Contents

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility): Difference between revisions

Revision as of 13:16, 22 January 2012

Please see WT:PEERAGE#Baron according to modern doctrine, but who was never so styled and to keep the conversation in one place if you have an opinion about how such articles should be named please express it there. -- PBS (talk)

I know this might not be the proper venue, but a few months back I asked on Tsar's talkpage why we use Tsar and not Czar. I was just curious as I couldn't find an answer elsewhere. Hot Stop talk-contribs 05:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How do we handle this article? Should it be Baudouin, King of BelgiumorBaudouin, King of the Belgians. GoodDay (talk) 23:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weshould move it back to Baudouin I of Belgium but we can't because of the most recent debate. So what's wrong with leaving it as it is? Deb (talk) 11:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the normal reasons - this isn't what he's called. The convention tells us to use Baudouin, King of Belgium; personally I would prefer King Baudouin of BelgiumorKing Baudouin; anyway, any of these options (orBaudouin, King of the Belgians) would be preferable to what we have now.--Kotniski (talk) 11:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Formal move request now opened, by the way.)--Kotniski (talk) 11:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Biographies History and geography When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

WP:SOVEREIGN says that royals should have their names in English or in the way most historians use. This rule led to situations where a list of monarchs is inconsistent, such as with German Emperors, where we can find William I, German Emperor and Wilhelm II, German Emperor. One name in English and the other in German. Another good example is John VI of Portugal (João VI), whose mother was Maria I (not Mary I) and whose children were Pedro I (not Peter I) and Miguel I (not Michael I).

I've seen a few editors claim that anglicized names are preferred because they are easier to pronounce. This would make sense if everyone else, not just royals, had their names in English. We have a Kaiser William I among Albrecht von Roon, Karl Friedrich von Steinmetz and Helmuth von Moltke. Another example would be Charles IV of Spain (Carlos IV), surrounded by Pedro Pablo Abarca de Bolea, Francisco Javier de Balmis and José Moñino y Redondo.

Thus, should royals have their names in their native tongues instead? Jean II of France, Nikolay II of Russia, Carlos III of Spain, Karl VI, Holy Roman Emperor, etc...

I'd like to warn you all that I'm talking about royalty that uses the Latin Alphabet. This discussion does not involve Arab, Chinese, Indian and other royals. Also, in the case of Roman Emperors, names wouldn't be spelled as AVGVSTVS or VITELLIVS, but Augustus and Vitellius, respectively. As they already are, in fact. --Lecen (talk) 16:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Articles should have the name by which their subject is best known in English. Opera hat (talk) 16:30, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the current practice of common name in English is the best approach and avoids potential conflict. What are we supposed to do with someone like Charles I of Austria and IV of Hungary (use Karl or Karoly?), Baudouin of Belgium or Boudewijn? Which native language do you choose. - dwc lr (talk) 16:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it is "of Austria" then it should be in German. Belgium would be an exception to the rule, mainly discussed and settled on articles related to it. --Lecen (talk) 17:05, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The common English name, with others as redirects. Dougweller (talk) 17:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• There has been a long and heated debate over John V of Portugal and John VI of Portugal, which has resulted in them being restored to that format. I think that, having settled that one, we should not reopen it. Some people clearly found the Portuguese name João VI too unfamiliar. I think we may need separate conventions for each country or even each name in each country. For Belgium, so few foreigners know Flemish that the French form is to be preferred. However, whatever the outcome, it is important that rediurects exist for all credible search terms. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Established English-language exonyms only, escept for people who lived beyond the year 1900 by which they all had/have legal names with legally registered spellings which it would inappropriate to translate ever.

My very strongly held views and motives on this are the results of decades of trial and error and etymological research and are clearly expressed on my talk page beginning with the pivotal question what is phonetic empathy?. SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've read that, and find it an abhorrent philosophy that is culturally hostile. Fortunately, it is merely an opinion, not anything anyone else need be guided by. Alarbus (talk) 07:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I found at WP:SOVEREIGN: "Monarch's first name should be the most common form used in current English works of general reference. Where this cannot be determined, use the conventional anglicized form of the name, as Henry above." My question is whether the subject of the article will always be recognizable under the English version of their name, which I know is why there have to be redirects.Coaster92 (talk) 23:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• For the most part, yes, names should be their proper names not some anglicised form that are hold-overs from the nineteenth century age of empires. Modern historians are largely using proper names these days and we should sync with that, not with what Britanica did in 1911. Alarbus (talk) 07:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non one has given any good reason to keep the names in English when it has been causing inconsistency among monarchs' names (some with their names in their native tongues and others in English) and the most serious problem: everyone else has their names kept in their native tongue. Why only monarchs' names are "difficult" to pronounce? --Lecen (talk) 13:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not only monarchs - anyone else whose name is normally anglicized (John the Baptist and so on) will also have it anglicized on Wikipedia.--Kotniski (talk) 13:16, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]