Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)/Archive 2

I think instead of "most common English-language form of the name" is really meant "most common form of the name used in English"... after all, Juan Carlos I isn't an English-language form, but it's the most common form used in English for that monarch. True nuff? - user:Montrealais

Thanks - that sentence was odd before but with your suggested change it is much better. --mav

---

Why are the former German emperors called "Such-and-Such, Holy Roman Emperor". Following the standard naming convention, this should be "Such-and-Such of the Holy Roman Empire". Is there an exception here, or has someone not been following the standard convention? -- Andre Engels

The convention is to use [{first name} ORDINAL of {kingdom}) for "monarchs of modern countries". There ain't much modern about the "Holy" "Romans" (they were neither btw). --mav

---

The following was recently removed:

Names in other languages

For East Asian names, place the family name after the given name (as in English order), i.e.: Akira Kurosawa is correct, while Kurosawa Akira is incorrect.

In my experience, swapped (Western-style) word order is extremely common for Japanese names used in English (Akira Kurosawa, Junichiro Koizumi), but not for Chinese names (Chow Yun-Fat and Mao Zedong) unless using a Western personal name (Michelle Yeoh). I can't say for other languages, though I get the impression that pracice with Korean more follows Chinese (Kim Jong-Il). What about other languages (Hungarian, too)? --Brion 19:33 Dec 4, 2002 (UTC)

Regarding Hungarian, it is my impression that in Hungarian itself both orders are being used, although eastern more commonly than western, while in English western order is always used. Chinese and Korean are, as you say, almost always used in eastern order, also in English. Japanese names are used in both orders in English; It seems that western order is more common in English, but it will probably vary with context as well. Andre Engels 23:43 Dec 4, 2002 (UTC)

---

New Royal names section looks good to me. --mav

---

I've replaced the points by numbers. If there is a dispute over how someone refers to a royal, it might be easier to tell someone "see Number 2 in the 'Other Royals' section", rather than simply saying "somewhere on the naming conventions is the rule about such and such." It also would be easier if a problem arises and we want to discuss it, to be able to say - "I've a problem with No.3 in whichever section", allowing everyone to know immediately which bit is being discussed. JTD

---

We have one other naming problem. In general Wiki does not use 'Lord' or 'Lady' in titles, on the presumption that it is a title, eg, Lord Bedford, Lord Beaconsfield, Lady Thatcher, and such people already have a name that can be used.

However some figures need to have 'lord' or 'lady' included, because

1. theirs is a courtesy title (ie, a title by virtue of their parent's title) and as a result is treated in common usage almost as their first name;
2. they are universally known through the inclusion of that courtesy title, but universally unknown without it.

An example:

• Lord John Russell In the 1840s, Britain's Prime Minister was Lord John Russell. No one would recognise 'John Russell'. Even his family never called him that. Nor is he 'Lord Russell', because he didn't hold a peerage. The 'Lord' in his name is merely a courtesy title indicating that he was the son of the 'Duke of Bedford'. Dropping the 'Lord' in this instance is as problematic as calling Bill Clinton 'William Clinton' or Jimmy Carter 'James Carter.' It may be technically correct but users simply would not recognise the identity of the person mentioned.
• Lady Diana Spencer Again the 'Lady' didn't indicate she had a peerage, and so a title and a personal name. It indicated that she was the daughter of Earl Spencer. In this case, because she was a contemporary of Wiki users, 'Diana Spencer' can be guessed as referring to 'Lady Diana Spencer' but it does highlight the same point.

The most common recognised name rule would suggest that we should opt for Lord John Russell not John Russell, Lady Diana Spencer not Diana Spencer. I propose to add in a line to the naming conventions page here indicating that

while 'lord' and 'lady' are not automatically used as part of names to article titles on Wikipedia, in some instances individuals are 'so' identified with 'lord' or 'lady', particularly where it is a courtesy title and not a peerage, that leaving the title out may make it difficult for users to recognise the identity of the person in question. In such circumstances, 'Lord', 'Lady' etc may be used.

The problem is, if we don't have such a guideline, we may have an edit war between someone who puts in a name including the word 'lord' and someone who keeps taking it out, insisting that Wiki bans such use in all circumstances. (We have had some discussions on this point, but they were all polite and constructive. But that doesn't mean at some stage some name may crop up that leads to a bitter 'war of the names'. I think it is worth pre-empting that by clarifying the issue now.

Any thoughts on the idea? JTD 23:46 Feb 8, 2003 (UTC)

If we include the complete name, including title, in the body of the text, the Search can find it. -- Zoe

Good idea. The problem is the links. Should be link [John Russell|Lord John Russell] for example, or simply [Lord John Russell]? The danger is also (as I have spotted a few times) that if we name a page, for example 'John Russell', someone who knows him as 'Lord John Russell' may create a new page, not knowing he already is there, albeit under an exceptionally rare variation of his name, leaving someone else (probably yourself, Mav, etc) having to sort out the mess by creating a # redirect. It seems more straight-forward to call him Lord John Russell (or the other cases that might crop up in the future) at the start. But that involves letting people know it is OK where logical to use the 'lord' or 'lady'. (You have enough work to do without sorting out messy links over lords and ladies!) JTD 00:14 Feb 9, 2003 (UTC)

Hm. I'm tempted to advocate allowing the above noted exceptions but I fear that others would see these and incorrectly title new articles with lord or lady when it isn't really called for. I'm also a bit worried that this might bring up the issue of having "sir" in a person's name. Currently we don't allow any sirs in page titles at all. --mav

I think Sir is different because it is an appendage to a name, and so there is a clear name to use without it; eg Bob Geldof not Sir Bob Geldof. So is a normal title that indicates a peerage, eg, my local peer, the Earl of Mountcharles has the name Henry Mountcharles or Henry Coyningham. etc. (Damn. I would pick Henry. He changed his surname by deed poll to contest an Irish general election, so that is complicated too!) But courtesy titles are more complex because in many cases they are used in a manner that makes them part of a name. Lord John Russell is a classic example. I don't imagine we will ever come across a case where not using a 'sir' or 'dame' will confuse readers. There aren't too many cases I can think of like Lord John Russell, just a couple but in each case the Lord or Lady is so associated with the name you'd need a surgeon to remove it. And without it, you are into all sorts of bother - with a name unrecognised by 100% of people, and the danger of people making multiple pages under different versions of names. A classic example is Abbey theatre founder and Irish playwright, Lady Gregory. (She got her title through her marriage to Sir William Gregory, so it is a courtesy title, not indicative of a peerage. ) 100% of those who have heard of her would know her as Lady Gregory. 40% might cop on who Lady Augusta Gregory was. 10% Augusta Gregory (which I think Wiki has her under!). And if anyone dared use her maiden name (opps. should be all PC. pre-marital name) Augusta Persse, maybe 0.000001%. (I only know because I've just taken down her diary off my shelf!) If we dont use Lady Gregory, someone is going to create such a page, leaving others to merge it with Augusta Gregory, until the next person asks 'why isn't there a page to Lady Gregory?' and creates one. And the next. And the next.

I think the best rule is to say (a) if necessary, you can use Lord/Lady but only in special cases where it is so attached to a person that they cannot possibly be recognised without it, and (b) if in any doubt, consult, consult, consult. Maybe put it on this page and see what people think.

One final point - do we have a policy on middle initials in names? I've had to change a couple, in cases where leaving out the initial makes a person unrecognisable. No-one, not even his mother, called Ireland's second taoiseach 'John Costello' - he was 'John A. Costello'. and I've rarely heard anyone, anywhere talk about William Gladstone, always W.E., William Ewart or William E. Similarly, Dublin had an archbishop called John Charles McQuaid. 100% of people who know of him would recognise him that way. 10% at most might work out who John McQuaid was, and even then, only if you called him Archbishop John McQuaid.

Ahem. Gladstone's wife called him William, and so did Queen Alexandra. On the subject of courtesy titles, I tend to agree with your general drift, but there are still going to be problems. If we change the entry for Diana to "Lady Diana Spencer", we are cutting across the fact that she ended up being known by a "higher" title, ie. Princess of Wales. Now I may appear to be being inconsistent here, because I've previously championed the right of queen consorts and Princesses of Wales to be known by their "maiden" names. Let's think about it for a moment. Other princesses of Wales who never became queen: Augusta of Saxe-Gotha - she was a princess to start with, so that's all right; Joan of Kent - she was Countess of Kent before she was a princess, so she's all right as she is; nope, I don't think we need to worry about any of the others, apart from Diana. Personally (and I know I'm still being inconsistent) I would prefer to see her under Diana, Princess of Wales and I justify this by pointing out that she retained the title "Princess of Wales" after her marriage even though she wasn't strictly entitled to it, therefore I think it could be considered to have belonged to her as part of her name in a way that other queens' and princesses' titles didn't. But I'd put Lord John Russell under his full title, and I can think of one or two others, eg. Lady Caroline Lamb, for whom I'd do likewise. That's just my opinion. Deb 11:57 Feb 9, 2003 (UTC)

Sorry if I annoyed anyone by moving Gladstone to William Gladstone. People do often call him that, though - e.g. the good old BBC[1]. I don't recall ever hearing him called "William E. Gladstone", though... Okay, *sigh*, shall we do a Google test...?

• "william gladstone": about 7,500
• "william e. gladstone": about 1,250
• "william ewart gladstone": about 2,700

Aha! Do I win...? ;) -- Oliver P. 12:57 Feb 9, 2003 (UTC)

Oh, and "w.e. gladstone": about 4,390 -- Oliver P. 12:58 Feb 9, 2003 (UTC)

I think I'm being overly bold today. I just moved Gladstone back to William Gladstone. Edit war!!! Heh, no, wait, I've just done another search where I've restricted the search to academic British ones ("site:ac.uk"), and "william ewart gladstone" now beats "william gladstone"... so I've moved him back there! Hey, I never said I was consistent... :) -- Oliver P. 13:06 Feb 9, 2003 (UTC)

---

I'm a big dubious about goggle searches because in checking some google sites I've come across vast amounts of garbage as well as quality stuff. (I once found someone called Eamon Divileara (who should be Eamon de Valera!)). And our own William Gladstone would count on goggle. Restricting it to British academic sites was an ace idea - those guys and gals would tend to use the correct name; in all my years studying, teaching and writing history I almost always came across Gladstone with either a middle initial or his middle name, just like John F. Kennedy, John A. Costello, etc., not least because some of his descendants, including I think a later William Gladstone, held public office.

Re- Deb's issue on Diana. One possible solution might be to leave the last holder of a title with that title until someone else assumes it. Diana was the last princess of Wales, and when (as no doubt he does), Charles marries Camilla, she is unlikely to be called 'Princess of Wales' so the next princess of Wales is likely to be a long time in the future, when Charles is King and William is married. In that case, leaving Diana as Diana, Princess of Wales would seem acceptable, particularly as that form indicated he post-marital title. [{name}, {Princess/Countess/etc} of {title}) is the form that also indicates a divorced ex-wife. (eg, Margaret, Countess of Snowdon was Princess Margaret's title after her divorce from the Earl of Snowdon, while his second wife was the 'Countess of Snowdon'). I know it sounds like we are unduly complicating everything, but cases like [Lord John Russell], [Diana] and [William Ewart Gladstone] are complicated cases. It is worth before we try ad hoc solutions trying to use the problems they throw up to create general solutions to complicated exceptions. The fact that we here seem to be people who know a lot about titles and so may be able to give guidance is another reason for attempting to offer guidance.

One a related point re Princess Margaret, today's newspapers have 'outed' her as bisexual. An ITV documentary about to be broadcast claims she had a two year affair with Sharman Douglas, the daughter of them then US ambassador to London. She then became a target of attempted KGB blackmail by Eugene Ivanov, a Russian spy. JTD 19:54 Feb 9, 2003 (UTC)

Re deV

Another person who's always been a problem (just thought of this) is Lady Jane Grey. Very rarely, if ever, does anyone call her "Queen Jane". but even more rarely does anyone call her "Jane Grey", which is how we have her at the moment. I went along with it at the time, but now I'm having second thoughts. Deb 21:18 Feb 9, 2003 (UTC)

Go with your second thoughts. Be bold! :) Whenever I try to think about naming conventions, my head starts spinning, but I expect we'll get it sorted out in the end if we keep trying... -- Oliver P. 22:17 Feb 9, 2003 (UTC)

Clearly there is a problem. I thought there was just one or two examples, but the more I think of it, the more come to mind. I'm going to put the question onto the Wiki list to see if we can generate a consensus.