Talk:Queen Victoria/Article title

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article title[edit]

Rather than having "Queen Victoria" redirect here, is there any good reason why this article isn't itself named "Queen Victoria"? Using the name that everyone calls her by seems more sensible than the rather obscure "Victoria of the United Kingdom". If the latter has some technical correctness to recommend it then that would be better explained in the article. Matt 00:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

I don't know if there's a "good reason" but a small war appears to have been fought over the style of her naming. I say let sleeping dogs lie... Canuckle 20:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there's some discussion about that, but, though I admit I haven't read every word, I can't immediately see anything specifically about the actual article title. Wikipedia:Naming conventions says "Generally, article naming should prefer to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize", which in this case is clearly "Queen Victoria", as it seems to me. The potential quibble is that there are other people and things called "Queen Victoria", but, as I mentioned, "Queen Victoria" already redirects here, not to the disambig page (presumably reflecting the fact that the majority of people typing "Queen Victoria" do actually want this page). So effectively nothing changes in respect of disambiguation if this article is retitled "Queen Victoria" with the same link to the disambiguation page as at present. Matt 14:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC).

Requested move 22 October 2007[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was No consensus to move.--Húsönd 17:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I formally propose the move from this (rather unlikely) title to Queen Victoria. Say "Queen Victoria" to 10,000 people and nearly all of them will know who you mean. Somebody even suggested to me that an appreciable proportion of them will actually have a statue of that queen in their home town. I think he was on crack, but the point stands: there have been one or two other Victorias, but this is the one. This is a classic case, if ever there was one, for disambiguation by primary topic. That's where we take the reader to the most obvious place and then (in a hatnote) invite him to chose from other subjects if he's come to the wrong place. But really: Queen Victoria! --Tony Sidaway 22:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

  • Move, the others didn't (remotely) have a Victorian era. No, seriously, per WP:NCP, priorities are "most generally recognizable" and "unambiguous from others". {{Otheruses}} will do the job for the latter. --NikoSilver 22:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. We do not put royal titles in the mainspace title, with the exception of popes. Also, to do so would throw off the "X of the United Kingdom" naming convention. --Hemlock Martinis 23:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as per Hemlock Martinis. Craigy (talk) 00:10, 15 October 2007
  • The example showing this form against a less correct doesn't mean the naming conventions for royals prescribe that this article must have this title. Charles 09:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move. About 1150 out of 2600 incoming links reach the page via Queen Victoria, and many of the ones that come in via Victoria of the United Kingdom are piped as Queen Victoria. It's one thing to have naming consistency, but not at the expense of common sense -- I know who Queen Victoria is, but I've never heard of Victoria of the United Kingdom.--Father Goose 02:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move. IMHO this a case of common sense versus blind bureaucracy. Say "Queen Victoria" to 10,000 people and nearly all of them will know who you mean. 10,000 ppl? Try rather a 1,000,000 or more. Flamarande 20:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Either we stick to standards, or we open this can of worms and discuss each name. A move to "Queen Victoria" will e.g. call for Kaiser Wilhelm rather than William II, German Emperor.-- Matthead discuß!     O       23:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Please don't compare Queen Victoria with Kaiser Wilhem (1st - that name is in German and this the English Wiki, 2nd - which one of the two?). Its like comparing the single sun with a common star out of many - this comment is not about the worth of these persons, but only about their fame. Marie Antoinette, Maria Theresa of Austria there are a couple historical persons which are so widely known that other persons with the same name are widely ignored. Therefore the title of article should use "the name in question" and be about the person (almost) everybody expects it to be. (I hope you can follow my argument - English isn't my mothertongue). "Either we stick to standards, or we open this can of worms and discuss each name." No, we stick to standarts but at the same time we keep a couple of reasonable exceptions - like every law and rule of this world. Flamarande 00:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't compare Victoria to her oldest grandson Wilhelm, who as "Kaiser Wilhelm" is known in English, too. Only one of the Kaiser Wilhelms were involved in a World War (and lived into the second), making him "so widely known that other persons with the same name are widely ignored" and "one of the most hated men of the 20th century". Quickly: how many German Emperors were there? Chances are high you pick the wrong number without looking it up first. All hits [1] outnumber "William II, German emperor" anyway. I'm not going to discuss more names - as said before, either standards, or a wide open can of "a couple of reasonable exceptions". -- Matthead discuß!     O       02:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We should stick to standards; those specified at Wikipedia:Naming conventions. The "pre-emptive disambiguation" outlined at WP:NCNT breaks them.--Father Goose 21:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - there are a number of individuals who could be called "Queen Victoria". Noel S McFerran 00:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think though that those people fall under disambiguation. Remember, there are primary and secondary uses of titles and Queen Victoria primarily and overwhelmingly refers to Alexandrina Victoria of Hanover. Charles 01:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names_and_titles)#Monarchical titles clearly states that the naming format for monarchs, "X of Y", is an exception to the "most common name used in English" rule. Therefore this kind of proposed alternative was anticipated and covered when we developed the convention. If we are going to change that convention, let's do it there first, not piecemeal by re-naming articles. What next -- will Diana, Princess of Wales be moved to "Princess Diana" because the latter is more popular? Lethiere 01:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with tackling the general subject at WP:NCNT. The standard that it promotes of pre-emptively disambiguating royal titles steps outside of normal naming conventions for no particular reason.--Father Goose 06:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names_and_titles)#Monarchial titles. Queen Victoria (though most commonly associated with Victoria of the United Kingdom) does not define a place for this monarch. It would also contradict "of the United Kingdom" monarchs. Mary Queen of Scots is called Mary I of Scotland, despite her being commonly known as the Queen of Scots. PeterSymonds | talk 19:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well I think it's a shame that common English names for Mary Queen of Scots, Henry VIII, Ivan the Terrible, Frederick the Great and the like are being ignored in the name of a spurious consistency by adhering to an internal rule. But there does seem to be considerable support, in this discussion, for that internal rule. I'm saddened that there is so much opposition to waiving this rule even in a case where there is overwhelming identification, probably even in non-English languages, of the subject of the article, as "Queen Victoria", not any Queen Victoria, but the Queen Victoria. --Tony Sidaway 20:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please use common sense. Ask yourself who the vast majority of people think Queen Victoria refers to. Its evident in the internal linking as well, most of them are talking about this queen. This is similar to moving George W. Bush to George W. Bush of the United States of America. If there are others with a similar name (his dad) they should go to a disambiguation page. —— Eagle101Need help? 21:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If people think of the present President George Bush and not of his father, that may be an ephemeral thing, since the present one is a Current Event. Michael Hardy 21:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • However my point still stands, use the common name. ;) —— Eagle101Need help? 22:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's an inaccurate comparison, since George W. Bush is not a monarch. We only put "of the X" after monarchs. --Hemlock Martinis 18:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose - per Hemlock Martinis. Then we would have to go down the line of every English monarch. Reginmund 01:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what we should do. The idea of "pre-emptive disambiguation" for royals is unnecesary in most cases and contrary to the basic naming convention, which is based on common sense and works far better -- even for royals.--Father Goose 04:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I see the point the 'movers' are making but ultimately agree with Reginmund. Also, as long as "Queen Victoria" redirects here without going via a dab page, I don't consider that there's a big problem. Cheers, Ian Rose 02:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose per Mr Rose DBD 11:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support "Victoria of the United Kingdom"?! It's fine to have a name policy to avoid confusion, but by sticking to it as rigidly as a frozen Prussian with rigor mortis, you're creating a whole lot more...--victor falk 13:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see how this creates confusion. It's fairly obvious who the article is about. --Hemlock Martinis 18:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't know who started this and why it was decided that "...of <nation>" should be used at all times for all monarchs without discretion and contrarily to WP:COMMON SENSE and COMMON NAME, but I think that it's crazy. The least. I also don't know if Queen Vic is the right example here, but Ivan the Terrible above really shocked me. I find the rule anti-democratic, and ...pro-ultramonarchist (to the point of linguistic dictatorship). I stand amazed we are even discussing it. BTW, go ahead and rename the monarch Alexander the Great to Alexander III of Macedon. I dare you. I just saw the exception there for older monarchs (et al), which makes the whole construct there even more ridiculous. NikoSilver 20:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was originally created to disambiguate, such as with Charles II. But it is now so universal across the encyclopedia that it seems silly to change it for just one person and thus break the continuity. --Hemlock Martinis 21:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I count more than one. Mary Queen of Scots at Mary I of Scotland? Ivan the Terrible at Ivan IV of Russia? Uh? – Steel 21:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rome was not built in a day!" NikoSilver 22:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support Royally oppose Not to mention the rest of wikipedia. Who knows, in the end we might even have military units that follow their own whimsical and anarchic naming schemes instead of wikipedia's. See: Talk:3rd_US_Infantry#Title_of_article.--victor falk 02:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - the policy is a sound one for ordinary cases (Henry IV, Philip II, etc). However, a select few (but we would have to go case by case) ought to be moved per WP:IAR. (Others I'd say are Ivan the Terrible, Mary Queen of Scots, Napoleon I of France (!)). And this too is one of those cases: let it be moved. Biruitorul 03:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose. No one has given any good reason to change the article's title other than aesthetics. I see the aesthetic point, but it is far outweighed by the practicalities. No confusion exists, as Queen Victoria redirects here. Per WP:NCP, article titles should focus on the subject's personal name ("Victoria"), not the title of her office ("Queen"). As monarchs do not commonly use surnames, "of <nation>" is the most precise way to identify her, and is a format generally applicable to all monarchs. --BlueMoonlet 07:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move She is known as Queen Victoria; "Victoria of the United Kingdom" is a nonsense title, one that she is only known by on Wikipedia. This might go against the current naming style guide, but it goes with the overall Wikipedia article naming guidelines which state: "Generally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." (my emphasis). If you must allow disambiguation of monarchs, then at least use her proper title (which, since hereditary, serves the same purpose as the surnames of commoners). You could have "Queen Victoria (United Kingdom)" or, if you have to, "Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom". Since this clashes with WP:NCNT, then I move that the guideline is discussed and brought in line with commonsense, general Wikipedia guidelines. See discussion at NCNT talk and the village pump. Gwinva 21:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose move - we need to have standards and keep to them. I don't oppose the making of exceptions where the "most common name" is something very different from the standard, eg. "Bonnie Prince Charlie" - but this isn't. "Common sense" means something different to every individual. Deb 22:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a second -- you're saying the most common name for this person is not Queen Victoria? I agree that we should keep to standards; the problem here is that WP:NCNT unnecssarily abandons the standards laid out in its parent policy, WP:NC.--Father Goose 22:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He's saying that QV is not very different from VOUK and that is a reason why we should keep the standards. I ask why are the standards not kept if necessary through a VOUK redirect to QV. I ask why "the standards" are more important than "common name" when both can be kept, but only one has the "honor" of being the article's title. NikoSilver 22:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move Common name, primary disambiguation etc. G-Man ? 22:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Move For all the reasons given so far. Also, although consistency is often a good thing, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds." I consider to not move the article would be using a consistency argument foolishly in this case.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Has it been considered/debated that Victoria wasn't necessarily Queen of everyone? Wasn't that the reason why the titles are discouraged in the first place? -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the titles are generally unnecessary. Ivan IV is thus better than both Tsar Ivan IV or Ivan IV of Russia. But in the case of Victoria, just "Victoria" is highly ambiguous, which is why everyone in the real world generally calls her Queen Victoria -- and we should too.--Father Goose 23:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The ship is named after the person; she should be the main article; those that only know the ship would discover the real person on the way to finding the ship. Gwinva 01:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All of the names I just mentioned are ships named after the person. Each name links to a disambiguation page. One seaching for the vessel Queen Victoria would not find it if the page were moved (unless you want to add a template linking to other uses on top of the page). (And who would ever search for MS Queen Victoria?) There are benefits to consistency. There is a practice have DAB pages for names of monarchs whose names are used by other persons or things. There is a convention on the naming of English/British monarchs. No one would suggest changing King Stephen to be the article on the English king. Let's have one rule for all. Kablammo 02:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Re: And who would ever search for MS Queen Victoria? Someone actually interested in it would... Also, WP:NC(CN) holds more weight than WP:NC(NT). Charles 05:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that someone searching for the ship is more likely to search for its name without the MS prefix. How many people really know the difference between MS, MV, SS, or (for that matter) RMS? As for the relative weight to be given to the two policies mentioned, the specific should prevail over the general. Kablammo 08:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If someone is searching for the ship, he can very well click the {{otheruses}} link and find it instantly. The fact that there's a ship, an era, etc, named after Queen Elizabeth only demonstrates how undoubtedly common that name is to describe her. NikoSilver 10:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Surely the issue here is not when MS Queen Victoria enters service, but the fact that we already have an article on this ship. A disambiguation page has been required ever since the MS Queen Victoria article was created on 15 January 2006. -- JackofOz 01:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There have been many Queen Elizabeths, Queen Marys, King George Vs, and Black Princes, which is why they go to disambiguation pages by default. But Queen Victoria gets the lion's share of attention associated with her name, which is why her article gets the default landing spot, with a disambig to the other QVs a the top. I don't think the arrival of the latest cruise liner bearing her name will change this situation.--Father Goose 10:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't necessarily, but I think WP:NC(NT) is a sound convention that should be upheld. Victoria was not Queen of America or Germany or a whole host of places for example, and thus assuming she would be entered with her title on Wikipedia, that could be a strong point of contention for those peoples who do not regard her as a monarch. There are also lesser issues of republican sentiments towards the divine rights of the British monarchy. I think that breaking convention here could set a precident in which other articles are renamed according to local titles, in which debate will point to this article. I understand the thinking behind the proposal, but still vote to maintain the current position. -- Jza84 · (talk) 12:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point taken. However, may I note that those in America, or those in Germany, or even those with republican sentiments, all acknowledge she was a Queen, and all refer to her as (THE) "Queen Victoria". Regarding your concern about precedent, I am all for solving this issue by applying the simple name only to those for which there is no ambiguity whatsoever. Victoria is one of those cases in my view (so is Ivan the Terrible etc). I understand your concern, but I'm sure we can deal with it in most cases. NikoSilver 13:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Move per nom. 'Victoria of the United Kingdom' sounds like Mrs Beckham. The old lady would surely have preferred 'Victoria of the British Empire'. Also succinct, short titles are in line with WP policy WP:NC(CN). -- Kleinzach 01:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose but the move would be against policy and won't happen anyway. Jooler 02:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That's a very bold statement. How so? Charles 05:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a policy/guideline conflict if you haven't noticed: parent policy WP:NC and guidelines WP:NC(CN) and WP:NCP against their child guideline WP:NC(NT). NikoSilver 09:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The parent policy, Wikipedia:Naming conventions, is an official policy and states, "Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists." Most readers will look for Queen Victoria. Also, "Generally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." The title Queen Victoria is reasonably unambiguous in that it overwhelmingly refers to Alexandrina Victoria of Hanover in her position as Queen of the United Kingdom. It is also the most recognizable name. Charles 10:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move per WP:NC Generally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. The current name makes linking to this article harder than it should be. Following rules for the sake of following rules is pointless, we should do whatever makes Wikipedia easier to read and edit. Lurker (said · done) 11:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move. When I google for Victoria of the United Kingdom -wiki (=just imagine wikipedia did not exist and do as people would normally do: use no quotation marks) the first lady google gives me, is Victoria Wood. Basically, we must give priority to the real world out there, and forget the rules (nice to know that they contradict each other, by the way).--Pan Gerwazy 11:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, nor we should not move Maria Theresa of Austria to Maria Theresa, even though the Empress is the most famous of that name. As for the rules, a lot of discussion and work must have gone into Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) which I would like to respect. Both sides have good points but the existing convention should not be abrogated without compelling reasons to do so. Kablammo 15:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Feel the breeze of change! There were relevant discussions over at WT:NC(NT) and WP:VPP, both centralized here. NikoSilver 15:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If we are going to abandon common sense completely the correct title would actually be Victoria of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland - the UK entity was not the same then as today. -- Kleinzach 00:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The last point by Kleinzach is an extremely good and important point: The article as it stands is simply incorrect. It should be moved. The only question seems to me to be what it should be moved to. Keeping it as it is is not accurate and should not be an option.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's a sort of logic there. On coinage, Victoria and her successors carried the title Ind. Imp. (Emperor or Empress of India) until after the Second World War. I'm not citing coinage as an arbiter here (if so we'd have to include "Defender of the Faith", a title granted to Henry VIII by Pope Leo in 1521, and still proudly displayed on the coins of our protestant country). However it's a reminder that Victoria was queen of a lot more than just a few soggy, windy islands. The title "Victoria of the United Kingdom" is perhaps a little misleading. --Tony Sidaway 11:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The borders and the name of the Polish state when Boleslaw I of Poland was on the throne are not same as that of Poland when John II Casimir of Poland was the monarch. I don't suspect that anyone would claim that this is misleading. In this case United Kingdom was used informally for the state both before and after Irish partition. Jooler 16:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but Poland is a proper noun, the United Kingdom is not. In any case we are not just talking about shifting borders. -- Kleinzach 01:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? Of course 'United Kingdom' is a proper noun. That's why it's in caps! The same with 'Queen Victoria' for that matter. Shifted borders and shifted political structure and shifted name. Jooler 14:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support. WP:NC is a policy and while more detailed conventions even if only guidelines often take precedence over its general principles, this is a case of a very commonly understood term and the underlying principle should prevail. Andrewa 16:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: There is a redirect, and it works perfectly fine for all those people looking for "Queen Victoria". As always, this is a matter of internal content organisation, and I strongly support the current naming conventions; I have even learnt them well enough (not a hard thing to do) to be looking for all monarchs' articles by writing these titles in the search box (unless in a hurry). In addition, there has been another queen called Victoria, and "ignoring" her in this fashion would not be good, not good at all, I say. Waltham, The Duke of 12:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment' Wikipedia isn't about what is "fair" to dead queens. There are exceptions to every rule and also the other Victoria is titled Victoria of Baden here on Wikipedia. Charles 13:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Post-poll comments[edit]

Whenever in the past, Wikipedia conventions have been ignored and it has been decided to move monarchs to the "most common" name or the "correct" name, it has led to confusion. This has happened with the Japanese emperors and with the Polish monarchs. In both cases the results were worse than using the WP convention; in the case of the Japanese emperors, even the proponents of the moves eventually admitted so. I am glad that commonsense has prevailed in this case -- Derek Ross | Talk 18:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy this proposal failed. Had King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden died and his daughter ascended their throne as Queen Victoria of Sweden? We'd had to put this article back to Victoria of the United Kingdom. GoodDay 23:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, we would not have had to. There is primary usage to take into account. Crown Princess Victoria would be at Victoria of Sweden. Charles 01:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we would have: Victoria would have remained an ambigous page. The British monarch Victoria has 'no right' to the name, over others. We would've had two monarch articles correctly titled - Victoria of the United Kingdom and Victoria of Sweden. GoodDay 15:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Correctly titled? According to...? Last time I checked, we had guidelines and conventions which were conflicting. The British Victoria is most known as Queen Victoria. Until Victoria of Sweden ascends the throne and then becomes known better by that name (she probably will not be as I don't see an Swedish empire or era being named for her), the name "belongs" to Victoria (of the UK). Wikipedia is not an arbiter of what is fair between monarchs who are dead and crown princesses who are not monarchs. Charles 15:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Howabout this, let's wait until Carl XVI Gustaf dies (which due to his family's history of longevity, may be another 30+ years) or abdicates & his daughter succeeds the Swedish throne (assuming she uses Victoria as her regnal name). Then, we'll see how things turn out, OK? GoodDay 18:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is a ridiculous response. Where else has that been done on Wikipedia? Unreasonable at the least. Charles 19:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, we won't wait -- See Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom for an example. She's alot more known then Elisabeth II of Bohemia (yes a slight different spelling). Yet, her article isn't Elizabeth II. GoodDay 21:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But there's no reason why it couldn't be: Elizabeth II redirects to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom without any controversy.--Father Goose 08:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's technically incorrect though as there was no Elizabeth I of the United Kingdom. There was an Elizabeth I of England and Ireland, but the union with Scotland happened with her successor James and the union of Ireland into the United Kingdom happened in 1801 so to say there is no controversy over Elizabeth II's name is not true.198.240.128.75 (talk) 19:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I must take issue with Derek Ross's claim that Wikipedia conventions have been ignored and it has been decided to move monarchs to the "most common" name or the "correct" name. Placing articles at the most common name is the Wikipedia convention. Nevertheless this discussion is over and I accept that there is no consensus for what turned out to be a disconcertingly controversial, if obvious, move. --Tony Sidaway 12:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've only just come across this nonsense and can't believe my eyes. Reading the discussion above, my impression is that the consensus is for Queen Victoria. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Name of Article[edit]

I think that the articles name be changed to Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland which correct form of address. Just saying United Kingdom is confusing as there were United Kingdoms of different countries at that time although Great Britain and Ireland was the most notable. Ruairidhbevan (talk) 01:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has been talked to death with respect to other articles on UK monarchs post-1707. There is only one United Kingdom by that name, and the long established practice is not to put "King" "Queen" "Prince" etc. in front of any royal's name. If you want to dispute it, take it to Wikipedia:Naming conventions fishhead64 (talk) 05:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

name of article[edit]

I think that the name of the article as "Victoria of the United Kingdom" should be changed. Wikipedia should use the correct written from of a person's name or title. Anything less is simply perpetuating inaccurate information. Brandy Kelley 09:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the correct written form? What is inaccurate about this title? Was she not named Victoria and was she not of the United Kingdom? Charles 11:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And so are thousands of other people. --Michael C. Price talk 08:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not use the "correct written form of a person's name or title" - since different people can have different opinions on what that correct form is. Wikipedia follows published scholarship. It summarizes the consensus form of that scholarship, and notes any significant minority opinions. Noel S McFerran 14:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Surely the scholarly consensus is "Queen Victoria"? BTW the "correct" form of her name is "Alexandrina Victoria", so the article name is wrong either way.--Michael C. Price talk 11:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See the two sections immediately below about the debate to move the article back in 2007. You are welcome to start a new debate if you feel a new move is appropriate. I would suggest though that you start the new discussion at the bottom of the page rather than add to the 2007 one; that will help to maintain a clear chronology of discussion and reduce confusion for future editors. Regards. Road Wizard (talk) 13:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Queen Victoria. Consensus is to move, especially when User:Deacon of Pndapetzim's chicken-egg argument to discount "per convention; if disagree change the guideline" oppose votes is considered. No clear consensus between two destination candidates. Following WP:COMMONNAME and User:DrKiernan's results/reasoning to make that decision. Born2cycle (talk) 05:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2 October 2010[edit]

Victoria of the United Kingdom → Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom — Or even better, Queen Victoria. Certainly the present title must be changed (she is almost never called that, and it doesn't even identify her in a way that would be recognisable to everyone, even though everyone knows her). We could do what was recently done with John and go for Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom; however, I would commend the common-sense alternative of Queen Victoria, since (a) she's undoubtedly the primary topic for that name and will continue to be so even if a Victoria succeeds to the throne of Sweden of whatever; (b) it's far and away the commonest name for her (except perhaps "Victoria" alone, for which she would not necessarily be the primary topic); (c) it avoids specifying one of her titles (not such a problem with her as for Elizabeth II, but still, she was queen of much of the world, and Empress of India). Kotniski (talk) 11:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support with the same qualifications. "King John" is ambiguous out of context (e.g. King John of Portugal) so that article title benefits from specification. But "Queen Victoria" is how 98% of the English-speaking world [which of course excludes Wikipedia ;-) ] recognises her and calls her. I'd prefer "Victoria, Queen of Great Britain" or "Queen Victoria of Great Britain" to "Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom" not because I wish to disparage Ireland but because the former two are more likely to be used and recognised than the latter. However, Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom is still to be preferred to the present Victoria of the United Kingdom, used by no non-specialist outside Wikipedia. Victoria was Queen Victoria for over 60 years and Princess Alexandrina (Victoria) of the United Kingdom for less than twenty, so Queen Victoria is indeed who she was and how she has been known as for over 170 years. The "Francis of Ruritania" or "Alice II of Utopia" form applies better to cases like Henry IV where there's ambiguity or to ones where a title-holder's reign is much shorter than his or her life. —— Shakescene (talk) 17:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You might as well propose moving the article to Victoria, Queen of England. It's even more common than "Victoria, Queen of Great Britain" and equally incorrect. Surtsicna (talk) 17:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I prefer the current standard. Besides can't change one without changing them all. Not to mention that as a general rule we don't include titles at the start of names.--Labattblueboy (talk) 17:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Preference is not argument. DrKiernan (talk) 08:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would respectively disagree given the preference relates to respecting the establish standard for royalty.--Labattblueboy (talk) 13:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no current standard for this type of royalty. There was a standard which has been rightly discarded as untenable, precisely because it produces titles like this one, which is entirely inappropriate for the reasons already given. Since no-one can defend the present title, the discussion should focus on which is preferable: "Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom" or "Queen Victoria".--Kotniski (talk) 14:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There doesn't appear to be any consensus that the standard is untenable or has been discarded. WP:NCROY is alive and well and there doesn't appear to be a consensus at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(royalty_and_nobility)#Another_try regarding the switch in style.--Labattblueboy (talk) 01:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NCROY is alive and well, but the part that used to recommend titles like this article's has indeed been discarded - and rightly so, since (as this discussion has shown) no-one can defend titles like this one (it must be among the stupidest titles ever thought up in good faith for a Wikipedia article).--Kotniski (talk) 06:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this follows a long standing standard for monarch names, which works perfectly well IMHO. I would also suggest that John, King of England is not therefore the correct title for that article.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Queen Victoria; Neutral on Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom. We can change this one without changing "them all" because everyone knows the lady as "Queen Victoria" and no further disambiguation is needed. Powers T 22:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose For a start, it would help if we had a clear proposal here. "Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom" is a bit of a mouthful. "Queen Victoria" is her common name but we have the problem of consistency with other UK monarchs and how we deal with the clash when the current heir to the Swedish throne becomes queen. (For what it's worth, her father is now 64.) PatGallacher (talk) 23:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said, the Swedish question is resolved by the primary topic princple. I'm not sure why this was prefixed with "Oppose" - you don't seem to be defending the present title (can you?) (can anyone? - except by saying that it conforms to a convention that has recently been rejected precisely because it leads to ridiculous titles like this one). --Kotniski (talk) 17:27, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support either move. The convention that causes the article to be at its current title is flawed, for precisely the reason given in the nomination (she is almost never called that, and it doesn’t even identify her in a way that would be recognizable to everyone, even though everyone knows her). Either Queen Victoria or Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom would be better, even though the former would become a bad idea once it becomes ambiguous. MTC (talk) 05:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The current title is ambiguous with Princess Victoria of the United Kingdom, and is the least used of the three alternative names. [Google results: "Queen Victoria" (3 million ghits, 1.2 million gbooks, 72 thousand gscholar) "Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom" (107 thousand ghits, 2.2 thousand gbooks, 99 gscholar) "Victoria of the United Kingdom" (20 thousand ghits, 1.2 thousand gbooks, 48 gscholar)]
    "Queen Victoria" redirects here, which indicates that it is primary usage currently, even though there are other Queen Victorias.
    So, "Queen Victoria" meets three of the five WP:AT criteria: recognizability, naturalness, conciseness. If "Queen Victoria" is or becomes ambiguous, then "Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom" is still more common than "Victoria of the United Kingdom" and meets two of the five WP:AT criteria: recognizability, preciseness. "Victoria of the United Kingdom" is the least common name and meets one of the WP:AT criteria: consistency.
    My choices are "Queen Victoria" first (most common name, meets 3 WP:AT criteria), "Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom" second (second most common name, meets 2 WP:AT criteria), and "Victoria of the United Kingdom" third (least common name, meets 1 WP:AT criterium). DrKiernan (talk) 08:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the current naming is standard for all monarchs, per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility), which is very clear that 'queen' and similar is not to be included. If people disagree with this, it is more appropriate to discuss the general guideline at that page. Arsenikk (talk) 13:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Closing admin should discount this and all such votes. The chicken and egg situation ... can't change guidelines because of pages, and can't change pages because of guidelines ... would be malfunction in the system if allowed. A discussion has already taken place on the guideline page, with a majority in favour of this new format. This is now being implemented through subjecting key pages to WP:RM (for instance John, King of England). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per John, King of England and Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(royalty_and_nobility)#Another_try.Such convoluted and confusing titles should be a thing of the past. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom. The "Name of Place" format works badly for monarchs without ordinals, and this form is much more clear. Mildly Oppose Queen Victoria, because the "Title Name" format is one that is pretty much never used for reigning monarchs in wikipedia. This would be the best case for an exception, though. john k (talk) 19:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom" makes a lot more sense as a title than "Victoria of the United Kingdom". The Celestial City (talk) 20:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Holy smokers[edit]

I'm flabergasted as to how this article was moved to it's current title. When was Victoria's first name ever Queen? GoodDay (talk) 15:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You asked the same question at WP:NCROY - what is your point?--Kotniski (talk) 15:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Queen Latifah & King Clancy are my points. But, it's too late here, now. GoodDay (talk) 16:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually for about 63 years, or about 3/4 of her life; before that it was Alexandrina. —— Shakescene (talk) 16:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She was generally called "Princess Victoria of Kent" before her accession. Alexandrina was rarely used. john k (talk) 19:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great title, one wonders how long it will be kept though lol. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, this is just getting ridiculous. The convention has pretty much always been "Name ordinal of country". All these page moves over the past couple months is just plain fucking stupid. This bullshit needs to be stopped and fixed. -74.132.163.46 (talk) 22:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That still is the convention. The "moves" I presume you're talking about are in cases where the convention doesn't apply, since there is no "ordinal". The stupidity was in the past, where these pages were forced into conformity with a convention that made no sense for them.--Kotniski (talk) 08:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hate it. It robs Victoria, Crown Princess of Sweden of her status as the next Queen regnant Victoria. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 04:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, Sweden will just have to become a republic. What power Wikipedia wields... --Kotniski (talk) 07:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, this was a horrible move. Why are people constantly changing this?? I swear like a few weeks ago it was a different title.. and now I'm looking up Victoria of the United Kingdom only to find 'Queen Victoria'? Seriously, this sounds horrible!! Not everyone in the world knows who 'Queen Victoria' is.. especially in America. The title was perfectly fine before and should be switched back! -- Lady Meg (talk) 06:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No one in America would have much idea of who "Victoria of the United Kingdom" might be (is that like "Victoria, British Columbia" or "Victoria in Australia"?). Almost every American knows who "Queen Victoria" was and roughly what "Victorian" means. (Two recent popular successes in the States are The Young Victoria and Victoria's Secret.) And that was true long before many Americans were exactly sure where or what the United Kingdom was (cf. the popular pre-war film, Victoria Regina). —— Shakescene (talk) 07:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. If they explicitly associate her with any country at all, it would be England. (Well, Elizabeth II gets called the "Queen of England" by lots of people, and not just Americans either.) But surely even most Americans would call her "Queen Victoria". Why make them, and everyone else, look for any other title, when "Queen Victoria" is what 100% of the world calls her. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 08:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 20 December 2010[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page not moved per discussion below. - GTBacchus(talk) 08:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Victoria → Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom — The previous move request was closed with remarkable speed, by a non-admin with strong views on the matter, and after an 8-5 !vote; the last vote indeed suggests the target here, on the model of John, King of England. Ideally we would reverse this non-consensus move; but the proposed title may actually be an improvement. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support as nom; let's do this before there is a living Queen Victoria. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, per WP:COMMONNAME. Evidence of common name: ships named after this subject are named "Queen Victoria": see Queen Victoria (ship). Also, per google test results reported by DrKiernan in previous proposal discussion above: "[Google results: "Queen Victoria" (3 million ghits, 1.2 million gbooks, 72 thousand gscholar) "Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom" (107 thousand ghits, 2.2 thousand gbooks, 99 gscholar) "Victoria of the United Kingdom" (20 thousand ghits, 1.2 thousand gbooks, 48 gscholar)]". See also the rest of that argument above, and why it was persuasive to the closer (yours truly) then. None of this has been refuted, not then, not here.

    No argument in support of this move was offered in the proposal beyond "may actually be an improvement". Such arguments "are sufficiently feeble that they should be given no weight whatsoever.", per WP:JDLI. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • The (bogus) argument from ship names undercuts the argument from Google. Secondary namings – ships, streets, schools, hospitals, pubs – are far more likely to be Queen N than N, Queen of Z. So should we find out which "King George" is the subject of the most street names etc, and rename his article accordingly? —Tamfang (talk) 00:51, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. "Queen Victoria" is the name by which she is overwhelmingly most commonly known in English; if a naming convention indicates a different title, then she needs to be an exception to that convention. In all likelihood, the future Queen of Sweden will not supplant her as the primary meaning of "Queen Victoria" in English, although the matter should certainly be revisited if she does. Alkari (?), 21 December 2010, 00:17 UTC
  • Comment. As Alkari said, the potential future queen of Sweden should only affect this article if there is a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC issue. Since she's not even queen yet, speculating on the need to disambiguate "Queen Victoria" seems premature. As of today, the British monarch is certainly the primary topic. The only question should be whether WP:COMMONNAME trumps WP:NCROY. Dohn joe (talk) 00:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per points #1 & 4 of the current naming convention. See King Clancy & Queen Latifah for names that use 'King/Queen' in their article's subject's name. GoodDay (talk) 00:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • GoodDay, you've mentioned Queen Latifah and King Clancy frequently in this and similar discussions, but I quite honestly don't see the relevance. Those articles seem to be named as they are because that is how their subjects are most commonly known (although neither is the person's legal name; King Clancy is a nickname and Queen Latifah a stage name). I can't make out what either one has to do with the Queen Victoria issue at all—for my benefit, and perhaps that of others here, would you be willing to explain what the point of these examples is? Alkari (?), 21 December 2010, 06:41 UTC
      • Those 2 examples are articles which use King & Queen as part of the topics name (stage name/nickname). Queen isn't a part of Victoria's name. GoodDay (talk) 16:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Queen" most certainly is a part of the name by which she's most commonly known; whether it's part of her legal name seems irrelevant, as "King" and "Queen" aren't part of Clancy's and Latifah's legal names either. I really don't understand your reasoning here. Alkari (?), 22 December 2010, 00:06 UTC
          • It most certainly is not a part of her name (real or stage). No more then President is a part of Barack Obama's name or Pope is a part of Benedict XVI's name. GoodDay (talk) 19:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • This argument really doesn't make sense. If there are other articles at "king this" or "queen that", even though these are not the official names of the subject, then why not have other articles at "king theother" and "queen someoneelse" if that is also their common name? DrKiernan (talk) 10:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • A monarchs position shouldn't be used in that topics article title, as if it were a name. GoodDay (talk) 16:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: It's clear that there is a standing consensus that "Queen Victoria" is the preferred title of this page. Also, she is currently the only "Queen Victoria" and the most commonly known monarch with the name. Moving a page just because there may be another Queen Victoria in the near future certainly seems like a violation of WP:CRYSTAL as well.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose although I agree the previous RM was too hastily closed for me the current name is the right one as it's the common name for her used in many English speaking nations, and looking at the dab page she's by far the best known so this should be the primary topic. If and when we have a similarly titled Queen of Sweden we can revisit this, but right now I see no reason to change.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 01:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose clearly the primary topic, and if there should be a Queen Victoria of Sweden, will almost certainly still be the primary topic. Black Kite (t) (c) 02:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support In the last discussion, there was certainly support to move but it should have been to Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom (I Opposed any move in last discussion). An admin close may have been more appropriate, given the often contentious nature of WP:NCROY relate moves. However, there had been a full week of non-activity between the last discussion post and closure, and frankly someone had to close it. Now, to the crux of the matter. WP:NCROY is the general consensus framework of the community and currently it frowns upon using titulars at the start of the article title for Kings and Queens. The last move was closed with one person making a personal call on the perennial WP:COMMONNAME vs. WP:NCROY issue and made clear they discounted votes that opposed based on supporting current policy (WP:NCROY). I see value in consistency and currently this article title doesn't fit into the framework.--Labattblueboy (talk) 05:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Mrs. Brown (Victoria, Empress of India) should be moved to a more balanced pagename. 65.95.13.158 (talk) 06:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not see how the current page name could be considered non-neutral. DrKiernan (talk) 10:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As has been pointed out, the previous move discussion indicated at least as much support for Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom (which was, in fact, the principal target location suggested in the move) than for Queen Victoria, so the claim of a "standing consensus" is pretty dubious. (By my count, only 4 out of the 11 people who expressed an opinion in the last discussion supported "Queen Victoria." The others either opposed any move or noted a preference for "Victoria, Queen of the United Kingom." I dislike the form "Queen Victoria" because it doesn't match the form we use for any other monarchs. Uniformity isn't everything, but I think it ought to have some role in making these decisions. john k (talk) 07:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is how she is overwhelmingly referred to and there are no other rivals anywhere near her prominence. --Bermicourt (talk) 07:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Why make people look for any other title, when "Queen Victoria" is what 100% of the world calls her. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 08:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. She is almost never referred to by any other name, so much so that in the English speaking world nobody else can be referred to by it without qualification. This is a prototypical case of a primary meaning. Andrewa (talk) 08:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I see no particular reason at this time to change from a concise, natural, neutral, seemingly unambiguous, recognisable, easy to use and commonly applied page name to something longer and more convoluted. DrKiernan (talk) 10:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I sees virtually no rationale for the proposal except for procedural complaints. The woman's called Queen Victoria; no-one else is; if a queen of Sweden or anyone else becomes comparably well-known by that name in the future, we can change it. This is such an obvious article title that there really seems to be nothing to think about. (Though if for some reason wikisuperstition rejects the current title, then the one proposed here would be my second choice.)--Kotniski (talk) 10:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on the same grounds as so many others ~ if ever there was a case of primary meaning, this woman is that case with the words Queen Victoria. Any speculation about Sweden or any other country is exactly that ~ speculation ~ and we all know that WP isn't a crystal ball. Cheers, LindsayHello 12:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - but I agree that the last move was unsupported by consensus and should be reversed. Deb (talk) 12:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In the last month, Queen Victoria was viewed 277,501 times. The six other pages on the dab were viewed 52,729 times in total. This is the very definition of WP:COMMONNAME. Even if we assume that all of those 52,729 went through Queen Victoria, that's about 225,000 people who were looking for the primary use and got straight there. Why make them all click twice to get to the page they need? Black Kite (t) (c) 16:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    True, but if the article was V,QotUK with a redirect straight to it from QV it would still be seamless to those searching for QV. This doesn't resolve the future V,QoS dab problem but we could cross that bridge when we come to it. Syrthiss (talk) 16:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    ...which all seems rather pointless for no real gain, and would create around 4,000 double redirects, not counting the links to pages that redirect to this page already... Black Kite (t) (c) 16:44, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 19:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. If we musn't have this title, let's at least have Victoria, Empress of India. It's way sexier. Srnec (talk) 02:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: It's certainly conceivable that the heir-apparent to the Swedish throne might style herself Queen Victoria, but we don't know that for a fact: Edward VIII was Prince David as Prince of Wales. When the time comes, if Queen Victoria indeed becomes an ambiguous term in the English-speaking world, then certainly the question should be revisited. But for well over 150 years, "Queen Victoria" has meant one and only one person to Anglophones, regardless of how much or how little they know of royalty in general or British royalty in particular. It's about as close as a strict one-to-one relationship or function as you'll find, on a par with George Washington, Albert Einstein or the Statue of Liberty: those who see Queen Victoria will know what it refers to, while those who know the historical figure will automatically look it up under that title. And few readers (most of whom won't know Wikipedia's specific naming conventions) will look up Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom on first or even second or third stab. ¶ I didn't myself notice a hasty close; but if the previous proposed move was closed prematurely or abruptly, I think that's highly regrettable. As one who's been on the losing end of such hasty closures, I would urge that no one reprimand (as opposed to disagree with) those who genuinely feel it was improperly concluded for reopening the question. See Talk:The Bronx/Name and Talk:New York (state)/Archive 4#Perplexed. —— Shakescene (talk) 10:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Edward VIII was known as Prince Edward. "David" was only his family nickname. George VI was Prince Albert, but that was a pretty unique case. john k (talk) 20:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not exactly a nickname: David was the last of his eight given names. —Tamfang (talk) 21:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Who has ever seen the proposed name in print? Johnbod (talk) 13:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Several thousand people. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • That returns 1880 results for me, a little less than a similar search for "Victoria, Empress of India". Notably though it returns mostly books more than 100 years old, printed during or soon after her reign. It has little to do with what she's called today.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 17:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • The most common name is not "Queen Victoria". It is "Victoria". When the most common name is ambiguous, we disambiguate. We don't generally follow a "most common disambiguator" policy. john k (talk) 20:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On what basis do you make your claim that "The most common name is not "Queen Victoria". It is "Victoria"."? From my experience, most people refer to her as Queen Victoria, such as the BBC, because that is the norm for monarchs without numerals (Empress Matilda, King John, Queen Anne) and avoids the ambiguity that their name alone (Matilda, John, Anne, Victoria) would create out of context, given that they are all fairly common names. The Celestial City (talk) 23:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Queen Anne" I'd admit, an perhaps "King John." "Victoria" is a rare enough name that, without modifier, it is very commonly used for the queen in many contexts. Perhaps it's not most common in first references, that's hard to say, but it's certainly quite common. john k (talk) 01:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As a person's name, "Victoria" might stand out in the way that Napoleon does, but Victoria stands also for a major state of Australia, the capitals of British Columbia and the Seychelles, a major London rail station, and over a dozen other things, many but not all of them named after the British monarch. On the other hand, there's almost no doubt what you're looking for, and what you'll find, at Queen Victoria. —— Shakescene (talk) 08:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The current title is far more widely used, both in academic and popular sources. Even in the event that the Swedish crown princess adopts the title "Queen Victoria", moving this article to "Queen Victoria (United Kingdom)" would be preferential to a pseudo-official title such as the proposed. The Celestial City (talk) 19:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, we'd still keep this one as Queen Victoria, and move the Swedish lady's article to Queen Victoria of Sweden; with appropriate hatnotes etc. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 05:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
pseudo-official? john k (talk) 06:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pseudo-official in the sense that "Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom" sounds like an official title, whereas her actual style was "Her Majesty Victoria, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland Queen, Defender of the Faith, Empress of India." The whole Swedish thing can be revisted if and when it becomes an issue. The Celestial City (talk) 18:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this move is invalid on its face because of the circumstances surrounding the move, and I oppose it substantively as per john k and Labatteblueboy and GoodDay, insofar as their arguments are consistent with NCROY point #4, "When there is no ordinal, the format John, King of England and Anne, Queen of Great Britain is recommended..." FactStraight (talk) 23:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose - This is the primary topic for Queen Victoria and that is the common name the individual was known by. This article has a sensible name and should not be changed. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:Commonname. Flamarande (talk) 11:16, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. --Avenue (talk) 06:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per common name. --Polaron | Talk 22:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for the usual reasons. It's true that WP needs to be independent and objective as to language, culture and nationality, and she isn't the only QV - but she is overwhelmingly the most famous one, not just in the english-speaking world but beyond it. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 00:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Talk page length and archiving[edit]

One reason that this talk page (like those at Talk:The Bronx and Talk:New York) has become long is periodic revivals of contentious discussions about the article's title. At Talk:The Bronx, I moved all those threads onto a separate page (Talk:The Bronx/Name), to facilitate reviewing all the arguments for and against particular titles while removing the present need to archive anything else. How would other editors feel about consolidating the article-title discussions to a separate page? (We still might need to archive some of the other older discussion threads.) And happy new year, as we approach the 110th anniversary of the Queen-Empress's death. —— Shakescene (talk) 22:17, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds sensible - it's the main bone of contention, but it tends to take a lot of time away from improving the article. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 14:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move request II[edit]

This page should be moved to "Victoria". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.98.220 (talk) 10:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See the discussions above. While a single unmodified name works for Napoleon, there are too many other meanings of the word "Victoria" to make it clear what you'll find when reach Victoria (on the Victoria Line, no doubt, or by ferry from Tasmania, Kowloon or Seattle): a major London railway station, the capital of British Columbia, the capital of the Seychelles, the Australian state whose capital is Melbourne, a city in Central Chile, Hong Kong's major business district, etc. —— Shakescene (talk) 19:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 11 April 2011[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no move. JohnCD (talk) 13:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Victoria → Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom — We're currently in contravention of WP:NCROY and every other British monarch, e.g. Anne, Queen of Great Britain, Mary, Queen of Scots. Let's at least stay consistent with our article names. To counter COMMONNAME supports, it should be noted that works dealing with this queen will obviously refer to her as "Queen Victoria"; however, we're a general encyclopedia, and we don't just deal with this queen or British monarchs. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, let's let the title be stable for a while, shall we? "Queen Victoria" would continue to redirect here even if we did move it, so it's rather a pointless change. Powers T 00:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not even close to pointless, it would bring this article into consistency with all of the other British monarchs. This is a poor reason to oppose. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Zzzzzz... Have you read Talk:Queen Victoria/Article title? Johnbod (talk) 01:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did, and I don't agree with the conclusions drawn there. Our article titles should be consistent absent a good reason, and per the above I don't think COMMONNAME is a good reason. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • You should have linked to it then! COMMONNAME is the over-riding policy. Johnbod (talk) 04:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support makes sense. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 01:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, as in all previous discussions, COMMONNAME is the Wikipedia standard and works well in this case, as it does in nearly every case (which is why it's the standard). NCROY explicitly allows for the possibility of exceptions, so we are not "in contravention" of it (in any case, guidelines aren't laws that have to be obeyed - they're there to help us if we have problems).--Kotniski (talk) 07:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose by COMMONNAME. I like consistency and I certainly appreciate order. However I don't like to follow rules ad absurdum. The subject is famous as Queen Victoria. Flamarande (talk) 20:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Over 19 out of every 20 people know the subject by this name and this name only, and indeed probably know of no other Queens Victoria (although this of course may change when the crown of Sweden next passes hands or heads). The purpose of an article's title is not classification but to let ordinary readers find the article quickly and land there surely (knowing correctly that they've reached what they were seeking). "Victoria of the United Kingdom" means almost nothing to the average reader, although he or she could guess whether it means Queen Victoria (or maybe the Princess Royal, or maybe the railway station?). Cf. Napoleon which isn't Napoleon of France or Napoleon of the French Empire, although I opppose shortening the title to Victoria when "Victoria" could be a place or a thing as well as a person. —— Shakescene (talk) 21:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - as per the above arguments. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 21:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME - and Anne, Queen of Great Britain, should be moved back to Queen Anne as well. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose: it's currently at its common name, and especially as little over three months since this was last asked and almost overwhelmingly rejected.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 00:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as Queen isn't her first name. GoodDay (talk) 17:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - if it was moved here for the sake of common-nameism, then it should be returned to its original correct title, not to a new title. Deb (talk) 11:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. While I understand the strive for consistency, I believe WP:COMMONNAME is, as Johnbod says, "the over-riding policy". For whatever it's worth, I would also support moving Anne, Queen of Great Britain back to Queen Anne. Jenks24 (talk) 08:19, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Changing name of article from "Queen Victoria" to "Victoria of the United Kingdom"[edit]

in keeping consistency with other articles regarding british monarchs, the title of this article should be changed to "Victoria of the United Kingdom" not titled "Queen Victoria" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gai831 (talk • contribs) 01:54, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Queen Victoria/Article title. DrKiernan (talk) 07:13, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More appropriate title per MOS[edit]

This article should be moved to Victoria of the United Kingdom per MOS and to standardize with other monarchs, e.g. George I of Greece. Also, there have been multiple Queens Victoria, e.g. Queen Victoria (of Sweden), Queen Victoria (of Prussia) and Queen Victoria (of Spain). Josh Gorand (talk) 03:36, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The recommendation for monarchs without a numeral at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)#Sovereigns (point 4) is "X, King of Y", but exceptions are allowed if there is a common name (point 2). See Talk:Queen Victoria/Archive 2#Requested move for the last discussion. DrKiernan (talk) 07:40, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose any change to this article title. Queen Victoria is the WP:COMMONNAME. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"King/Queen X" is pretty much always the common name. Certainly King John and King Stephen are their common names in English - and both are probably primary topics. It is bad to have a single article at a format that is completely different from that for every other monarch. john k (talk) 13:54, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would happily support a commonsense approach which would see Elizabeth II be correctly named Queen Elizabeth II. This is the right approach except where there are genuine ambiguity issues. But in this case, the most notable is clearly this article. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why it would be common sense to name articles in ways that no other work of reference does. john k (talk) 20:19, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BritishWatcher, judging from your user page, you don't seem to have an entirely unbiased attitude to this issue. It is indeed very strange to invent a non-standard format for one single monarch. The commonname argument is nonsense too. George I of Greece's common name in Greece would be simply King George (in Greek) and the same would apply to any other monarch. For example to Margrethe II of Denmark, whose COMMONNAME would be Queen Margrethe. We use name forms like George I of Greece, Margrethe II of Denmark and Victoria of the United Kingdom because this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, with standardized, systematical titles and not written from the particular POV of any country. Also, multiple other European countries have had Queens named Victoria and they are the more famous Queens Victoria there. For example the article "Queen Victoria" in the Swedish Wikipedia lists all the three Queens Victoria (including the Swedish Queen Victoria): http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drottning_Victoria Josh Gorand (talk) 19:08, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Simple question. Which is the most common "Queen Victoria". Not just in the UK or Sweden.. but around the world. We all know which Victoria is more notable. and even if this article was at the unneeded title Victoria of United Kingdom, Queen Victoria would likely redirect to the article anyway. All things in the world are not equal, im sorry but Queen Victoria is recognised far more in the English speaking world as meaning the UK monarch, than the Swedish Monarch. It is clearly the primary topic. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lets look at the actual figures of page views from the last 30 days of people listed on the disam page which demonstrate perfectly the primary topic and justify the use of the commonname...

Compare that to Queen Victoria which has 259163 page views. This is very clearly the correct primary topic and commonname name. There is no justification for a change in this case. Some UK monarchs are more notable at home and around the world than others. Queen Victoria is probably the most known British monarch in history. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And just to demonstrate the point further.. Look at the page views on the Swedish wikipedia.

So even on the Swedish language wikipedia, despite there being a Swedish Queen with the name.. Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom is by FAR the most primary topic. They just do not make things easier for their readers by directing them to the primary topic. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Title of Article?[edit]

Elizabeth II's article is titled simply Elizabeth II. Is there a reason that this article is titled "Queen Victoria" rather than simply "Victoria"?

JByrd (talk) 21:52, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple other Victorias. DrKiernan (talk) 21:56, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Elizabeth II which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Edward VIII which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 17 December 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) Imeldific (talk) 20:19, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

– WP:COMMONNAME: Queen Victoria satisfies both criteria for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in terms of usage and long-term significance. This title should WP:REDIRECT to her article much like Mandela → Nelson Mandela, Obama → Barack Obama and Reagan → Ronald Reagan. See Adele. Imeldific (talk) 14:18, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. There are multiple other Victorias. No evidence of primary use. DrKay (talk) 14:48, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As is Pink (singer). At #736, she's even "better". Shall we make her a primary topic as well? Egsan Bacon (talk) 21:39, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the Adele primary is stupid enough already, but to make it a precedent is worse. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:59, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per others (though I don't mind Adele). In any case she is usually referred to as Queen Victoria. Johnbod (talk) 18:01, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above editors. Also, the current title goes against WP:NCROY too much as it is, there's no reason to make it worse. Egsan Bacon (talk) 21:39, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The current situation is more clear. It is logical that the article about 'Queen Victoria' has this title to be specific and easy to understand. Peco Wikau (talk) 21:46, 17 December 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment I've never understood why Queen Victoria and Edward VII lost "of the United Kingdom" after their names. It's only after 1931 (Statute of Westminster) or arguably after 1926 (Balfour Declaration) that the British monarchs were deemed to sovereigns of other sovereign states separate from the UK. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 02:43, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Imeldific (talk • contribs) 20:20, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article Name[edit]

Maybe I'm stumbling into a contentious subject, but none of the other articles on British monarchs use the 'King/Queen [Name]' form for their title. Her predecessors' articles use the form '[Name] of the United Kingdom', and her successors simply use 'Edward VII', etc., so should the title of this article be changed to conform with one or the other? Indeed, should all the articles on British monarchs use the same style for their titles, rather than the three we currently have? Is there some reason for the difference I'm unaware of? A.D.Hope (talk) 23:57, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's no standard other than how they are commonly identified. Queen Anne is "Anne, Queen of Great Britain," George III is "George III of the United Kingdom," and Edward VII is just "Edward VII," even though all were monarchs of the United Kingdom. The article title is "Queen Victoria" because that's what people call her. "Victoria" would not be specific enough. "Victoria of the United Kingdom" would be unnecessary and awkward. Flyte35 (talk) 00:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Surely 'Anne, Queen of Great Britain', and 'George III of the United Kingdom' are just as cumbersome as 'Victoria of the United Kingdom' would be? They're commonly known as Queen Anne and George III, after all. The articles on English monarchs follow a consistent '[Name] of England' from William II onwards, despite most of them being commonly known by their name and regnal number, so I don't see why the British monarch articles should be any different. A.D.Hope (talk) 01:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The previous move discussions are linked through the box at the top of this page. DrKay (talk) 07:21, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I didn't notice them. Having considered the previous discussions the topic is not one I wish to reopen, as it is clearly an emotional one for some users and would probably be just as inconclusive as previous efforts. A.D.Hope (talk) 12:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 14 June 2018[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: clear consensus not to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. There appears to be some support for Victoria of the United Kingdom, which was the location of this page before a move in 2010; if necessary, a move request to that title can be opened separately. Dekimasuよ! 01:11, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Victoria → Victoria (queen) – Wp:Ncroy say that Article titles are not normally prefixed with "King", "Queen", "Emperor" or equivalent. Queen Victoria should not be an exception to this rule. 192.107.120.90 (talk) 14:34, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • ZZZZzzzzzz! Oppose per other times this has been discussed. See the box at the top of the page. Johnbod (talk) 14:41, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. See Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Naming the specific topic articles: 'Natural disambiguation that is unambiguous, commonly used, and clear is generally preferable to parenthetical disambiguation'. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:52, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - It should be moved to Victoria of the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 15:05, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I think the current title is the WP:COMMONNAME as it is how she is usually referred to. It is also a good use of WP:NATURALDISAMBIGUATION (which is preferable to a parenthetical disambiguation) since she has no numeral after her name. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:27, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It should be moved to Victoria of the United Kingdom. Dimadick (talk) 16:31, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Wp:Ncroy (sic) also states: "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:48, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, Queen Victoria just fine as is. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:42, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "Not normally prefixed" means there can be exceptions. She is the only monarch in the world to have been named Victoria, so no disambiguation – such as Victoria of the United Kingdom – is necessary. Regarding the prefix, in British English, monarchs are prefixed king or queen if they were the only monarch in history with that name. When there has been more than one, the prefix is dropped and the ordinal number is used. Firebrace (talk) 22:58, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have no idea where you get that from. The titles are neither obligatorily prefixed nor dropped in British English. The present monarch is much more frequently called Queen Elizabeth II than just Elizabeth II, and there is nothing wrong with that in regards to language. Similarly, Queen Victoria can be called just Victoria. Britannica does it. Also, she might not be the only monarch named Victoria for long, depending on the health of Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden. She is already not the only queen to have been named Victoria; there have been three more. Surtsicna (talk) 23:46, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 9 July 2021[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 08:53, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Queen Victoria → Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom – Why should this wikipage be titled "Queen Victoria" when, as seen in List of British monarchs, none of the other monarchs of the United Kingdom are directly addressed by their title such as Elizabeth II and George III? As far as I can tell, this naming convention extends across all the other nobility wikipages beyond the British monarchy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_titles#Neutrality_in_article_titles

Perhaps one might suggest it is because there are no other "Victorias" so it wouldn't quite be Victoria I, and it would be weird to use their house names like "Hanover" or "Saxe-Coburg Gotha", but then shouldn't the name of the article then correspond with something like Anne, Queen of Great Britain or to use another example, Albert, Duke of Prussia? Hence "Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom" or something along this vein.

I don't mean to be overly semantic here, but I feel that Wikipedia should be, above all, descriptive as opposed to prescriptive. Moving the article to "Victoria, Queen of Great Britain" seems to be more descriptive of who she was (literally describing her employment as a historical Queen of Great Britain), where Queen Victoria seems somewhat prescriptive, suggesting that that is how she should be addressed, which (and I understand if you'd think I was reading into it a bit much) comes with a sort of monarchist inclination to it. DieSonneUnsLacht (talk) 08:07, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Lennart97 (talk) 08:10, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@DieSonneUnsLacht: This is obviously not an uncontroversial technical request, and I suspect you didn't mean it to be in the first place. I've converted it into a formal RM. Lennart97 (talk) 08:12, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Lennart97: Ah, yes, thank you :) DieSonneUnsLacht (talk) 08:16, 9 July 2021 (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.

Remove the title 'Queen'[edit]

Most Wikipedia articles have been following a policy of not using titles before and after names of rulers and monarchs. For example, the name of the article Elizabeth II, does not have Queen before it. Name of the article Charles III doesn't have King before it. Name of the article Akbar doesn't have 'Badshah' before it, or 'The Great' after it, even if he is popularly called 'Akbar The Great'. Requests to add the titles 'Chhatrapati' and 'Maharaj' before and after the name of the article Shivaji have been repeatedly denied, even if no one refers to him by his name alone, and is most commonly referred as 'Shivaji Maharaj'.

Therefore, I sincerely request the administrators to remove the title 'Queen' from the name of the article as it violates an important Wikipedia policy.

Regards, Meet MMJ TheIndianWikiFreak (talk) 16:18, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See the endless discussions at Talk:Queen Victoria/Article title. Apart from anything else Victoria is ambiguous, and not the WP:COMMONNAME. Johnbod (talk) 16:42, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Title[edit]

I know that this has been argued about many times before, but it still warrants discussion. There is a mountain of evidence suggesting this article should not be called "Queen Victoria".

First of all, WP:NCRAN says, "article titles are not normally prefixed with "King", "Queen", "Emperor" or equivalent." Yes, it does say that if there is a WP:COMMONNAME to use it, but how good is Wikipedia at upholding the latter principle? Well:

Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh: Common name = Prince Philip

Charles, Prince of Wales: Common name = Prince Charles

Diana, Princess of Wales: Common name = Princess Diana

William, Prince of Wales: Common name = Prince William

Anne, Princess Royal: Common name = Princess Anne

Prince Andrew, Duke of York: Common name = Prince Andrew

Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex: Common name = Prince Harry

Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex and Forfar: Common name = Prince Edward

Camilla, Queen Consort: Common name = Queen Camilla

Anne, Queen of Great Britain: Common name = Queen Anne

John, King of England: Common name = King John

Stephen, King of England: Common name = King Stephen

Albert, Prince Consort: Common name = Prince Albert

This clearly shows that Wikipedia prefers longer but more accurate names than common ones. That means that this article should be called Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom. This is especially true and is the precedent in Anne, John and Stephen's articles. This is the format used for British monarchs which are the only ones with their name. This should be true for Victoria too. I understand that any RFC on a move would not have a snowball's chance in hell of success, but that is why I am discussing it here first: to put my point forward in the strongest way I possibly can.

Thank you for reading,

Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:57, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The examples you listed have the deficiency of being ambiguous and not being the clear primary meaning; or of being factually inaccurate. So far the present title of this article, inconsistency notwithstanding, is the clear primary meaning and perfectly accurate. So far. The king of Sweden will not live forever; Victoria will face, just as Albert does, a modern, living namesake with the same title. At that point the issue of the title of this article will have to be revisited, and I would suggest waiting until then. As you said, no other argument has a chance to succeed anyway. Surtsicna (talk) 18:23, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed! Ok, we've revisited the question. That was fun. Now off to do something useful. Johnbod (talk) 18:28, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tim O'Doherty While this has been discussed and decided before, but there's no issue that can't be revisited. But please see this very extensive collection of past discussions of this very topic: Talk:Queen Victoria/Article title
My own personal opinion is that titles exist to help the average, casual, cruise-by reader, for example someone who comes across the film or television series and wants to learn more about the Queen. That reader would not think to look up [[Victoria of the United Kingdom]] or a similar title, nor want to be diverted to a disambiguation page (since this article is the Primary Topic that the vast majority of non-specialist readers would seek) — however, there is a headnote to guide those seeking other articles that might be called "Queen Victoria". And (until as [[User:Surtscina]] and others have suggested) there are other people commonly called “Queen Victoria”, I think that the current title is the best. —— Shakescene (talk) 18:56, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per John, King of England & Anne, Queen of Great Britain etc, this page's title should be moved to Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom, fwiw. GoodDay (talk) 18:47, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Shakescene I get your point and understand what you mean, but realistically, nobody is searching Anne, Queen of Great Britain, or John, King of England either. It is inconsistent. I admit, Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom would be odd at first, but we would get used to it. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:15, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Surtsicna If all of my examples are ambiguous and are not the primary topic, then why does Prince Harry redirect to Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, Prince Andrew redirect to Prince Andrew, Duke of York, Princess Anne redirect to Anne, Princess Royal, Prince Philip redirect to Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, Princess Diana redirect to Diana, Princess of Wales, Prince Charles redirect to Charles III, Queen Camilla redirect to Camilla, Queen Consort and Prince William redirect to William, Prince of Wales? The rest, such as Prince Edward, could be turned into things like Prince Edward (disambiguation). The fact is that "Queen Victoria" just does not work as an article name. Regards, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:25, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a fact. Readers want to know about Queen Victoria → they type in Queen Victoria → they find an article about Queen Victoria titled "Queen Victoria". There is nothing about it that does not work. If you hope to see the title changed, you have two options: a) wait for Carl Gustaf to kick the bucket, b) come up with an argument better than "just does not work". Until then, I would urge everyone to heed Johnbod's advice. Surtsicna (talk) 19:50, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But you raise a good point with the future "Queen Victoria" of Sweden. Unless she chooses another regnal name, this article's name will have to, as you have said, be revisited. We might as well move it now, not wait for an Elizabeth II/Charles III scramble riddled with messy moves and redirects. An RFC will, of course, have to be set up though. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:57, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I have come up with an effective argument. I had three points:
  • Wikipedia policy on article titles of nobility and royalty.
  • The inconsistencies with other monarch's names (Anne, Stephen, John).
  • The inconsistencies with other royalty's names (Charles, Andrew, Edward).
And now you have presented a fourth: The death of Carl XVI Gustaf. My argument is not simply "It doesn't work". Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:03, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Though likely not in our lifetime, the UK 'may' someday have a Victoria II, as well. GoodDay (talk) 20:23, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
True, however even by my standards that's a long way off into the future. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:59, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 29 November 2022[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Clear consensus against moving the page. This can be reconsidered when Victoria, Crown Princess of Sweden ascends to the Swedish throne. Thanks to all participants. (closed by non-admin page mover) echidnaLives - talk - edits 09:01, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Victoria → Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom – I've made my position on this quite clear before and I would recommend reading this before voting to understand what I am getting at, but here is a concise version:

  • The policy of WP:NCROY (Article titles are not normally prefixed with "King", "Queen", "Emperor" or equivalent... When there is no ordinal, the formats John of Bohemia and Joanna of Castile or Stephen, King of England and Anne, Queen of Great Britain are used.) nearly always overpowers WP:COMMONNAME on matters of royalty and nobility. There is a whole list of such examples I have put forward, but for consistency's sake I will focus on British/English monarchs which are the first and only of their name (like Victoria). These are:
Stephen, King of England, not King Stephen
John, King of England, not King John
Anne, Queen of Great Britain, not Queen Anne

Additionally, other monarchs of the UK/Great Britain/England's articles are not prefixed with "King" or "Queen"

Richard I of England, not King Richard I of England
George II of Great Britain, not King George II of Great Britain
Elizabeth II, not Queen Elizabeth II

It makes no sense for Victoria to be different from these.

Thank you for reading,

Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NATURALNESS, WP:CONCISE, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and WP:NATURALDISAMBIGUATION, as well as all of my comments in the previous RMs about this. "Queen Victoria" is the common name. And since she does not have an ordinal because she is the only British monarch named Victoria, disambiguation is needed in the title. And as "Queen Victoria" is a more natural and concise title than the one proposed, it is a much better form of natural disambiguation to use "Queen Victoria" than the proposed title. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What do you say about Stephen, King of England, John, King of England and, Anne, Queen of Great Britain's page titles? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:54, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would definitely move Anne, Queen of Great Britain to Queen Anne, as I think that is the primary topic for "Queen Anne". I'm not sure about the others. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:57, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with that, per WP:NCROY, "Article titles are not normally prefixed with "King", "Queen", "Emperor" or equivalent." But I do accept that this is a slight tangent. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:00, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Notice that it says "not normally", it doesn't say "never". Clearly, there can be exceptions, and this particular case is one of those exceptions. Another exception to this general rule that comes to mind is Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:15, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't change the fact that Stephen, John, and Anne all use the "(X), Monarch of (Y)" format. Victoria should not be an exception when these aren't either. If these were all exceptions, then the word "exception" would be quickly watered down. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if it would make you feel better, we can move those to "King Stephen", "King John", and "Queen Anne". Rreagan007 (talk) 23:03, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You know that's not what I'm trying to say. Please don't strawman my argument. I have said that that would render the "exception" clause meaningless. I can see that you're not going to change your mind, and so I'll leave it there. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:11, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't really a strawman argument, as I have stated above that I would support moving Queen Anne's article, and maybe the others too depending on if those are the primary topics. But if we were to move this article as you proposed, this would be the only modern British monarch to use that format. All the others modern British monarchs are titled at their common name, not the unnatural titling format that you are proposing. See: Charles III, Elizabeth II, George VI, Edward VIII, George V, Edward VII, William IV, etc. If there is ever another British monarch with the name "Victoria" then we can move this article to "Victoria I", but until that happens "Queen Victoria" is what the title of this article should be. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:14, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But the name "Queen Victoria" doesn't match that naming format for the "modern" British monarchs either. If it did, it would be something like "Victoria" or "Victoria I", with the latter improper because there is no Victoria II. "Victoria" isn't a primary target, and "Queen Victoria" violates all sorts of naming conventions and precedents, and so "Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom" it should be. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 07:16, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It can't be "Victoria I" (yet) because she is the only one, and it can't be "Victoria" because that is too ambiguous so disambiguation is needed, hence why it need to be "Queen Victoria" as a natural disambiguation, which also happens to be the common name, as well as the most natural and concise title. Our article titling policies are firmly behind the current title. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:17, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And I have said that exact thing about Victoria I and Victoria: "[Victoria I is] improper because there is no Victoria II. "Victoria" isn't a primary target, and "Queen Victoria" violates all sorts of naming conventions and precedents, and so "Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom" it should be." As for being the most concise, it's more preferable for a title to be precise, (I'd rather have an accurate title than a short title, maybe that's just me). Likewise, naturalness should not take priority over an accurate title. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:25, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing inaccurate or imprecise about the current title. And as I point out above, most of our article titling policies support the current title over your proposed title. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:25, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying it's inaccurate or imprecise, I'm saying it could be more so; and consistent to boot. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:30, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All modern British monarchs use their common name as the title, not the formatting you propose, so this proposed move would be less consistent. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:01, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No British monarchs use the "King/Queen (X)" format. Stephen, Anne, and John use my proposed format. Saying it's less consistent is just not true. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:05, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I said it would be less consistent with the other modern British monarchs. This move certainly wouldn't make this article's title more consistent with the other modern British monarchs, would it? And I would be fine with moving Stephen, Anne, and John to make them consistent with this article's title. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:56, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that moving 3 articles to align with 1 badly named article is far worse than moving 1 badly named article to align with 3 well named ones. Besides, King John, King Stephen and Queen Anne are not the primary targets for the respective British monarchs, and there are articles already called King John, King Stephen and Queen Anne. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:03, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well thank you for pointing out the reason why those 3 article titles are not consistent with this one. "Queen Victoria" is clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC here, unlike those other articles. And our opinions clearly differ on which title is better. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:14, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you want an explanation, I'll happily give you one. I will use Anne as an example. It's not Queen Anne because that's not the primary topic, and not Anne I because she's the only British queen called Anne. She was a queen of Great Britian, so logically it follows that it should be called Anne, Queen of Great Britain.
It's the same with Victoria, barring the primary topic argument. So that's why I think this article should be called Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:22, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:PRIMARYTOPIC issue is the whole point. If Anne was the primary topic for "Queen Anne", then her article would be titled as such. Since Victoria is the primary topic for "Queen Victoria", that's where her article should stay. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:22, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't doubt that she is the primary topic for "Queen Victoria", I know that she is (for now at least). I'm merely saying that I think it should just be moved for consistency with other monarchs, that's all.
Best regards, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:27, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. We'll see what everyone else thinks. Cheers. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:52, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose [due to an earlier edit conflict, this is out of sequence — making some of this redundant or non-responsive], as in Rreagan's remarks above at 21:48, 29 November 2022, and also for this overlapping reason: The purpose of an article's title is to make things easier to retrieve and to manage for the average common non-expert non-specialist reader, who is highly unlikely to search on the Internet or on Wikipedia for any name such as "Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom"; that user will look either for "Victoria" (leading to a disambiguation page [not a railway station, provincial capital or Australian state]) or "Queen Victoria", which should lead directly here without redirects or disambiguations. It's of course fine, even very welcome, to do this in reverse by having the more formal or correct titles redirect to Queen Victoria; but not the other way around (especially with so many possible alternative titles such as "Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom and Empress of India" or "Victoria, Queen of Canada"). —— Shakescene (talk) 02:44, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Shakescene I don't see why redirecting to an article is an issue. Also, I don't see an issue with alternative titles; this article could be called "Empress Victoria" or Elizabeth II's article could be titled Elizabeth I of Scotland. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:38, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per opposers. Johnbod (talk) 04:34, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per User:Rreagan007. Let's wait until there is another Queen Victoria in Sweden before we have this discussion. StellarHalo (talk) 08:25, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. While consensus can change, there is no evidence that the consensus herein will be different than it was the last eight times this was brought up. Recommend closing per WP:SNOW.--~TPW 18:34, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on a tick. Wait until the RfC has run its course. We're not even 24 hours in. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:37, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • We are not amused. Considering arguments pro and con, I think it's fine to rename the article if "Queen Victoria" redirects to it. Once we have a competing Queen Victoria, en.wikipedia.org should still redirect, with a note ≈ "For the Queen of Sweden, see..."; se.wikipedia.org should redirect to the Queen of Sweden, with a note linking to the UK monarch; other **.wikipedia.org can do what they think is most useful. IOW, don't sacrifice utility to users of Wikipedia to satisfy the arcane standards of Wikipedians. Laguna CA (talk) 00:39, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds fine. "Queen Victoria" would have redirected to the article if it were to be moved anyway. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 07:17, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support Support the proposal and motivation in principle. I think the current title is awful and contrary to policy. But after long experience with Wikipedia, I expect it would likely cause petty nationalist quarrels and edit-warring. Not worth the headache, IMO. Victoria has a very high popular recognition, so willing to tolerate the exception that I would not allow others. But if it had a ice cube's chance in hell of passing, I'd support the proposal. Walrasiad (talk) 08:16, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Rreagan007 and the rest. Queen Victoria should remain primary even if other Queen Victoria's appear, unless they become the first person to go to Mars, at which point another RM would be appropriate. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:05, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Because the proposed title is not WP:PRECISE enough. If you want to call the article by Queen Victoria's title then it should be "Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and Empress of India", not to mention all the colonies of the British Empire that she had dominion over during her reign, or the indigenous peoples who accepted her sovereignty as a result of treaties, or occupation of their lands. Also, your analysis of British monarchs omits considering the article about Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother, which demonstrates there is a precedent for having an article about a Queen starting with the title Queen. So there can be exceptions to convention. Given the historical significance of her reign, and the number of countries that acknowledge her as a former head of state, the proposed title is both imprecise and unfamiliar. Queen Victoria is a monarch who's historical significance to world history is much larger than her royal title would suggest. I think WP:SNOWBALL applies. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 02:05, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you are concerned about the proposed title excluding the fact that she was Empress of India, surely you should be concerned by the fact that this article is not called Empress Victoria. Also, your claim that it should instead be called Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and Empress of India is somewhat misleading, as the article for United Kingdom is not called The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. And finally, as you can see in this discussion I was in favour of moving the late Queen mother's article to be more concise, recognisable, and in line with other monarchs. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 10:12, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (for now) - Until Crown Princess Victoria becomes Queen of Sweden changing the title of this article would be WP:Crystal. If Victoria succeeds her father as expected, this might be a more appropriate move. Prioritizing the incumbency of monarchs over historical notability has a precedent in the debate over whether Charles III's page should simply be Charles III or Charles III of the United Kingdom.Estar8806 (talk) 21:22, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As that's her common name. The issue can be revisited in the future, once Victoria, Crown Princess of Sweden actually ascends to the throne of Sweden. Keivan.fTalk 06:36, 5 December 2022 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Queen_Victoria/Article_title&oldid=1148109621"