to her Wiki page, she was a member of Kappa Kappa Gamma sorority. Michelle Ruiz (November 18, 2016). "Meet Meghan Markle: Prince Harry's Feminist, Philanthropist, Actress Girlfriend". Vogue (magazine. Archived from the original on 28 November 2017. Retrieved 28 November 2017. ... her father, a TV lighting director. According to her Wikipedia page, the latter meant she spent time as a child hanging out on the set of Married With Children.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Template:Vital article

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Meghan, Duchess of Sussex article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13Auto-archiving period: 90 days

The request to rename this article to Meghan, Duchess of Sussex has been carried out. If the page title has consensus, be sure to close this discussion using {{subst:RM top|'''page moved'''.}} and {{subst:RM bottom}} and remove the {{Requested move/dated|…}} tag, or replace it with the {{subst:Requested move/end|…}} tag.

Meghan Markle → Meghan, Duchess of Sussex – This name in line with the article naming conventions, and it is consistent with articles for royality of similar situation, such as Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge and Anne, Princess Royal. The last recent move result IMO there is no clear consensus. I believe we have one more vote so as to generate more input and have a clearer consensus. B dash (talk) 08:10, 18 June 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. Dekimasuよ! 16:38, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural comment. The previous move request is at Talk:Meghan Markle/Archive 6#Requested move 19 May 2018. The move request mentioned is at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2018 May#Meghan, Duchess of Sussex (closed). Dekimasuよ! 20:09, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per WP:NCROY and per Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, Birgitte, Duchess of Gloucester, Katharine, Duchess of Kent and Sophie, Countess of Wessex. There is no good reason to make an exception here. Timrollpickering 09:53, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A Google search is coming up as "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex" in its main results box on the top right hand box, so it makes sense for us to be consistent. The Sun is calling her "The Duchess of Sussex, Meghan Markle", but that's tabloid junk. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:56, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, since nobody has felt strongly enough to try to change WP:NCROY to make it "Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex". --Scott Davis ^Talk 10:53, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support only as proposed. She was at best marginally notable as an actress and model, her most prominent and well-known role being non-leading, and she is reported to have retired from that career in favour of royal life. A much earlier version of this article on the basis of her acting career at the time was deleted in 2006. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:29, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per recent discussion and consensus. In short, this is her common name; if she becomes overwhelmingly known as "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex" by, say Christmas, then fair enough. But not yet. DBD 14:48, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close. Wikipedia:Move review#Meghan, Duchess of Sussex (closed) was closed 14 days ago. Setting aside that NCROY is not absolute and explicitly defers to COMMONNAME, WP:REHASHing this discussion until the preferred result is achieved is tendentious, inappropriate, and wastes editors' valuable time and resources. "One more vote" (it's not a vote, by the way) is not a good reason to reopen this so soon. James (^talk/_contribs) 15:14, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose until there is evidence that the proposed title is in line with policy. In this move proposal (and in the arguments), I see no indication that the situation has changed since the last move request. Surtsicna (talk) 16:02, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Despite the fact that a similar discussion ended a few weeks ago, this is still a valid topic of discussion since it points to a very real problem with this article. The title of the article should change per WP:NAMECHANGES - "Sometimes, the subject of an article will undergo a change of name. When this occurs, we give extra weight to reliable sources written after the name change is announced. If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match." The argument for maintaining the title “Meghan Markle” has rested on WP:COMMONNAME. Does that mean that the Wikipedia decides what that common name is, since I see plenty of sources that point to "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex"? If we turn to standard policy of WP:RS: 1. Her official website states clearly that she is no longer Meghan Markle, the actress. She is now “The Duchess of Sussex,”[1], a name change that happened after marriage, which is a known phenomenon. 2. There are plenty of WP:RS to support the change. Just a few include:[2][3][4][5][6]. 3. With regard to "The Duchess of Sussex," v. "Duchess of Sussex," I would point to a similar article: Sophie, Countess of Wessex as a model - the wife of Prince Edward (the younger brother of Prince Charles). I’m perplexed as to what more is needed to change this article to match the others. -Classicfilms (talk) 16:55, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The first source you cite is titled Meghan Markle, so what are you referring to? Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:02, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean her official website that states she was born "Meghan Markle" but is now the Duchess of Sussex and no longer Meghan Markle? -Classicfilms (talk) 17:05, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see, you mean [7] - it is also titled, "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, once again champions the great British high street." -Classicfilms (talk) 17:11, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As it has been brought up, if one searches for "Meghan Markle", or for "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex", after her wedding, there is no question that "Meghan Markle" is still used in the overwhelming number of English Language RS and thus common name -- indeed, such searches also appear to show Meghan Markle is the recognizable, natural, precise, and concise form for finding the subject. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:17, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disagreeing with the fact that "Meghan Markle" is still used by the media. But so is "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex." I just did a Google Search on "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex" and received over 25 million results. Here is the search: [8] -Classicfilms (talk) 17:24, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What that search pulls-up is overwhelmingly "Meghan Markle" in every category from news to books, so you are reinforcing Meghan Markle. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:33, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just a look at the first page of the Google Search for "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex," shows both, with more uses of "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex" than Meghan Markle. These are subjective approaches to an issue which really is about a name change after a wedding. You may disagree with me, and that is of course your right, but I am reinforcing nothing. -Classicfilms (talk) 17:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just look at the first page? That makes no sense per COMMONNAME, but even on the first page there are more Meghan Markle. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:07, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Still no evidence of change in usage per Alanscottwalker’s above post - and certainly no evidence put forward by proposer. DeCausa (talk) 17:20, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as sources will be increasingly calling her 'Duchess of Sussex'. We've got Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, after all & there's still sources using Catherine MiddletonorKate Middleton. GoodDay (talk) 17:34, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Will be"? Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Hairy Dude (talk) 15:57, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per WP:NCROY. The opponents cannot possibly argue that Meghan Markle is her only common name now, as a search in the Google gives the title "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex" as the main title for her profile. The official websites and documents and the news agencies already refer to her as the Duchess of Sussex, thus I don't understand what type of document or source should be provided here to make the opponents understand that it is totally fine to have her page moved to the appropriate title, just like the other British princesses. Keivan.f^Talk 17:56, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose her original name continues to be what she is referred to as frequently. Unless the marital name is shown to overtake it on a long-term basis I feel it should remain with the original name. CallyMc (talk) 22:56, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per all of the above as well as per NAMECHANGES etc- She's now referred to as Meghan, Duchess of Sussex so It makes sense for us to follow suit. –Davey2010^Talk 23:33, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per WP:NAMECHANGES which has much more pressure than common name – sources are referring to her as the Duchess of Sussex. Kate Middleton was moved to Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, when she married. It also should be done here. Let's not single this article. CookieMonster755✉ 01:04, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• These sources refer to Meghan as the Duchess of Sussex: [9][10][11][12][13][14] and more. CookieMonster755✉ 01:10, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support now notable as a royal not a Suits actress. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:21, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as per WP:COMMONNAME. I don't find the arguments for very convincing, they also seem to be WP:Other stuff exists. Should Kate Middleton's article be moved back to "Kate Middleton" too? Probably, but that is to be discussed on that article, not here. Two wrongs don't make a right. Claíomh Solais (talk) 06:31, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The name of this article should be "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex" so to keep up the contingency with other articles of royal spouses, and also it is now the name used to address her in royal engagements. KaTipunan (talk) 3:37, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
• Comment I missed the first discussion (although Jimbo's rationale for moving has to be one of the worst admin excuses of all time!), but the Duchess is far better known worldwide as being the Duchess when compared to the subject of this AfD. As an example of how these things pan out, I don't think anyone has called the Duchess of York "Fergie" for many years. Mind you, when I tried to crack a joke about the Grand old Duke of York running off with a redhead after he marched 10,000 men up to the top of the hill (as one of the games in It's a Royal Knockout), half the office were too young to know what I was talking about. Bah. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:40, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and speedily close per WP:FORUMSHOP and WP:GAMING. You can't just beat the community over the head until everyone passes out and you get what you want.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:10, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How can you justify speedily closing a discussion I only saw yesterday for the first time? At least specify why it meets WP:COMMONNAME - as the policy says, "when there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering these criteria directly.". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:58, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose and speedy close per SMcCandlish and James Allison. The last move discussion was opened just three weeks ago, just a day after the previous one closed. Repeatedly making attempts to move the page in such a short time is very disruptive. --Joshua Issac (talk) 14:21, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support clearly the common sense name, it matches the style used in other articles and drops the name Markle which both the Duchess and the press dont use anymore. Media is calling her both Meghan and the Duchess of Sussex so it seems sensible to drop the Markle bit. MilborneOne (talk) 14:51, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per WP:NCROY. Only minor notability as an actor in comparison to the royal marriage. --Martilito (talk) 15:00, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • That argument (and many others in this discussion) were rejected in the closure of the last move request and in the closure review of that same move request, which was only weeks ago. This move request is, of course, going down the same route as the one last month. Surtsicna (talk) 17:47, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • And what is your argument exactly? One month ago, she was technically Meghan Markle, and sources referred to her as such. Now she's a royal duchess who gets mentioned by her title in various online sources. One cannot simply argue that the current title is her common name and close the whole discussion. Keivan.f^Talk 21:39, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • She still is Meghan Markle. That is what she is known as. There is also 0 evidence that her last name is no longer Markle (not that it matters). Do various online sources that mention her as Duchess of Sussex outnumber those that mention her as Meghan Markle? If you believe they do, please present some evidence. That is how this is supposed to work. Surtsicna (talk) 21:53, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

...and the Duchess of Cambridge, is still called by many media Catherine Middleton and/or Kate Middleton. Heck, I never heard of Meghan, 'until' she got engaged. Why was there no outrage, when Catherine's article was moved to its current title? Why is the Sussex couple being singled out? GoodDay (talk) 22:00, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a proof if that's what you want. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-berkshire-44535917 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-manchester-44358587 Mirrorthesoul (talk) 21:06, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment For some odd reason, it has been mentioned that this article was deleted in 2006. That is an odd factoid because this current article was created in 2007 [15] and has been here ever since - so yes, RS were writing about her and she was "notable" for Wikipedia some 10 years ago -- even this very day, RS around the world use "Meghan Markle" when writing about her, as that's what she became known as. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:16, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Please can someone close this. Per comments above, you can't just keep reopening discussions endlessly. We decided through RM and MRV to keep Meghan Markle as the name and let the dust settle. That needs to happen.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:32, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let the RM run its course. Otherwise, shutting down will only cause more problems. GoodDay (talk) 19:56, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Leave it open. Once it's closed, we can have a move moratorium. CookieMonster755✉ 20:32, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you shut this down, you will just cause more chaos, as I'm sure many users will start to complain about it. Let's wait for the results and then we can have a move moratorium for a period of 6 months. Keivan.f^Talk 21:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, you can indeed ignore the move discussion that took place just two weeks ago and just open a new one. Surtsicna (talk) 22:04, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Once again as I've said in the previous. 1) She's not a Markle anymore, she's a royal. Stop comparing her with Wallis. 2) She's legally married to Prince Harry, everyone needs to respect that. 3) Ignore what the media is calling her and respect the title she's been given since the marriage, which is The Duchess of Sussex. If anyone has a problem should take it up with Kensington Palace. Mirrorthesoul (talk) 21:50, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yawn. Another argument that was rejected just two weeks ago by both the closing admin and the move review admins. Respect this, respect that, blah blah. How about we respect Wikipedia policies instead? This is turning into an exact replica of the previous discussion. Surtsicna (talk) 22:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Double yawn. Why single out this one bio article. We don't have Kate MiddletonorSarah Ferguson. GoodDay (talk) 22:04, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yet we do have Wallis Simpson, Grace Kelly, Sophie Winkleman, and numerous others. This one isn't singled out. Repeating worn out arguments is neither fun nor helpful. Surtsicna (talk) 22:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By all means, open up an Rfc on those. GoodDay (talk) 22:27, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, thanks. I am fine with those titles. I just needed to correct you: this article is not "singled out". Surtsicna (talk) 22:32, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We shall have to disagree on this article's title, then. GoodDay (talk) 22:34, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Surtsicna, who are you comparing Meghan to? Grace Kelly was already a famous American actress when she married the Prince of Monaco, and her career as an actress (which earned her an Academy Award) overshadowed her life as the princess of a small country. Sophie Winkleman is also an actress, and unlike Meghan, she hasn't been married to a high ranking member of the royal family. She's the daughter-in-law of a lesser known prince, and she is probably more famous than her noble husband. Wallis was also an American divorcee who was never officially a member of the royal family and was never treated as such. Meghan falls in the same category as Diana, Camilla, Sarah, Sophie, and Catherine. To be honest I didn't even know that she existed before her relationship to Harry became known. So, yes, this page is being singled out for no clear reason. Keivan.f^Talk 01:32, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not comparing her to anyone. This is a topic on its own. It should be treated on its own. If you can prove that Meghan Markle is no longer best known as Meghan Markle, please do so. Saying that you did not know about her before her relationship is, pardon me, a bullshit argument, which is why it was rejected along with other bullshit arguments by the closing administrator and the move reviewers. Surtsicna (talk) 16:40, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Surtsicna: Wow, extremely rude. You absolutely have no respect, do you? And sure, lets actually bring up the option to change those pages as well. I think it would be fair. :/ Mirrorthesoul (talk) 23:57, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to mention that I wan't trying to compare Meghan to anyone. Instead, I was responding to your statements which said that this page is not singled out, while in fact it is. By the way, it's OK to disagree with everyone else, but we are all free to have our own opinions, and keeping this page at its current title because it's - according to some of you - her common name is absolutely nonsense. Keivan.f^Talk 00:20, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Keivan.f: Agreed. Mirrorthesoul (talk) 23:19, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mirrorthesoul: You are the last person here entitled to accuse me of being rude, having literally commanded everyone how to feel and act regarding this matter. Therefore I should think that Keivan.f's note that "we are all free to have our own opinions" is directed at you. And no, I have absolutely no respect of the kind that you would want me to have, which is an utter deference to the British monarchy. Such deference does not help Wikipedia one bit. There are plenty of royalty forums and blogs where it can be exercised. Surtsicna (talk) 00:29, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Article needs to be in line with Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. We were confused when we saw that the new Duchess of Sussex maybe did NOT have a title. Almost ALL media articles refer to her using her new title at least once in their article. 110.147.205.88 (talk) 23:12, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per nom David G (talk) 23:46, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – this is standard practice on Wikipedia. If this page is kept in ordd current name, then we have a LOT of moving to do. Corky 00:11, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:24, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Her name isn't 'Markle'. Has anyone bothered to consult style guides on this matter? See The Guardians, for example. It says '"Princess Kate" or "Princess Meghan" are wrong, as is the use of the women’s former surnames of Middleton and Markle'. Of course, we're not in the business of determining what is right and wrong here, but Wikipedia styling has always followed the lead of common usage in reliable sources. She's become the Duchess of Sussex, and that's what she should be called. I understand the hand-wringing over the proposed styling vis-a-vis implications about being divorced, but this is the best possible compromise. No American or republican distaste for noble titles and styles can remove the legal reality of her having become, by choice, the Duchess of Sussex...in place of the former 'Meghan Markle'. RGloucester — ☎ 01:59, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What name does it say on her passport? I doubt it says the "Duchess of Blahdiblah". Claíomh Solais (talk) 15:54, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't say the "Duchess of Blahdiblah", it probably says "Rachel Meghan Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Sussex", similar to Catherine who has been mentioned as "Catherine Elizabeth Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Cambridge" in the birth certificates of her children. 1 Keivan.f^Talk 21:43, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We have no idea what her passport says, or whether she has updated it or not. American passports do not include noble or other titles/styles. This is irrelevant, though. Even if some editor stole her passport and found out what was written in it, that would not be useful here. We follow reliable secondary sources...we do not analyse primary sources and come to independent conclusions (WP:OR). RGloucester — ☎ 21:55, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course we have no idea what her passport says, and that was an irrelevant question in the first place. By the way, I wasn't talking about her American passport, but the British one that she already has or probably will receive in the future, and the British do include royal/noble titles in their official documents. Anyway, we better end this here as it would probably be considered off topic. Keivan.f^Talk 22:01, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Grace Kelly was already a BIG TIME famous American actress when she married the Prince of Monaco, and her career as an actress (which earned her an Academy Award) overshadowed her life as the princess of a small country. Sophie Winkleman is also currently a WORKING actress, and unlike Meghan, she isn't married to Prince Harry, a high ranking/senior member of the royal family. Meghan's official biographers have stated that she will be working as a royal - and no longer be working as an actress. Sophie Winkleman is the daughter-in-law of a lesser known prince, and she is probably more famous than her noble husband. Wallis was also an American divorcee who was never officially a member of the royal family and was never treated as such. Wallis was never a working royal. Meghan CLEARLY falls in the same category as Diana, Camilla, Sarah, Sophie, and Catherine. This should be simple to understand. 175.33.198.186 (talk) 02:11, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps, you could paraphrase that a little bit? Keivan.f^Talk 16:17, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the renaming. Over the past few weeks, the media used her official title "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex" more often than her original name "Meghan Markle". This covered the main reason for not moving the article in the previous discussion. --202.155.194.40 (talk) 06:19, 20 June 2018 (UTC)— 202.155.194.40 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • This again. You obviously read or took part in the previous discussion, yet you keep repeating nonsense that was dispelled by several users multiple times in the course of that discussion. "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex" is not her official title. It never has been and, if everything goes well, it never will be. "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex" is essentially a Wikipedia invention, neither the official nor the most common name. And the official title argument was also rejected as not being grounded in Wikipedia policy (per Wikipedia:Official names). Surtsicna (talk) 16:46, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I see on this page no good reason not to follow the usual convention, and a number of good reasons to make the change proposed, given the Redirect and the clear statements in the article's two opening sentences and in the infobox. Her notability is no longer as a former relatively minor actress, but in the public eye as her husband's wife and a member of the royal family promoting good causes. Now and for the future, like the Duchess of Cambridge, for the purposes of this bio article, any notability she had before is subsumed in her new status as Duchess. Qexigator (talk) 07:55, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Is her common name, we do so for her sister-in-law Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge and whatever she was notable for in the past has been superseded by her marriage, as the obsessive press coverage post-wedding makes clear. And I haven't read a single good argument for keeping the article here. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 08:42, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as per nom, WP:NCROY, WP:NAMECHANGES, the fact that she is refered to in Palace sources as the Duchess of Sussex and the 12M sources that now refer to the Duchess of Sussex. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:45, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nomination. This is the "common name" for British royality. --219.78.191.247 (talk) 13:03, 20 June 2018 (UTC)— 219.78.191.247 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:COMMONSENSE. Absolutely no reason why she should be different from any other princess by marriage. That's what she's called now. That's how the media refer to her. That's the name she uses. She is no longer Meghan Markle; she is Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:31, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as per nom, WP:NCROY, WP:NAMECHANGES. – Flix11 (talk) 18:20, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support her Royal Title is a legal property and confers a right to be so addressed; the present-day custom in Britain is to refer to titled people as they expressly prefer OR are entitled to be named. So, the default correct referral in the absence of a request, is to the Title. Disambiguation pages for "Meghan" and for "Duchess of Sussex" should clear up any confusion about whom is meant and a search on "Meghan Markle" would redirect to the "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex" page.truthordare (talk) 21:11, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly support - Her name is now the Duchess of Sussex. Michelle Obama's page does not use her maiden name Robinson, and likewise the Duchess's page should not use "Markle". jamacfarlane (talk) 09:27, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Duchess of Sussex is her title not her name, and Duke of Sussex is not her newly married husband's name, which is Henry as christened and in letters patent, who, as from the the year of his birth, was and continues to be known, by his family and others, by the diminutive "Harry". Qexigator (talk) 13:46, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Titles ARE part of the name of the subject in normal British usage. In all British legal documents, these two will be referred to by their title, and not by their family name. See, for instance, the guidelines for the including titles in British passports, where it states 'Titles of nobility are part of a person's name and identity'. Her name is indeed, HRH The Duchess of Sussex, though, of course, her name is also Rachel Meghan, and indeed, her name is also Meghan. RGloucester — ☎ 15:03, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly oppose. I see no real change in circumstances or practice since the earlier discussion was closed in favor of 'Meghan Markle.' It should be remembered, please, that a name is not to be confused with a title or style. This confusion, I suspect---among Americans?---is the source for this endless arguing. Let's follow Wikipedia guidelines, please.2605:A000:BFC0:21:1432:4CB9:846A:C1B8 (talk) 00:04, 21 June 2018 (UTC)— 2605:A000:BFC0:21:1432:4CB9:846A:C1B8 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Support, per above discussion and common name. The main reason to continue to use her maiden name is that it is her acting name, and if she has left the acting profession then her titled name becomes most prominent. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:37, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 05:10, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nomination and the comments above. --118.140.125.71 (talk) 05:21, 21 June 2018 (UTC)— 118.140.125.71 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Support per WP:NAMECHANGES. Yes, the new move request is very early, however it looks like sources have largely moved to the royal name. Whatever the outcome, I endorse a 6-month moratorium on title change after this debate is closed. — JFG ^talk 06:05, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly support - as per the royal webiste https://www.royal.uk/duchess-sussex Sammartinlai (talk) 10:16, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly oppose - The media and British public fawning over/fetishising the British monarchy is bad enough, Wikipedia should seek to be better. We don't have an article called President Donald Trump so why should this be different? 31.22.203.37 (talk) 13:23, 21 June 2018 (UTC) — 31.22.203.37 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I'd rather have that than a questionably elected leader who slags off Muslims, Mexicans, Canadians, blacks, women, the poor, indeed just about anybody, and cosies up to tinpot dictators with one of the worst human rights abuse records on the planet. More to the point, Meghan is a duchess indefinitely, Trump's reign will be [expletive deleted] over in a decade's time. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:03, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Note (addressed both to IP:31.22.203.37 & Ritchie333) WP:BLP applies fully to talk pages as well as article pages. Also, WP:NOTAFORUM must be observed. This is not the place for your personal opinions regarding either the British royals or President Trump and the line on WP:BLP is close to being crossed in regards to Trump. Safiel (talk) 15:35, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per Classicfilms -- especially the reference to NAMECHANGES -- and NCROY. FactStraight (talk) 01:38, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per multiple recent discussions, and per WP:CONCISE: the current title is sufficient to identify the subject and does not require disambiguation. Consistency of titles between separate articles is neither required nor desirable on Wikipedia. 213.205.242.121 (talk) 04:10, 22 June 2018 (UTC)— 213.205.242.121 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This !vote is in contradiction with the 5th characteristic of title criteria: Consistency. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:49, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as above. --182.239.122.174 (talk) 10:48, 22 June 2018 (UTC)— 182.239.122.174 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 21:12, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. SnowFire (talk) 21:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as per WP:NCROY which deals with this specific situation. 203.33.230.66 (talk) 00:29, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per WP:NAMECHANGES/WP:NCROY, and WP:CONSISTENCY, overcoming WP:COMMONNAME which is a wash, it being so hard to find introductory uses, every new story beginning with an assumption of familiarity. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:28, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. When majority of reliable sources refer to her otherwise, we can have a discussion on moving the article. Until then, let it be. Composemi (talk) 12:59, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per WP:NAMECHANGES and many sources now refer to her as the duchess of Sussex Jibran1998 (talk) 17:28, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per others --Patriccck (talk) 13:12, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. To provide actual data, I Googled for pages a) published within the last week, and b) with either of the two terms in the page title. Results: Meghan Markle, 151; Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, 38. Exact numbers may change as new articles are published and Google does its thing, but I would expect to continue to see about a 4:1 ratio in favor of Meghan Markle in the short term. I'll be all for renaming once Meghan, Duchess of Sussex becomes the more commonly used name, but let's not jump the gun.

Furthermore, WP:SPNC seems applicable here, particularly the example given there of Cat Stevens, whose article remains there, as he's best known by that name, even though he has gone by Yusuf Islam for 40 years. Chuck (talk) 23:33, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting break

• Relisting comment. As I noted at Talk:Meghan Markle/Archive 6, and as a few editors suggested above in requests to speedily close this discussion, there has not been sufficient consideration here of why and whether the comments in the previous discussion, which ended in a reversion to the title Meghan Markle, are still applicable in the current discussion. Further, there has been a great deal of discussion of WP:COMMONNAME without data in support of the claim that one or the other title is the common name. Citation of individual secondary sources that make reference to one or the other title show that both are in use, but they do not show that a preponderance of reliable sources use one or the other title––that one or the other is the WP:COMMONNAME. (An example of this might include something like a Google Trends search, but hopefully participants can come up with more significant data.) The issues raised in terms of WP:NCROY are currently the same issues that were raised in the previous discussion. Since this is discussion is not a vote, please consider taking up these points substantively in subsequent comments. Dekimasuよ! 16:45, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the WP:NAMECHANGES argument is now stronger than on the day of the wedding; this is why I switched to the Support position since the move review. — JFG ^talk 17:06, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for linking WP:NAMECHANGES, which I should have mentioned in my comment. In the archived discussion, I mentioned that we need to find the title that "best coincides with WP:NAMECHANGES, WP:NCROY, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:TITLECHANGES, WP:OFFICIAL, and other policies and guidelines that we consider when choosing article titles." Again, though, new evidence of why WP:NAMECHANGES applies will be more beneficial to the discussion than overall impressions. WP:NAMECHANGES states that "If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match. If, on the other hand, reliable sources written after the name change is announced continue to use the established name, Wikipedia should continue to do so as well." Some sources are using the new name, and others are continuing to use "Meghan Markle." Which are reliable sources doing more of? Dekimasuよ! 17:13, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to a relisting, which will give more time for debate. However, I'm somewhat confused by the argument above and am hoping you can clarify. 1. To the statement "there has not been sufficient consideration here of why and whether the comments in the previous discussion, which ended in a reversion to the title Meghan Markle, are still applicable in the current discussion," I would comment that the two discussions are different ones. The original discussion centered on (and I am quoting the closing comment here)"an out-of-process move ... performed by the founder." While the closer did not feel he could revert the article back to its original name, another user did. So, my understanding of that vote is that there was a procedural issue at stake. As this discussion followed procedure, it is a different one. (2) To the statement that this "discussion is not a vote," -I am wondering how it is different from other discussions I have participated in over the years on the Wikipedia. Usually, the numbers of support and oppose are counted and a decision is made. In looking at the discussion thus far, I see 37 editors who support the move and 12 who oppose it. Finally, to (3) WP:NAMECHANGES and WP:COMMONNAME. One of the most important rules in this context lies in WP:RS, as the Wikipedia strives to be accurate. No one seems to be contesting that a name change took place - and as for WP:RS, we have one, the official website of the subject.[16] From here, a discussion of primary sources and notability will ensue. Both names come up in a Google search - sometimes in the same article. It thus seems that the primary source,[17] which has been quoted in secondary sources, reflects WP:NAMECHANGES. I'm thus not sure how WP:COMMONNAME would overrule other policies. -Classicfilms (talk) 19:53, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Same as Prince Harry, this article also has a lot of controversies on the title. I am here to propose regardless the outcome of the 18 June 2018 move request, a moratorium on move requests should be implemented on this article for six months. --B dash (talk) 06:14, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as proposer. --B dash (talk) 06:14, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support 6 months per my comment in the move request. — JFG ^talk 07:36, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support on principle. For the sake of simplicity I suggest that any moratorium placed here be parallel with any placed at Prince Harry. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 08:23, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support jamacfarlane (talk) 09:27, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as per above and per my comments over there. –Davey2010^Talk 15:21, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose while the current Rfc is in progress. GoodDay (talk) 15:23, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Please re-state proposal. The proposal as currently expressed is not clear. How can a moratorium be imposed at the same time as a move request is being considered? Is the proposal suggesting that any decision made regarding a move be postponed for six months? If that's the case, I wouldn't object. As I've stated earlier, there seems to be no good reason to change the article's title until circumstances change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:BFC0:21:1432:4CB9:846A:C1B8 (talk) 17:18, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• What there should be a moratorium on is arguments such as "she is no longer an actress", "this is her official title", "you need to respect the monarchy", "the monarchy is crap", and "I hadn't heard of her before". If they were rejected as unhelpful in the last discussion, there is no need to repeat them. I pity the admin who is going to have go through hundreds of comments, and much more so if two thirds are going to be worthless junk like the last time. Surtsicna (talk) 17:20, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. It's quite likely that this latest move request will fail and the article remain where it is. But the more time elapses since the wedding, the more reliable sources there will be that refer to her by her married name. Even if it shouldn't be moved now (which is fair enough), the article will be moved eventually. Putting off that date for at least six months sounds like an attempt by the anti-Duchess party to hold back the tide. Opera hat (talk) 18:54, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hah, just noticed that User:B dash actually proposed a move to "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex" so obviously isn't trying to delay anything. But I'm not going to change my vote. Eventually the balance of reliable sources in favour of the married name will tip (if it hasn't already) and the article should be moved then, not after some arbitrarily-set timescale. Opera hat (talk) 19:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is "her married name"? HRH Princess Henry, Duchess of Sussex, comparable with Princess Arthur of Connaught (HRH Princess Arthur of Connaught, Duchess of Fife, 1913-1959), whose article is named Princess Alexandra, 2nd Duchess of Fife, and consider Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Lady Ogilvy. Qexigator (talk) 19:50, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not really relevant here. If people want to argue over what her married name is, they should be allowed to do so. This proposal is to ban any discussion at all for the next six months, and that's what I'm opposing. Opera hat (talk) 05:54, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support and the RM closer should have been expected to implement this without a vote. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:55, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Red Slash 22:57, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose current proposal. Both the proposed moratorium and the RM above are tendentious proposals designed to WP:REHASH discussion until the proposer exhausts their opposition and gets the result they want. A moratorium based on an RM that is itself an abuse of process would not be appropriate. James (^talk/_contribs) 01:36, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as we aren't a crystal ball and must be responsive to external events such as common name changes. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 05:50, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per RichardWeiss, good point. Who knows, she may start recording music under the single name "Meghan" (Meghan - Live From Buckingham Palace). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:24, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Let the currently requested move runs its course. Given that the hype surrounding the wedding has died down, the current move request is likely to attract a more involved set of editors and have more thoughtful comments. 203.33.230.66 (talk) 00:30, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose A moratorium doesn't appear to be necessary or appropriate, as editors would be discouraged from discussing this further. See WP:CCC. Regardless of the RM's outcome, we must allow for WP:MR. Furthermore, if circumstances change or if new information emerges, we should allow editors to submit a new RM. If a future RM seems premature, then it will likely be speedily closed. Edge3 (talk) 05:24, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support six months, RMs are distractions, and it is very hard to imagine anything much new to say in another xis months. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:54, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per crystal but troutslap anyone who would bring another RM soon without a change in circumstances. Jonathunder (talk) 03:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support unless of couse there are exceptionnel circumstances...e.g. divorce, revolution followed by abolition, multiple abdications leading to Harry's coronation, revelations by Trump that the marriage was "fake news"...or something else...Dom from Paris (talk) 08:55, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, concurrent with a Prince Harry moratorium, as suggested by Ivanvector. These have been very common RMs recently, and a short moratorium is in order so that the pages can settle down for a while. ONR (talk) 17:00, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support 6 months. It seems like a reasonable time period to me. We can reassess the article title then. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:51, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The only reasonable change would be to "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex" for reasons already stated on this page. Once that is done, the need for further consideration vanishes, and with it the question of moratorium of any duration. Qexigator (talk) 21:10, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is you who had to start this discussion since it's been only you who has opposed adding those information so far. First of all, what mis-cite are you talking about? I've already gone through the sources, and I couldn't find out what you meant. The other pictures that were allegedly introduced against the Duchess of Cambridge could be subject to speculation, but the fact that Kensington Palace has already reacted to those topless photos and that her face has been clearly seen in a video makes that a legitimate claim, and these stuff (i.e. scandals) are normally covered by Wikipedia articles. Other examples include Harry, Diana, Catherine, William, Sophie, and hundreds of other famous people. So give me a solid reason that why I would not add those info back. Keivan.f^Talk 03:47, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. That is not how it works. See, WP:BLP and WP:BRD, you must take it to the talk page. In addition, I have been thanked for my removal by another editor. You mis-cited Wonder Wall a celebrity gossip cite. This tabloid speculation is not allowed in BLPs and it is WP:UNDUE. You are just repeating disputed rumors in tabloid fashion about 'racy pictures', pictures which are the subject of only speculation in tabloid sources --'I/They think it looks like her', is speculation. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Alanscottwalker about this being UNDUE. All female celebrities are tracked by paparazzi in the hope of getting topless photos. This is standard tabloid fare and far from being worthy of a mention in an encyclopedia. If there were a court case with sufficient media coverage then that would be worth noting. Most of the sources say alleged anyway. And just because other stuff exists doesn't make it right. Thanks for pointing out these other bits of trivia I'll have a look and see if they are as non encyclopedic as this one and edit accordingly. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:23, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]